Sikh Man Stabbed to Death in California, hate crime suspected

[enhanced_deficit]

Jan 5 2016, 3:57 pm ET


Sikh Man Stabbed to Death in Robbery of Central California Convenience Store

by Charles Lam


A Sikh man was stabbed to death while working at a liquor store last Friday in Fresno, Calif., in an attack the Fresno Police Department (FPD) is investigating as a possible hate crime.


This is the second attack on a Sikh man in the city of Fresno in two weeks. On the morning of Dec. 26, 2015, 68-year-old Amrik Singh Bal was attacked (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/sikh-americans-respond-fresno-attack-online-whywearehere-n487686) while waiting on a public street for a ride to work. Two men allegedly hurled insults at Bal before getting out of their car and attacking him, reportedly hitting with the car in the process.
In response to early reports that the men shouted "Why are you here?" during the beating, Sikh Americans and their allies took to social media to share their stories with the hashtag #WhyWeAreHere (https://twitter.com/hashtag/WhyWeAreHere?src=hash).

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/sikh-man-stabbed-death-robbery-central-california-convenience-store-n490786




Related

Thief calls Sihk store owner 'terrorist', shoots owner in the face (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?486846-Thief-calls-Sihk-store-owner-terrorist-shoots-owner-in-the-face&)

Seventh-grade Sikh student in Texas handcuffed, arrested (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?487025-Seventh-grade-Sikh-student-in-Texas-handcuffed-arrested&)

Obama cancelled trip to Sikh temple for fear of looking moslem in photos (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?410133-Obama-cancelled-trip-to-Sikh-temple-for-fear-of-looking-moslem-in-photos&)
He apparently sent his photo in suit and someone else on his behalf to a sikh temple in Wisconsin to deliver his inspiring message against bigotry :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKho-qpEz9c


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/poll_posticon.gif Poll: Should Obama go to a mosque? (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?486855-Should-Obama-go-to-a-mosque&)

[Yieu]

This is what happens when enough people freely make bigoted comments towards Muslims. Uninformed people end up killing people. And the people that get killed are of an entirely different faith.

This is why we should fight against those who make bigoted comments towards people of other faiths, towards other faiths, or towards other races or cultures.

We would likely learn and gain from mixing cultures with those of others.

[rpfocus]

This is what happens when enough people freely make bigoted comments towards Muslims. Uninformed people end up killing people. And the people that get killed are of an entirely different faith.

This is why we should fight against those who make bigoted comments towards people of other faiths, towards other faiths, or towards other races or cultures.

We would likely learn and gain from mixing cultures with those of others.

LOL nice message, but I have a feeling it's not going to go very far on this board.

[ZENemy]

This is what happens when enough people freely make bigoted comments towards Muslims. Uninformed people end up killing people. And the people that get killed are of an entirely different faith.

This is why we should fight against those who make bigoted comments towards people of other faiths, towards other faiths, or towards other races or cultures.

We would likely learn and gain from mixing cultures with those of others.



lol what? This happened because words are allowed?

[Yieu]

LOL nice message, but I have a feeling it's not going to go very far on this board.

I understand that there are people here who would very much not like to read that comment. Perhaps they might benefit from reading it.

[Yieu]

lol what? This happened because words are allowed?

No. Speech should always be allowed. But we should be more intelligent than to goad people into such actions by saying bigoted things.

[ZENemy]

No. Speech should always be allowed. But we should be more intelligent than to goad people into such actions by saying bigoted things.

No one may offend you without your consent.

[dannno]

This is why we should fight against those who make bigoted comments towards people of other faiths, towards other faiths, or towards other races or cultures.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXF8MIG_HQI


You should watch the new season of South Park. PC Bros actually beat people up and use coercion to make sure that people are PC so they can impress girls to have sex with them.

I'm in total agreement that people who talk about people of other races or religions in an irresponsible way can end up pushing other people into committing crimes like this, but I tend to be very anti-PC because what happens when you push back against free speech seems to be at least equally as perverse. We should be able to talk honestly about these subjects and PC is creating an environment where people can't speak honestly without crossing social barriers.

For example, we should be able to talk about whether Islam as a religion can be compatible with a peaceful society - clearly some Muslim societies are very peaceful, and as a member of the most violent nation on earth, which is largely Christian, it seemed odd for me to question this before as I always was one of those "by their fruits ya shall know them" kinda person. Since there are peaceful Muslims and Muslim countries which tend to give people more rights than others, it shouldn't be something we violently oppose... but we should be able to talk about it..

Christianity can be dangerous, and there are certainly a lot of interpretations out there - but the most valid interpretations that I've seen explain that the New Testament was a story of Jesus coming to supersede the Old Testament laws with repentance, forgiveness, peace and liberty. On the other hand, apparently the Koran has two parts, the second part supersedes the first part, and like the Old and New Testaments they are almost polar opposites - the first part is peaceful and the second part is basically a war manual.

Should Islam as a religion be respected? I'm not going to go to war against Islam, or attack somebody randomly in the street, but it's a valid discussion to have and PC tends to often suppress the truth.

So there's a balance.. but I don't know if dedicating ones self to promoting the idea that we should respect inherently violent religions is the path to peace.

[Yieu]

No one may offend you without your consent.

The heck? What I said had nothing to do with that response.

I don't think anyone is offended about this, it isn't about being offended. This is about people making comments that encourage others to kill.

[Yieu]

You should watch the new season of South Park. PC Bros actually beat people up and use coercion to make sure that people are PC so they can impress girls to have sex with them.

Should Islam as a religion be respected? I'm not going to go to war against Islam, or attack somebody randomly in the street, but it's a valid discussion to have and PC tends to often suppress the truth.

So there's a balance.. but I don't know if dedicating ones self to promoting the idea that we should respect inherently violent religions is the path to peace.

I was not advocating being politically correct. Not at all. So please do not construe it as such.

I am advocating being a decent human being that has intelligence. We'll win more hearts and minds that way. It is a sound strategy.

Certainly, there is plenty of room to discuss other faiths in an open and honest way, but it is not productive to do so with only blind hatred. I agree that killing apostates is downright evil, for example.

It is kind of annoying that by advocating being non-aggressive, due to following the non-aggression principle, someone has tried to connect it to political correctness. It is not anti-PC to be blatantly racist or bigoted towards others, as some here seem to think. It's not PC to actively fight bigotry, either -- that's just intelligent.

If you follow the NAP, then it makes sense to fight against such things. This is in-line with our philosophy.

[enhanced_deficit]

This is what happens when enough people freely make bigoted comments towards Muslims. Uninformed people end up killing people. And the people that get killed are of an entirely different faith.


EM.

Amandeep S. Sidhu ‏@amansidhu_dc 29 Dec 2015
“It’s not just a case of mistaken identity. It’s beyond that.” Yes, indeed, it is
#WhyWeAreHere (https://twitter.com/hashtag/WhyWeAreHere?src=hash) #EndHate (https://twitter.com/hashtag/EndHate?src=hash) http://wapo.st/1kolJ2D (https://t.co/H9TSgtQuVW)
24 retweets 10 likes





Even the current US commander-in-chief is too scared to look like a sikh and this was way before recent escalation in rhetoric by some GOP candidates.

Obama cancelled trip to Sikh temple for fear of looking moslem in photos (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?410133-Obama-cancelled-trip-to-Sikh-temple-for-fear-of-looking-moslem-in-photos&)

[Yieu]

EM.

Amandeep S. Sidhu ‏@amansidhu_dc 29 Dec 2015
“It’s not just a case of mistaken identity. It’s beyond that.” Yes, indeed, it is
#WhyWeAreHere (https://twitter.com/hashtag/WhyWeAreHere?src=hash) #EndHate (https://twitter.com/hashtag/EndHate?src=hash) http://wapo.st/1kolJ2D (https://t.co/H9TSgtQuVW)

Yeah, it's more than just mistaken identity. There is bigotry and hatred spurring it on as the driving force.

[KingNothing]

No one may offend you without your consent.

If you heard someone calling a woman a bitch, or a kid loser, or a man pussy, etc wouldn't you tell them to cut it out?

There's no dissonance between defending someone's right to say things, and encouraging them to be kind to others. Offense plays no part in this, but being a decent person should always be front and center.

[Yieu]

I received a negative rep.


Anti-free speech and progressive claptrap

I said nothing anti-free speech. I am for free speech. I do not think the government should curtail speech. I think it is wise not to say things that provoke others to kill, though.

I am not progressive. I just think bigotry is a sign of a lack of wisdom and tact, and that learning about other cultures helps us grow as individuals and gain wisdom.

[thoughtomator]

I was not advocating being politically correct. Not at all. So please do not construe it as such.

I am advocating being a decent human being that has intelligence.

If you have a shred of intelligence and aren't staggeringly ignorant, you should be screaming from the rooftops the danger of Islam and of letting Muslims live among us.

It's dumbasses who think that Islam is just another religion, rather than a virulent death/rape/slavery cult, that brought in the thousand men to Cologne who premeditatively turned a normal New Year's Eve into a sexual assault nightmare for German women who were peacefully going about their business.

It's the pretense that there is no distinction between Islam and other foreign religions that causes the confusion of Sikhs and Muslims. If not for the politically correct bullshit, Sikhs could freely educate everyone as to just why they carry those daggers of theirs. They carry their daggers to defend themselves from Muslims. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan#History) Because they are not brainwashed idiots who think Islam is not deadly to everything it touches.

Sikhs are people who could teach you a lot about what Islam really is, if your mind weren't slammed shut like a garbage truck, full of garbage. If you want to blame someone other than the actual perpetrator for this attack on an innocent man, go into the bathroom and take a long hard look in that mirror.

[thoughtomator]

I received a negative rep.



I said nothing anti-free speech. I am for free speech. I do not think the government should curtail speech. I think it is wise not to say things that provoke others to kill, though.

I am not progressive. I just think bigotry is a sign of a lack of wisdom and tact, and that learning about other cultures helps us grow as individuals and gain wisdom.

Your words were absolutely anti-free speech, as I and several others readily perceived. If you can't understand that, read those words again and again until you do. They are objectively anti-free speech. Your neg rep was 100% earned. Hell, if I was the admin here I'd be mulling banning you for such a virulently anti-liberty post.


This is what happens when enough people freely make bigoted comments towards Muslims. Uninformed people end up killing people.

There is NO WAY IN HELL to construe this as anything other than an attempt to prohibit others from expressing their (more correct than yours) opinion. You freaking blamed them as accessories to murder for merely speaking the truth! That is a full-on totalitarian mentality that you expressed there. You have zero wiggle room.

And now you repeat it again.


I think it is wise not to say things that provoke others to kill, though.

That is twice in this one thread you have falsely accused others of being accessories to murder.

[Yieu]

If you have a shred of intelligence and aren't staggeringly ignorant, you should be screaming from the rooftops the danger of Islam and of letting Muslims live among us.

It's dumbasses who think that Islam is just another religion, rather than a virulent death/rape/slavery cult, that brought in the thousand men to Cologne who premeditatively turned a normal New Year's Eve into a sexual assault nightmare for German women who were peacefully going about their business.

It's the pretense that there is no distinction between Islam and other foreign religions that causes the confusion of Sikhs and Muslims. If not for the politically correct bullshit, Sikhs could freely educate everyone as to just why they carry those daggers of theirs. They carry their daggers to defend themselves from Muslims. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan#History) Because they are not brainwashed idiots who think Islam is not deadly to everything it touches.

Sikhs are people who could teach you a lot about what Islam really is, if your mind weren't slammed shut like a garbage truck, full of garbage. If you want to blame someone other than the actual perpetrator for this attack on an innocent man, go into the bathroom and take a long hard look in that mirror.

Lol.

There was no logical reason for linking this killing to me. This seems like a troll post.

[enhanced_deficit]

thoughtomator, curious what is your take on over 60% of Trump suporters seeing Obama as a muslim? Do you see Obama as a muslim?

70% of US public had supported invasion of Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Seems that collectivist/racial/dogmatic mindset is bit more widespread than limited to few unsophistigated hooligans like the attacker in the OP news.


And Free Speech should reign.

[Yieu]

Your words were absolutely anti-free speech, as I and several others readily perceived. If you can't understand that, read those words again and again until you do. They are objectively anti-free speech. Your neg rep was 100% earned. Hell, if I was the admin here I'd be mulling banning you for such a virulently anti-liberty post.

There is NO WAY IN HELL to construe this as anything other than an attempt to prohibit others from expressing their (more correct than yours) opinion. You freaking blamed them as accessories to murder for merely speaking the truth! That is a full-on totalitarian mentality that you expressed there. You have zero wiggle room.

And now you repeat it again.

That is twice in this one thread you have falsely accused others of being accessories to murder.

I hope you understand that being for free speech means being for the government not taking action based on someone's speech. I am only saying that it would be very wise of us to exercise our ability to not go out of our way to incite things like this, not that we should be forced by law to not say hateful things.

You are sure using a lot of hyperbole to try to describe me in an incorrect way.


Hell, if I was the admin here I'd be mulling banning you for such a virulently anti-liberty post.

That would be an anti-liberty thing to do.

[Brian4Liberty]

"Hate crime"? It's certainly not a love crime.

Newsflash: convenience store work is dangerous.

There is no evidence that this is a trend or even a hate crime. This is left wing politics and hysteria mongering.

[presence]

truly unfortunate that the Sihks are caught up in this; there is definitely an ignorant "if they got a towel on their head they need to gtfo" mentality amongst the boobus masses.

[jonhowe]

No one may offend you without your consent.

Are you just trying to be an ass? He said people MAY offend, but they SHOULDN'T. He specifically speech should always be allowed, so your use of "may" is purposefully obtuse.

[thoughtomator]

thoughtomator, curious what is your take on over 60% of Trump suporters seeing Obama as a muslim? Do you see Obama as a muslim?

If I had to bet on it I'd say he very likely is a Muslim. But that's the least of my concerns about Obama.

[thoughtomator]

I hope you understand that being for free speech means being for the government not taking action based on someone's speech. I am only saying that it would be very wise of us to exercise our ability to not go out of our way to incite things like this, not that we should be forced by law to not say hateful things.

You are sure using a lot of hyperbole to try to describe me in an incorrect way.

Saying that the expression of an opinion leads directly to a capital crime is the exact justification that progs (and others) use when they call on the government to clamp down on free speech. Nothing in your statement distinguishes itself from that - it could have been taken verbatim right off a "hate speech" diatribe by any lefty.




That would be an anti-liberty thing to do.

A website is private property, not the public square, so its owners have the full liberty to do whatever they want with it. No surprise that you have an incorrect understanding of what liberty is.

[brushfire]

Fucking inbred morons... Sikh are not muslim! The Sikh stopped the muslim conquest of India - stupid fucking idiots. For fuck sakes already!

For those who cannot fathom what took place in nazi germany and dont know/understand history, just take a look around... We've got everything short of the economic disaster, but even that is imminent . Muslims are going to take the place of Jews - I see it every day.

[thoughtomator]

Lol.

There was no logical reason for linking this killing to me. This seems like a troll post.

It's more logical than you linking the killing to others who correctly point out the virulent and deadly nature of Islam.

The victim knew, as all Sikhs do. The victim would almost certainly have supported the opinions that you assert led to his death and is likely to have voiced the same opinion.

The Sikhs know exactly what Islam is about - they carry the daggers explicitly for the purpose of defending themselves from Muslims.

[Ender]

It's more logical than you linking the killing to others who correctly point out the virulent and deadly nature of Islam.

The victim knew, as all Sikhs do. The victim would almost certainly have supported the opinions that you assert led to his death and is likely to have voiced the same opinion.

The Sikhs know exactly what Islam is about - they carry the daggers explicitly for the purpose of defending themselves from Muslims.

NOT TRUE.

Weapons, especially the sword have a deep spiritual meaning within Sikhism. The kirpan is one of the articles of faith that every baptized Sikh Khalsa is required to carry at all times. While the spiritual significance of each specific weapon appearing on a Nishan Sahib is open to subjective personal interpretation, a clearly defined spiritual association between weapons and the Supreme Being was established early on in the development of the religion by the Sikh Gurus.

In the first lines of the Sikh daily prayer Ardas, Guru Gobind Singh asks Sikhs to remember the Supreme Being and all the Gurus. In referring to God, the Guru chose to use the unique metaphor of the sword (Bhagauti).

[idiom]

This is what happens when enough people freely make bigoted comments towards Muslims. Uninformed people end up killing people. And the people that get killed are of an entirely different faith.

This is why we should fight against those who make bigoted comments towards people of other faiths, towards other faiths, or towards other races or cultures.

We would likely learn and gain from mixing cultures with those of others.

Bigoted comments aren't the problem, willful and gleeful ignorance are

[JK/SEA]

to deny words don't provoke is a sign of living in a bubble.

[Ender]

Fucking inbred morons... Sikh are not muslim! The Sikh stopped the muslim conquest of India - stupid fucking idiots. For fuck sakes already!

For those who cannot fathom what took place in nazi germany and dont know/understand history, just take a look around... We've got everything short of the economic disaster, but even that is imminent . Muslims are going to take the place of Jews - I see it every day.

They already have.

The incredible BS & lies are going to continue as the West makes Muslims responsible for everything from WWIII to gay marriage & climate change. :rolleyes:

[Yieu]

Saying that the expression of an opinion leads directly to a capital crime is the exact justification that progs (and others) use when they call on the government to clamp down on free speech. Nothing in your statement distinguishes itself from that - it could have been taken verbatim right off a "hate speech" diatribe by any lefty.

I disagree with your interpretation of events. I am against progressive and left politics. And words can provoke.


A website is private property, not the public square, so its owners have the full liberty to do whatever they want with it. No surprise that you have an incorrect understanding of what liberty is.

I agree, which is why I almost didn't say "That would be an anti-liberty thing to do.", but I was trying to use that as a bit of an analogy to show how you were interpreting what I said as being anti-free speech, when I explained that I am pro-free speech when it comes to the government, while you also wanted to use force to evict me from the property.

All I was suggesting was using our brain a little before spreading hateful speech. If we can remember what happened in WWII when a group was ostracized by the people of a nation. . . we can understand that saying hateful things can lead to people feeling justified in taking action against the scapegoats.

[thoughtomator]

NOT TRUE.

Weapons, especially the sword have a deep spiritual meaning within Sikhism. The kirpan is one of the articles of faith that every baptized Sikh Khalsa is required to carry at all times. While the spiritual significance of each specific weapon appearing on a Nishan Sahib is open to subjective personal interpretation, a clearly defined spiritual association between weapons and the Supreme Being was established early on in the development of the religion by the Sikh Gurus.

In the first lines of the Sikh daily prayer Ardas, Guru Gobind Singh asks Sikhs to remember the Supreme Being and all the Gurus. In referring to God, the Guru chose to use the unique metaphor of the sword (Bhagauti).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan#History

I don't know where you copied and pasted from but you've got a sanitized half-version of the story. Sikhs were around a long time before they started carrying daggers as an article of faith. Guru Gobind Singh was the LAST of the Sikh gurus (meaning this was most definitely NOT "early on"), and he instituted this very article of faith because it was morally and spiritually necessary for their survival against the Muslims. The Islamic domination of India is solely and directly responsible for this development - it was a direct response to the execution of the fifth AND ninth Gurus by the Islamic emperors.

[Brian4Liberty]

No. Speech should always be allowed. But we should be more intelligent than to goad people into such actions by saying bigoted things.

Who is this "we" you speak of?

Should CNN and MSNBC or FOX curtail their use of collectivism to negatively stereotype and place blame on various groups? Is it Obama or Trump you would like to shut their traps? Or was it this forum that these criminals read which lead them to attack people?

[JK/SEA]

Who is this "we" you speak of?

Should CNN and MSNBC or FOX curtail their use of collectivism to negatively stereotype and place blame on various groups? Is it Obama or Trump you would like to shut their traps? Or was it this forum that these criminals read which lead them to attack people?

years ago i was embroiled in a political discussion with someone on an internet forum...female, and told her in a posting that i could be her dad because i fucked all the whores in her town. Two weeks later 2 female cops arrived at my door and handed me an anti-harrassment summons to appear. Cost me a grand for a lawyer. The Judge tossed it saying this was a political issue. Dismissed.

Words provoke. End of story.

[Yieu]

Who is this "we" you speak of?

Should CNN and MSNBC or FOX curtail their use of collectivism to negatively stereotype and place blame on various groups? Is it Obama or Trump you would like to shut their traps? Or was it this forum that these criminals read which lead them to attack people?

The culmination of all speech that is hateful towards others is what results in such violent actions.

"We" in this context means anyone intelligent enough to recognize that scapegoating has caused violence towards the scapegoat group in the past. The media with their collectivism and Trump would do well to think before they say something that could incite hatred or violence, for sure. It seems that Trump in particular has awakened a lot of hateful rhetoric, even in family -- it is everywhere.

I do see hateful speech on this forum, which is embarrassing to be associated with, and so I do feel a duty as someone who follows the NAP to suggest that toning it down might help bring others to our movement and make us more effective, rather than becoming more marginalized, which is what will (and should) happen otherwise. I also see the kind of speech that spurs such violence on the social media of family. It's a sad state of affairs we live in. People say "it couldn't happen here" in reference to the treatment of Jews during WWII in Germany, but it certainly can, and speech is where it begins.

[Brian4Liberty]

The culmination of all speech that is hateful towards others is what results in such violent actions.

"We" in this context means anyone intelligent enough to recognize that scapegoating has caused violence towards the scapegoat group in the past. The media with their collectivism and Trump would do well to think before they say something that could incite hatred or violence, for sure. It seems that Trump in particular has awakened a lot of hateful rhetoric, even in family -- it is everywhere.

I do see hateful speech on this forum, which is embarrassing to be associated with, and so I do feel a duty as someone who follows the NAP to suggest that toning it down might help bring others to our movement and make us more effective, rather than becoming more marginalized, which is what will (and should) happen otherwise. I also see the kind of speech that spurs such violence on the social media of family. It's a sad state of affairs we live in. People say "it couldn't happen here" in reference to the treatment of Jews during WWII in Germany, but it certainly can, and speech is where it begins.

Certainly, speech that calls for violence and death should be discouraged, but banning of speech is problematic.

Without painting all Muslims with a broad brush, and all Muslims are definitely not all the same, what about Salafi Jihadist Sunni Muslims whose basic religious tenet is to convert or kill all "infidels"?

[Influenza]

Certainly, speech that calls for violence and death should be discouraged, but banning of speech is problematic.

Without painting all Muslims with a broad brush, and all Muslims are definitely not all the same, what about Salafi Jihadist Sunni Muslims whose basic religious tenet is to convert or kill all "infidels"?
I believe it would be better said "convert or sufficiently subjugate all infidels." However, that does often lead to death for the "infidel," so you are not wrong.

[Yieu]

Certainly, speech that calls for violence and death should be discouraged, but banning of speech is problematic.

Without painting all Muslims with a broad brush, and all Muslims are definitely not all the same, what about Salafi Jihadist Sunni Muslims whose basic religious tenet is to convert or kill all "infidels"?

I am not calling for banning speech, but for people to maybe not try to associate various forms of racism or bigotry with the movement (Islam is not a race, so I include the term bigotry), and to maybe tone down such speech in general, because hateful speech can lead to violence even if the speech itself is not specifically calling for violence or death.

Certainly there are things that can be said about forceful conversion/subjugation/killing and killing apostates. I think those things are bad, but what is generally seen is people generalizing all Muslims as evil or bad in some way.

[jkob]

Other than the fact the guy is Sikh, is there any reason to believe it was a "hate crime"? I imagine liquor store clerks probably get stabbed to death more than the average Joe.

[Brian4Liberty]

Other than the fact the guy is Sikh, is there any reason to believe it was a "hate crime"? I imagine liquor store clerks probably get stabbed to death more than the average Joe.

Not a shred of evidence. Unless the robber and murderer was an expert in Indian accents, there was no way to know the guy was a Sikh. He wasn't wearing anything to indicate it.

From the article:

Though Gill was not wearing Sikh articles of faith, according to KGPE, he was identifiable as Punjabi by his accent. The killer is currently at large.

Using the terminology of "hate crime" is a Marxist/leftist technique to demonize opposition. As can be noted in this thread, it also allows demonization by association, or even by random comment by people unknown and unrelated. All of a sudden, anyone who has commented on Islam can be accused of being somehow tangentially complicit in this murder.

If a gun was used, guns and anyone who defends gun rights could, and would, also be demonized.

[Brian4Liberty]

I believe it would be better said "convert or sufficiently subjugate all infidels." However, that does often lead to death for the "infidel," so you are not wrong.

The first time I talked to a Salafist-style Muslim in College, they informed me that the options were convert or be killed. Luckily, I have since met many non-Salafist Muslims that were good people. But the obvious question then and now is why would a person like that be allowed into the US, when they want to convert or kill everyone?

[Yieu]

Using the terminology of "hate crime" is a Marxist/leftist technique to demonize opposition. As can be noted in this thread, it also allows demonization by association, or even by random comment by people unknown and unrelated. All of a sudden, anyone who has commented on Islam can be accuse of being somehow tangentially complicit in this murder.

This sounds like an effort to marginalize what I've said by characterizing it as coming from an origin that even I disagree very strongly with (Marxism/Leftist).

I have said things that are logical based on history.

[Ender]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan#History

I don't know where you copied and pasted from but you've got a sanitized half-version of the story. Sikhs were around a long time before they started carrying daggers as an article of faith. Guru Gobind Singh was the LAST of the Sikh gurus (meaning this was most definitely NOT "early on"), and he instituted this very article of faith because it was morally and spiritually necessary for their survival against the Muslims. The Islamic domination of India is solely and directly responsible for this development - it was a direct response to the execution of the fifth AND ninth Gurus by the Islamic emperors.

Ah, yes, Wikipedia- must be true.

http://www.sikhs.org/art12.htm




Understanding the Kirpan for non-Sikhs
by Sandeep Singh Brar

The Kirpan (ceremonial sword) worn by followers of the Sikh religion sometimes raises questions or concerns among people who are unfamiliar with the religion or it's tenants. The Kirpan is an ingrained part of the Sikh religion and is in many ways it's religious symbolism is similar to the Cross in Christianity. Just as a Cross is worn be devout Christians, baptized Sikhs are required to wear the Kirpan. The Kirpan is no more symbolic a weapons than the Christian Cross is symbolic of a torture instrument.

Sikhism is a 500 year old religion with over 20 million followers worldwide. It is ranked as a major world religion with even more followers than Judaism for example. Guru Nanak (1469-1539) who preached a message of One God for all of humanity founded it. He stressed loving devotion to God and universal principles of morality, truth and honest living and full equality of mankind irrespective of race, caste, creed or sex. Nine successive prophets succeeded Guru Nanak, the line ending with Guru Gobind Singh in 1708. Sikhism is not a new-age movement, cult or sect, but a well established and respected major world religion with it's own distinctive beliefs and practices.

The Kirpan has been an integral part of the Sikh religion since it's early inception and has a very sacred religious symbolism for Sikhs. To suggest that it is a `dagger', or a `weapon' or merely a cultural symbol is both misleading and offensive to Sikhs.

To Sikhs the Kirpan is religiously symbolic of their spirituality and the constant struggle of good and morality over the forces of evil and injustice, both on a individual as well as social level. The usage of the Kirpan in this religious context is clearly indicated in the Sikh holy scriptures (Sri Guru Granth Sahib) and wearing it is ment to inspire a Sikh in their daily life;

"To forsake pride, emotional attachment, and the sense of `mine and yours', is the path of the double-edged sword." (Guru Arjan Dev, Devgandhari, pg. 534)

"From the Guru, I have obtained the supremely powerful sword of spiritual wisdom. I have cut down the fortress of duality and doubt, attachment, greed and egotism. The Name of the Lord abides within my mind; I contemplate the Word of the Guru's hymns." (Guru Ram Das, Maru, pg. 1087)

Guru Gobind Singh introduced the metaphor of the Kirpan to refer to God and his qualities;

"O Sword, O Conqueror of continents, O Vanquisher of the hosts of evil, O Embellisher of the brave in the field of battle. Thy Arms are unbreakable, Thy Light refulgent, Thy Glory and Splendor dazzle like the sun. O Happiness of the holy, O Crusher of evil intent, O Subduer of sin, I seek Thy refuge." (Guru Gobind Singh, Vachitra Natak, Chapter I)

The practice of Sikhs carrying the Kirpan as a religious symbol can be traced back to the lifetime of the sixth Sikh prophet, Guru Hargobind (1595-1644). Guru Hargobind regularly carried two swords, symbolic of a Sikhs spiritual as well as temporal obligations. Guru Hargobind introduced Sikhs to the concept of being a Sant-Sipahi (Saint-Soldier). A Sikh must be a Saint always meditating and remembering God. At the same time a Sikh is also expected to be a soldier, a person taking part in their social responsibilities to their family and community. Following the path of law, order and morality as laid out by the Sikh Gurus.

It was Guru Gobind Singh, the final living Sikh prophet who formally instituted the mandatory requirement for all baptized Sikhs to wear the Kirpan at all times. He instituted the current Sikh baptism ceremony in 1699 which is referred to as the `baptism of the sword' (khanda di pahul). During the ceremony sugar crystals and water are stirred in a steel bowl with a Kirpan before the initiate drinks the mixture. During the baptism ceremony the initiate is instructed in the duties and obligations of becoming a Khalsa (one belonging to the Divine). The Khalsa is expected to live by the high moral standards of the Sikh Gurus at all times which includes such things as abstaining from smoking, drinking and other intoxicants, performing daily prayers and always maintaining the distinctive physical symbols of Sikhism on their person. The most noticeable of these being uncut hair and carrying the Kirpan.

This injunction appears in the Rehat Maryada (The Official Sikh Code of Conduct); "Have, on your person, all the time, the five K's: The Keshas (unshorn hair), the Kirpan (sheathed sword), the Kachhehra (drawers like garment), the Kanga (comb), the Karha (steel bracelet)." (Rehat Maryada, Ceremony of Baptism or Initiation, Section 6, Chapter XIII, Article XXIV, paragraph (p))

The Rehat Maryada does not specify the length of the Kirpan or how it is to be worn by the devotee. Kirpans can be anywhere from 3 foot swords carried by Sikhs on religious festivals, marriages and parades, to a few inches in length. They can either be worn over ones clothing or under the clothing. The Kirpan is usually kept sheathed except when it is withdrawn from it's casing on such occasions as consecration of the ceremonial sweet pudding distributed during religious ceremonies.

To suggest that the Kirpan is a weapon is both incorrect and misleading. If it was instituted as a weapon, then would Sikhs not be expected to carry guns today? Guns were in common use during the time of Guru Gobind Singh. If the Kirpan was purely a soldiers weapon for Sikhs, than why do they not also carry a shield as well or other armour? Why do modern armies and soldiers carry swords on ceremonial occasions? Because it is symbolic of their military tradition and heritage. In the same way Sikhs carry the Kirpan at all times because it is symbolic of their religious tradition and heritage.

[Ender]

Not a shred of evidence. Unless the robber and murderer was an expert in Indian accents, there was no way to know the guy was a Sikh. He wasn't wearing anything to indicate it.

From the article:


Using the terminology of "hate crime" is a Marxist/leftist technique to demonize opposition. As can be noted in this thread, it also allows demonization by association, or even by random comment by people unknown and unrelated. All of a sudden, anyone who has commented on Islam can be accused of being somehow tangentially complicit in this murder.

If a gun was used, guns and anyone who defends gun rights could, and would, also be demonized.

Here is a link to a picture of the dead man- I think the killers figured he was from the ME.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/sikh-americans-respond-fresno-attack-online-whywearehere-n487686

And in the OP the killers are quoted as yelling "Why are you here!" several times.
And for the record, I don't believe in "hate" crimes. Crime is crime- however, blowback, hate, and prejudice from our meddling is causing a whole lot of stuff that will come to bite us in the end. Karma's a bitch.

[Yieu]

And for the record, I don't believe in "hate" crimes. Crime is crime- however, blowback, hate, and prejudice from our meddling is causing a whole lot of stuff that will come to bite us in the end. Karma's a bitch.

Yeah, I'm not into the idea of "hate crimes" codified into law, it's not a very libertarian idea. But also crimes involving hate can happen more when more people in general are more open about saying hateful things about a group of people.

[thoughtomator]

Ah, yes, Wikipedia- must be true.

http://www.sikhs.org/art12.htm

If you're taking that at face value, your ignorance of Sikhs is monumental. I take it you've never actually known a Sikh? Don't bother to answer, I know the answer is "no".

If you can't figure out that the reason why the TENTH Guru instituted the carrying of a weapon as a religious obligation after the NINTH Guru was murdered by Muslims for not being a Muslim... then you're not trying to find the truth, you're trying to make excuses.

Study the history of Islam in India and this will make complete sense to you.

[thoughtomator]

I disagree with your interpretation of events. I am against progressive and left politics. And words can provoke.

The word you are looking for is "incite", not "provoke". "Provoke" is what you did to get my response and other similar responses. "Incite" is what you are asserting the free expression of a factually correct and sincerely held opinion is doing with respect to this capital crime.

Inciting a crime is a criminal offense. Hence your words provoked defenders of free speech who must always be vigilant against efforts to criminalize speech.

[Slave Mentality]

You are a bit of a softy Yieu. Do kids not get into fights at school anymore? I bet you have never taken a good ass whooping. That's a shame because it gives one perspective. Sticks and stones...

Someone who is going to do bad will indeed do bad even if they don't do internets. What the hell is this movement again? I need to know how to act just in case. Can anyone join? Do I get an arm band? I want a mark on mine to show that I conform to proper liberty speech free from hate! I probably hate too much shit to be invited.

Oh, let me get this right. I claim this religion and am expected to carry a big ass knife? Sign me up Guru.

[Yieu]

The word you are looking for is "incite", not "provoke". "Provoke" is what you did to get my response and other similar responses. "Incite" is what you are asserting the free expression of a factually correct and sincerely held opinion is doing with respect to this capital crime.

Inciting a crime is a criminal offense. Hence your words provoked defenders of free speech who must always be vigilant against efforts to criminalize speech.

Well, you can have whatever opinion you like, but you sure characterize things strangely to try to fit your view.

I am a defender of free speech, as I am against the criminalization of speech. But I do advocate being intelligent about what you do with that freedom, because marginalizing a scapegoat group can incite/provoke (they are synonyms) violence, even if the initial speech was hateful but not violent.

[KingNothing]

If you have a shred of intelligence and aren't staggeringly ignorant, you should be screaming from the rooftops the danger of Islam and of letting Muslims live among us.

Dude, I know several Islamic people who are brilliant, hardworking, extremely kind, and very peaceful.

You can't say shit like this. It's absurd.

Islam IS a real danger. That is true. If even 10 percent of Islamic people are radical, that is a gigantic contingent of violent shitheads that we've got to deal with. But you can't cast as wide a net as you did. You've got to view people as individuals, not as a collective.

[Yieu]

You are a bit of a softy Yieu. Do kids not get into fights at school anymore? I bet you have never taken a good ass whooping. That's a shame because it gives one perspective. Sticks and stones...

Nah, the reason I try to be gentle on others is because I was beaten a bit and screamed at as a kid, and don't want others to go through it as there was no benefit, and I don't want to become the kind of person who puts people through that sort of thing.

[KingNothing]

Bigoted comments aren't the problem, willful and gleeful ignorance are


Valid point. I do think, though, that cultural narratives -either fueled by words, or causing the words to be said- gives willfully and gleefully ignorant people a cause to be shitheads. A nontrivial percentage of the population wants an excuse to be negative towards other people. It's so sad, and it can be extremely damaging and tragic. We can't play into it.

Don't be a bigot. Don't be ignorant. Treat people as individuals. Afford them all a modicum of respect and dignity.

[KingNothing]

Nah, the reason I try to be gentle on others is because I was beaten a bit and screamed at as a kid, and don't want others to go through it as there was no benefit, and I don't want to become the kind of person who puts people through that sort of thing.

You don't need to explain your reasons for being a decent person to anyone.

Being decent to others is the beginning and the end. It's all that matters.

[KingNothing]

years ago i was embroiled in a political discussion with someone on an internet forum...female, and told her in a posting that i could be her dad because i fucked all the whores in her town. Two weeks later 2 female cops arrived at my door and handed me an anti-harrassment summons to appear. Cost me a grand for a lawyer. The Judge tossed it saying this was a political issue. Dismissed.

Words provoke. End of story.

Jesus. In retrospect, you shouldn't have been a dick, but holy lord, I know I've said much worse on the internet than that. Hell, I've probably done worse on THIS message board! :)

[Yieu]

Valid point. I do think, though, that cultural narratives -either fueled by words, or causing the words to be said- gives willfully and gleefully ignorant people a cause to be shitheads. A nontrivial percentage of the population wants an excuse to be negative towards other people. It's so sad, and it can be extremely damaging and tragic. We can't play into it.

Don't be a bigot. Don't be ignorant. Treat people as individuals. Afford them all a modicum of respect and dignity.

I agree with your analysis. I'm not ignorant of the fact that it is not a good thing to kill apostates. But that doesn't make me want to characterize all Muslims as evil, as I commonly see on social media.

[Brian4Liberty]

Here is a link to a picture of the dead man- I think the killers figured he was from the ME.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/sikh-americans-respond-fresno-attack-online-whywearehere-n487686

And in the OP the killers are quoted as yelling "Why are you here!" several times.

That was a different incident, with no evidence linking it to the robbery and murder. That guy was not murdered.

[Brian4Liberty]

This sounds like an effort to marginalize what I've said by characterizing it as coming from an origin that even I disagree very strongly with (Marxism/Leftist).

I have said things that are logical based on history.

I'm not saying you are a leftist, but the use of "hate crime" and the associated ramifications is objectionable.

You said this:


This is what happens when enough people freely make bigoted comments towards Muslims. Uninformed people end up killing people.

You are inferring a causal relationship between random "bigoted comments" and a robbery/murder. Sorry, I'm not buying it. There is no evidence given for that linkage.

As far as using terms like "hate crime", it will always rub some people the wrong way, due to it's typically disingenuous, manipulative and hypocritical leftist usage. Murder is murder. All murderers should be dealt with severely and consistently. "Hate crime" from a political perspective is a way to throw out a wide net of arbitrary blame and demonization. From a Police State perspective, it's just another in an extremely long list of charges for a DA to arbitrarily throw at someone. The perfect "two birds with one stone" for Police State leftists like Hillary Clinton and friends.

Now if someone were to call the people who apparently shouted at and hit that other old guy "bigots", "xenophobes" or ignorant thug collectivists, that would be appropriate. Saying that you find "bigoted comments" objectionable, collectivist and counter-productive is fine. But inferring a cause and effect with a murder will result in disagreement.

The separate robbery/murder incident has no evidence at all indicating it was motivated by anything other than robbery, and no evidence linking it to anything else, no matter how much some leftist media propagandist wants to spin it.

[Yieu]

I'm not saying you are a leftist, but the use of "hate crime" and the associated ramifications is objectionable.

Okay, but I intentionally did not call it a hate crime, because I don't believe in "hate crimes". So the comments about "hate crimes" do not apply to what I have said and intended in my words.


You are inferring a causal relationship between random "bigoted comments" and a robbery/murder. Sorry, I'm not buying it. There is no evidence given for that linkage.

Well, you don't have to buy it. But I submit the treatment of Jews during the early years of the Third Reich as my evidence that there is a causal link, as well as the treatment of Sikhs and Muslims shortly after 9/11.

This link has a brief timeline of violence against Sikhs shortly after 9/11: http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/08/06/timeline-a-history-of-violence-against-sikhs-in-the-wake-of-911/

I'm not a leftist or a progressive. If I were to try to use labels to describe my position here, a close one might be minarchist libertarian with ancap leanings that uses the NAP and ahimsa as moral grounds to argue that bigotry is not healthy or wise and can result in violence.

[thoughtomator]

Dude, I know several Islamic people who are brilliant, hardworking, extremely kind, and very peaceful.

You can't say shit like this. It's absurd.

Islam IS a real danger. That is true. If even 10 percent of Islamic people are radical, that is a gigantic contingent of violent shitheads that we've got to deal with. But you can't cast as wide a net as you did. You've got to view people as individuals, not as a collective.

10 percent is way low. Try 40 percent. That's the percentage of Muslims in the US and UK who want to impose Sharia law. (Not an ass-pulled number, these are recent polling results.)

While a system of justice is most definitely compelled to treat individuals as individuals and not as members of a collective, the demonstrable fact is that human beings do often act as collectives and these collectives can behave much differently than the individuals that make them up do. Study the behavior of crowds, or conformity experiments. When forming an opinion of a group, treating each member of that group as an individual contradicts well-known facts about how individuals behave differently as a member of a group than they do as individuals on their own. One need not retreat into collectivism in order to soberly recognize that groups of people have qualities that make them distinct from other groups.

To the good individuals among them, I say this: reject the murderous creed of Islam. Do not call yourself a "Muslim". Belief in a creed and self-assignment to a religious group are the acts of an individual, and the individual can thus justly be held responsible for his own act of choosing to adhere to such a group.

I do just this. I claim no membership in any religious group. The only groups I claim adherence to are those whose beliefs I share, those where the qualities, aims, goals of the group are also my own. These are voluntary groups we are talking about - not involuntary ones like race or sex or age or nationality - so there is unavoidable individual responsibility in choosing to become and remain part of such a group. Islam isn't a race, after all - it's a belief system, one with the explicit goal of physical subjugation of the entire world.

Take a different belief system - Communism, for example. If someone called themselves a Communist, would it not be reasonable to presume that the known qualities of Communists also apply to the person who is choosing to adhere to that group? Would it be intelligent to make no presumption at all as to the self-proclaimed Communist's political positions, even though those positions are inherent to being one?

There is no dissonance between being an individualist and respecting the individual, and taking into account the imputations of the voluntary individual act of self-adherence to a group. Nor does this represent any form of collectivism - we are not treating the individual as part of the collective, we are treating the individual as an individual who himself has chosen to adhere to a collective.

[Ender]

10 percent is way low. Try 40 percent. That's the percentage of Muslims in the US and UK who want to impose Sharia law. (Not an ass-pulled number, these are recent polling results.)

While a system of justice is most definitely compelled to treat individuals as individuals and not as members of a collective, the demonstrable fact is that human beings do often act as collectives and these collectives can behave much differently than the individuals that make them up do. Study the behavior of crowds, or conformity experiments. When forming an opinion of a group, treating each member of that group as an individual contradicts well-known facts about how individuals behave differently as a member of a group than they do as individuals on their own. One need not retreat into collectivism in order to soberly recognize that groups of people have qualities that make them distinct from other groups.

To the good individuals among them, I say this: reject the murderous creed of Islam. Do not call yourself a "Muslim". Belief in a creed and self-assignment to a religious group are the acts of an individual, and the individual can thus justly be held responsible for his own act of choosing to adhere to such a group.

I do just this. I claim no membership in any religious group. The only groups I claim adherence to are those whose beliefs I share, those where the qualities, aims, goals of the group are also my own. These are voluntary groups we are talking about - not involuntary ones like race or sex or age or nationality - so there is unavoidable individual responsibility in choosing to become and remain part of such a group. Islam isn't a race, after all - it's a belief system, one with the explicit goal of physical subjugation of the entire world.

Take a different belief system - Communism, for example. If someone called themselves a Communist, would it not be reasonable to presume that the known qualities of Communists also apply to the person who is choosing to adhere to that group? Would it be intelligent to make no presumption at all as to the self-proclaimed Communist's political positions, even though those positions are inherent to being one?

There is no dissonance between being an individualist and respecting the individual, and taking into account the imputations of the voluntary individual act of self-adherence to a group. Nor does this represent any form of collectivism - we are not treating the individual as part of the collective, we are treating the individual as an individual who himself has chosen to adhere to a collective.

Spreading this kind of hatred toward others is exactly why innocent people get attacked on the streets. Ignorant people hear this kind of carpe and believe it.

Islam is no more violent than any other religion. Are there radicals? of course. But who is presently doing the most killing in the world? Muslims? I think not.

And as far as the sword, the Sikh belief as ALWAYS been:


The sword was never meant as a symbol of aggression, and it was never to be used for self-aggrandizement. It was the emblem of manliness and self-respect and was to be used only in self-defence, as a last resort.


Yes, Guru Gobind Singh fought Muslims- but he also had Muslim friends who saved him.

[thoughtomator]

Spreading this kind of hatred toward others is exactly why innocent people get attacked on the streets. Ignorant people hear this kind of carpe and believe it.

Islam is no more violent than any other religion. Are there radicals? of course. But who is presently doing the most killing in the world? Muslims? I think not.

And as far as the sword, the Sikh belief as ALWAYS been:



Yes, Guru Gobind Singh fought Muslims- but he also had Muslim friends who saved him.

You've got it exactly backwards, of course. The failure to spread the information I am relaying has caused countless people to become victim to Islamic jihad.

For example, thanks to the same exact ignorance that you are repeating here, countless young German women were sexually attacked all over Germany on New Year's Eve.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/01/06/berlin-cologne-hamburg-stuttgart-dusseldorf-new-years-migrant-sex-assault-every-major-german-city/

Those of us who knew what Islam really is predicted this with absolute certainty, and it wasn't even a close call. This isn't the work of "radicals". This is exactly what Islam is about. That's why it wasn't a few individuals, but thousands of them, engaged in the same behavior at the same time. Predictable, and predicted. By those of us who aren't willfully ignorant of what Islam is.

If Islam is no different than any other religion, and those of us who warn of its spread and its adherents are ignorant and wrong, how did we know they would do these things? Lucky guess?

And speaking of ignorant, you could not state a more ignorant assertion than "Islam is no more violent than any other religion". Name me one other religion whose founder spent his whole life massacring people. You're basically slurring every other religion to say Islam is no more violent than they are. The entire history of Islam is one genocide after another! And what they did in India is the worst of all - 80 million people are estimated to have been killed by the Islamic invasion. Yes, this is literally in the "worse than Hitler" category, without exaggeration.


So, regarding the Sikh weapons, of course it's not a weapon of aggression. They were not the aggressors. It is a self-defense weapon, as your quoted material confirms - a form of the right to bear arms we here hold so dear. And the reason why they needed to embed self defense into their religion is that Muslims had been killing their countrymen by the tens of millions for centuries.

[twomp]

If you have a shred of intelligence and aren't staggeringly ignorant, you should be screaming from the rooftops the danger of Islam and of letting Muslims live among us.

It's dumbasses who think that Islam is just another religion, rather than a virulent death/rape/slavery cult, that brought in the thousand men to Cologne who premeditatively turned a normal New Year's Eve into a sexual assault nightmare for German women who were peacefully going about their business.

It's the pretense that there is no distinction between Islam and other foreign religions that causes the confusion of Sikhs and Muslims. If not for the politically correct bullshit, Sikhs could freely educate everyone as to just why they carry those daggers of theirs. They carry their daggers to defend themselves from Muslims. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan#History) Because they are not brainwashed idiots who think Islam is not deadly to everything it touches.

Sikhs are people who could teach you a lot about what Islam really is, if your mind weren't slammed shut like a garbage truck, full of garbage. If you want to blame someone other than the actual perpetrator for this attack on an innocent man, go into the bathroom and take a long hard look in that mirror.

You are obviously the dumbass. 1.3 billion Muslims and the majority of them have no interest in terrorism but you being the dumbass that you are have lumped them all together. You anger should be targeted at the Wahhabist from Saudi Arabia who advocate all this but you of course are too stupid to know that. Take your dribble to your local church group and hang out with people who are just as stupid as you are.

[idiom]

You are obviously the dumbass. 1.3 billion Muslims and the majority of them have no interest in terrorism but you being the dumbass that you are have lumped them all together. You anger should be targeted at the Wahhabist from Saudi Arabia who advocate all this but you of course are too stupid to know that. Take your dribble to your local church group and hang out with people who are just as stupid as you are.

Thats like saying there are billions of Christians. (90% of them would be apostate who maybe go to church on Christmas or Easter and couldn't name tenets of their faith.

[Ender]

You've got it exactly backwards, of course. The failure to spread the information I am relaying has caused countless people to become victim to Islamic jihad.

For example, thanks to the same exact ignorance that you are repeating here, countless young German women were sexually attacked all over Germany on New Year's Eve.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/01/06/berlin-cologne-hamburg-stuttgart-dusseldorf-new-years-migrant-sex-assault-every-major-german-city/

Those of us who knew what Islam really is predicted this with absolute certainty, and it wasn't even a close call. This isn't the work of "radicals". This is exactly what Islam is about. That's why it wasn't a few individuals, but thousands of them, engaged in the same behavior at the same time. Predictable, and predicted. By those of us who aren't willfully ignorant of what Islam is.

If Islam is no different than any other religion, and those of us who warn of its spread and its adherents are ignorant and wrong, how did we know they would do these things? Lucky guess?

And speaking of ignorant, you could not state a more ignorant assertion than "Islam is no more violent than any other religion". Name me one other religion whose founder spent his whole life massacring people. You're basically slurring every other religion to say Islam is no more violent than they are. The entire history of Islam is one genocide after another! And what they did in India is the worst of all - 80 million people are estimated to have been killed by the Islamic invasion. Yes, this is literally in the "worse than Hitler" category, without exaggeration.


So, regarding the Sikh weapons, of course it's not a weapon of aggression. They were not the aggressors. It is a self-defense weapon, as your quoted material confirms - a form of the right to bear arms we here hold so dear. And the reason why they needed to embed self defense into their religion is that Muslims had been killing their countrymen by the tens of millions for centuries.

Contrary to your ignorant position, I know much about Sikhs and Muslims. It is YOU who needs to get yourself edumacated and out of the MSM version of "history".

US Caused War Deaths:

The total number of American soldiers who have died on the battlefield in wars is around 660,000. The total number of people who have died because of these wars break down:

American Revolution: 52,000? (rough estimate)
War of 1812: 30,000? (No reliable numbers)
Civil War: 600,000
Spanish-American War: 10,000? (No reliable numbers)
WWI: 16 million
WWII: 58 million
Korea: 2.7 million
Vietnam: 4.7 million
First Gulf War: 20,000 - 200,000 (there is some dispute about the number of Iraqis who died)
Current Iraq war: 50,000 (estimates range up to 650,000 - controversial right now)

So the total is around 82 million. Majority were not on the battlefield.

[Brian4Liberty]

Okay, but I intentionally did not call it a hate crime, because I don't believe in "hate crimes". So the comments about "hate crimes" do not apply to what I have said and intended in my words.

Well, you don't have to buy it. But I submit the treatment of Jews during the early years of the Third Reich as my evidence that there is a causal link, as well as the treatment of Sikhs and Muslims shortly after 9/11.

To your credit, you did not use the "hate crime" phrase (you did use "hateful" though ;) ). "Hate crime" was in the OP article, so the thread started out that way.

The "Third Reich" card is so overplayed that using that also tends to discredit your argument. Everything is the new "Third Reich" and every demonized foreign leader is the new "Hitler". Hannity must say it about someone (or Iran) ten times a day on his radio show.

[Brian4Liberty]

Let's avoid personal attacks here...


1.3 billion Muslims and the majority of them have no interest in terrorism but you being the dumbass that you are have lumped them all together. You anger should be targeted at the Wahhabist from Saudi Arabia who advocate all this but you of course are too stupid to know that.

Correct, Saudi Arabia is the root of this ideology. To be less specific, it's Sunni Salafi Jihadists, of which Wahhabists are a subset. Salafi Jihadists may not always refer to themselves as Wahhabists.

Interesting reading:


Salafism is sponsored globally by Saudi Arabia and this ideology is used to justify the violent acts of Jihadi Salafi groups that include Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, and the Al-Shabaab.[81][82] In addition, Saudi Arabia prints textbooks for schools and universities to teach Salafisim as well as recruit international students from Egypt, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Africa and the Balkans to help spreading Salafisim in their local communities.[81][82]

Some other Islamic groups, particularly some Sufis, have also complained about extremism among some Salafi. It has been noted that the Western association of Salafi ideology with violence stems from writings "through the prism of security studies" that were published in the late 20th century and that continue to persist.[83]

Wahhabism (Saudi Arabia)
Main article: Wahhabism

Wahhabism is a more strict, Saudi form of Salafism,[84][85] according to Mark Durie, who states that Saudi leaders "are active and diligent" using their considerable financial resources "in funding and promoting Salafism all around the world."[86] Ahmad Moussalli tends to agree with the view that Wahhabism is a subset of Salafism, saying "As a rule, all Wahhabis are salafists, but not all salafists are Wahhabis".[87]

However, many scholars and critics distinguish between the old form of Saudi Salafism (termed as Wahhabism) and the new Salafism in Saudi Arabia. Stéphane Lacroix, a fellow and lecturer at Sciences Po in Paris, also affirmed a distinction between the two: "As opposed to Wahhabism, Salafism refers […] to all the hybridations that have taken place since the 1960s between the teachings of Muhammad bin ‘Abd al-Wahhab and other Islamic schools of thought". Hamid Algar and Khaled Abou El Fadl believe, during the 1960s and 70s, Wahhabism rebranded itself as Salafism knowing it could not "spread in the modern Muslim world" as Wahhabism.
...
More: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi_movement


And of course, none of this relates or refers to Sikhs at all.

[Brian4Liberty]

From the OP:


In response to early reports that the men shouted "Why are you here?" during the beating, Sikh Americans and their allies took to social media to share their stories with the hashtag #WhyWeAreHere

Sikhs have been present in the Central Valley of California for over 100 years. Most people there know that they are not Arab or Muslim. What probably drives this kind of criminal behavior is the increased immigration of people from South Asia (and everywhere else) in the past 20 years. "Why are you here" would not be something that someone would say if their motivation was fear of terrorism.

[enhanced_deficit]

From the OP:



Sikhs have been present in the Central Valley of California for over 100 years. Most people there know that they are not Arab or Muslim. What probably drives this kind of criminal behavior is the increased immigration of people from South Asia (and everywhere else) in the past 20 years. "Why are you here" would not be something that someone would say if their motivation was fear of terrorism.

This is quite plausible.
Such crimes in recent cases may have appearance-based fear/dislike of "foreigners/outsiders/invaders/non-belongers" mixed with everything else that leads people to violent acts.
All this in backdrop of an atmosphere in the country where even its President with foreign roots is afraid to be photographed in head-gear worn by sikhs.

[Yieu]

To your credit, you did not use the "hate crime" phrase (you did use "hateful" though ;) ). "Hate crime" was in the OP article, so the thread started out that way.

Yeah, I used the word "hateful". But that's an emotion/action, and has nothing to do with the legal term "hate crime". Just because that phrase is in the title doesn't mean I support the idea of "hate crimes".


The "Third Reich" card is so overplayed that using that also tends to discredit your argument.

No, I was not playing a card. I was providing historical evidence of the type of behavior that you claimed does not exist, and it was completely in context. Because it was in context and relevant, it is a good and credible example of the kind of behavior that I am saying exists. And it was one of three examples that I provided.

It would have been hyperbole to say something like "people who attack in this way are like Hitler!" but I did not say that. I made a relevant comparison that is applicable. Are we not allowed to make historical comparisons and learn from history? I was saying that scapegoating can lead to acts of violence against the scapegoat, and I provided evidence of that happening.

[thoughtomator]

Contrary to your ignorant position, I know much about Sikhs and Muslims. It is YOU who needs to get yourself edumacated and out of the MSM version of "history".

US Caused War Deaths:

The total number of American soldiers who have died on the battlefield in wars is around 660,000. The total number of people who have died because of these wars break down:

American Revolution: 52,000? (rough estimate)
War of 1812: 30,000? (No reliable numbers)
Civil War: 600,000
Spanish-American War: 10,000? (No reliable numbers)
WWI: 16 million
WWII: 58 million
Korea: 2.7 million
Vietnam: 4.7 million
First Gulf War: 20,000 - 200,000 (there is some dispute about the number of Iraqis who died)
Current Iraq war: 50,000 (estimates range up to 650,000 - controversial right now)

So the total is around 82 million. Majority were not on the battlefield.

In order to construct this lie of yours, you have to attribute every death in both World Wars to the US exclusively, even though we were late to the game both times.

Do you even read what you write? Do you honestly believe this stuff? You're obviously batshit insane, so my end of this conversation is done.

[Ender]

In order to construct this lie of yours, you have to attribute every death in both World Wars to the US exclusively, even though we were late to the game both times.

Do you even read what you write? Do you honestly believe this stuff? You're obviously batshit insane, so my end of this conversation is done.

Look in the mirror, dude- you're talkin' to yourself.

WWI was basically a land dispute; if the US had stayed out of it, it would have resolved very quickly and w/o much, if any, bloodshed. The US entered to support England- who was NOT necessarily in the right- because of power and money reasons, under scheming President Woodrow Wilson. At the end the whole war was blamed on Germany; they were made to pay for all the war damage and costs under the Versailles Treaty. This left them broke and helpless and ready for a Savior filled with big promises, like Hitler.

AMERICANS WERE FOOLED INTO WWII BY ROOSEVELT, who was another scheming monster and off we went.

IF THE US HAD NOT ENTERED INTO WWI THERE WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN WWII.

Maybe it's time to learn a little REAL HISTORY?

[Ender]

To your credit, you did not use the "hate crime" phrase (you did use "hateful" though ;) ). "Hate crime" was in the OP article, so the thread started out that way.

The "Third Reich" card is so overplayed that using that also tends to discredit your argument. Everything is the new "Third Reich" and every demonized foreign leader is the new "Hitler". Hannity must say it about someone (or Iran) ten times a day on his radio show.

True- except now, US citizens are being conditioned to hate the evil Muslims, as the Germans were conditioned to hate the Jews. And the country is looking for a Savior.just like the Germans were so along comes Trump. History always repeats itself.

It is definitely an interesting time to be alive.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Look in the mirror, dude- you're talkin' to yourself.

WWI was basically a land dispute; if the US had stayed out of it, it would have resolved very quickly and w/o much, if any, bloodshed. The US entered to support England- who was NOT necessarily in the right- because of power and money reasons, under scheming President Woodrow Wilson. At the end the whole war was blamed on Germany; they were made to pay for all the war damage and costs under the Versailles Treaty. This left them broke and helpless and ready for a Savior filled with big promises, like Hitler.
WTF? My God, you're a blithering moron and a historical illiterate. The US got involved in WWI in 1917, and was only involved for a year and a half. It was a horrendous bloodbath before the US got there. Ypres, the Somme, Verdun all happened before the US joined the Allies. 20,000 people died on the first day of the Battle of the Somme, by the end the number of casualties was in the hundreds of thousands. That's in only four and a half months.

Your stupidity is painful.

[Ender]

WTF? My God, you're a blithering moron and a historical illiterate. The US got involved in WWI in 1917, and was only involved for a year and a half. It was a horrendous bloodbath before the US got there. Ypres, the Somme, Verdun all happened before the US joined the Allies. 20,000 people died on the first day of the Battle of the Somme, by the end the number of casualties was in the hundreds of thousands. That's in only four and a half months.

Your stupidity is painful.

You got a definite ID.10t problem- too much public edumacation.

The US had supplied weapons to the Allies exclusively during the war, to the tune of several billion dollars worth.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/01/john-j-dwyer/the-united-states-and-worldwari/


The United States' 1917 entry into World War I represents one of the crucial turning points in American history. Its significance, however, scarcely exceeds modern America's collective ignorance of it.

The war began for corporate America long before it started for the common man. Within two months of the conflict's August 1914 beginning, Charles Schwab, president of Bethlehem Steel, one of the world's largest arms merchants, took a profitable trip to London. There, he secured orders from the British government for millions of artillery shells, as well as ten 500-ton submarines. Though the construction of such foreign vessels broke the law, Bethlehem proceeded with it and the Wilson administration did not stop them. The company earned $61 million in 1916, more than its combined gross revenues for the previous eight years.

"The Bethlehem story is a pithy summary of the evolution of the United States into a branch of the British armament industry during the thirty-two months of its neutrality," writes historian Thomas Fleming in his powerhouse book The Illusion of Victory: America in World War I. "Wilson talked – and talked and talked – about neutrality and apparently convinced himself that he was neutral. But the United States he was supposedly running was not neutral, in thought, word or deed, thanks to Wellington House (the engine of British government propaganda) – and the international banking firm of J. P. Morgan in New York."

By the time America declared war on Germany, Morgan was having a bang-up war of its own. The company had already loaned Britain and France $2.1 billion (around $30 billion by 2004 standards), and had cleared $30 million – around $425 million in 2004 dollars – in profit.

Fleming summarizes a very effective partnership: "As British and French orders for ammunition and other war materiel filled the books of U.S. companies, the pressure for financial assistance to pay for them grew more and more acute." In other words, the more intense the fighting, the more arms, ordnance, and supplies the British and French ordered from American manufacturers, and the more money they borrowed from American banks.


World War I

In 1915 a German submarine sunk the RMS Lusitania, a British ship that was supposedly a civilian cruise ship. About one-hundred Americans were on board, which enabled President Woodrow Wilson to copy Lincoln’s war tactic and use the sinking of the ship to argue for war. Before the sinking of the Lusitania Wilson knew that the ship was carrying arms but refused to issue warnings to American passengers that, since Britain and Germany were at war, it could be risky to be a passenger on the Lusitania. He used the sinking of the ship to excite anti-German hysteria and persuade the Congress to have the U.S enter the European war. In 2008 a diving expedition discovered that the Lusitania held more than four million rounds of rifle ammunition, much of which was packed away in boxes labeled “cheese” or “butter” or “oysters.”

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

You got a definite ID.10t problem- too much public edumacation.

The US had supplied weapons to the Allies exclusively during the war, to the tune of several billion dollars worth.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/01/john-j-dwyer/the-united-states-and-worldwari/
I didn't spend much time in public education, asshole. I've studied WWI in depth; I'm well aware of the US selling arms to the Allies, you insufferable little shit. That doesn't mean the US is to blame for the bloodbath, any more than a gun seller is responsible for murders committed by thugs who buy their guns. There's nothing there or in any historical document or analysis that justifies the outrageous claim that it would have been a quick and painless war if not for the US.

[thoughtomator]

Look in the mirror, dude- you're talkin' to yourself.

WWI was basically a land dispute; if the US had stayed out of it, it would have resolved very quickly and w/o much, if any, bloodshed. The US entered to support England- who was NOT necessarily in the right- because of power and money reasons, under scheming President Woodrow Wilson. At the end the whole war was blamed on Germany; they were made to pay for all the war damage and costs under the Versailles Treaty. This left them broke and helpless and ready for a Savior filled with big promises, like Hitler.

AMERICANS WERE FOOLED INTO WWII BY ROOSEVELT, who was another scheming monster and off we went.

IF THE US HAD NOT ENTERED INTO WWI THERE WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN WWII.

Maybe it's time to learn a little REAL HISTORY?

The "batshit insane" theory continues to accumulate evidence.

You're basically looking for any excuse to blame the US for everything in order to justify your absurd numbers, and in the process are absolving the major actors in these events of their responsibility for them.

I'm under zero illusions as to the evil nature of the post-Teddy Roosevelt American Empire, but I don't need to make shit up in order to make that case. The lengths to which you are going to minimize the historically great atrocities of Islam are breathtaking.

[Ender]

I didn't spend much time in public education, asshole. I've studied WWI in depth; I'm well aware of the US selling arms to the Allies, you insufferable little shit. That doesn't mean the US is to blame for the bloodbath, any more than a gun seller is responsible for murders committed by thugs who buy their guns. There's nothing there or in any historical document or analysis that justifies the outrageous claim that it would have been a quick and painless war if not for the US.

Calling names is certainly your forte'.


Behind the Sinking of the Lusitania
By Patrick J. Buchanan
About how America became involved in certain wars, many conspiracy theories have been advanced — and some have been proved correct.
When James K. Polk got his declaration of war as Mexico had “shed American blood upon the American soil,” Rep. Abraham Lincoln demanded to know the exact spot where it had happened.
And did the Spanish really blow up the battleship Maine in Havana Harbor, the casus belli for the Spanish-American War?
The Gulf of Tonkin Incident, involving U.S. destroyers Maddox and C. Turner Joy, remains in dispute. But charges that North Vietnamese patrol boats had attacked U.S. warships on the high seas led to the 1964 resolution authorizing the war in Vietnam.
In 2003, Americans were stampeded into backing an invasion of Iraq because Saddam Hussein had allegedly been complicit in 9/11, had weapons of mass destruction and was able to douse our East Coast with anthrax.
“(He) lied us into war because he did not have the political courage to lead us into it,” said Rep. Clare Luce of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who, according to many historians, made efforts to provoke German subs into attacking U.S. warships and bring us into the European war through the “back door” of a war with Japan.
This week marks the 75th anniversary of World War II, as last month marked the 100th anniversary of World War I.

Thus, it is a good time for Eugene Windchy’s “Twelve American Wars: Nine of Them Avoidable.” A compelling chapter in this new book, by the author of “Tonkin Gulf,” deals with how Winston Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty, schemed to drag America into Britain’s war in 1915.

In 1907, Britain launched the Lusitania, “the greyhound of the sea,” the fastest passenger ship afloat. In 1913, Churchill called in the head of Cunard and said Lusitania would have to be refitted for a war he predicted would break out in September 1914.

The Lusitania, writes Windchy, was “refitted as a cargo ship with hidden compartments to hold shells and other munitions. By all accounts there were installed revolving gun mounts.”

On Aug. 4, 1914, after war was declared, Lusitania went back into dry dock. More space was provided for cargo, and the vessel was now carried on Cunard’s books as “an auxiliary cruiser.”

Churchill visited the ship in dry dock and referred to Lusitania as “just another 45,000 tons of live bait.”
When war began, German submarine captains, to save torpedoes, would surface and permit the crews of cargo ships to scramble into lifeboats, and then they would plant bombs or use gunfire to sink the vessels.

Churchill’s response was to outfit merchant ships with hidden guns, order them to ram submarines, and put out “Q-ships,” disguised as merchant ships, which would not expose their guns until submarines surfaced.

German naval commanders began to order submarines to sink merchant ships on sight.
First Sea Lord Sir John (“Jackie”) Fisher said he would have done the same.

Churchill, seeing an opportunity to bring America into Britain’s war, wrote the Board of Trade: “It is most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores, in the hope especially of embroiling the United States with Germany. … We want the traffic — the more the better — and if some of it gets into trouble, the better still.”

Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan wanted to warn Americans not to travel aboard British ships. But President Woodrow Wilson, writes Windchy, “said that American citizens had a right to travel on belligerent ships with impunity, even within a war zone,” a defiance of common sense and an absurd interpretation of international law.

On May 1, 1915, Lusitania set sail from New York. As Windchy writes, the ship “secretly carried munitions and Canadian troops in civilian clothes, which legally made it fair game for (German) U-boats.

“After the war, Churchill … admitted that the Lusitania carried a ‘small consignment of rifle ammunition and shrapnel shells weighing 173 tons.’ New York Customs Collector Dudley Malone told President Wilson that ’practically all her cargo was contraband of various kinds.'”
Future Secretary of State Robert Lansing knew that British passenger ships carried war materiel. German diplomats in New York warned American passengers they were in danger on the Lusitania. And instead of sailing north of Ireland to Liverpool, the Lusitania sailed to the south, into waters known to be the hunting ground of German submarines.

Lusitania blew up and sank in 18 minutes. Munitions may have caused the secondary explosion when the torpedo hit. Some 1,200 people perished, including 128 Americans. America was on fire, ready for war when the next incidents occurred, as they would in 1917 with the sinking of U.S. merchant ships in similar waters.

Had Wilson publicly warned U.S. citizens not to sail on the ships of belligerent nations and forbidden U.S.-flagged merchant ships to carry contraband to nations at war, America might have stayed out of the war, which might have ended in a truce, not a German defeat.

There might have been no Adolf Hitler and no World War II.

[Ender]

The "batshit insane" theory continues to accumulate evidence.

You're basically looking for any excuse to blame the US for everything in order to justify your absurd numbers, and in the process are absolving the major actors in these events of their responsibility for them.

I'm under zero illusions as to the evil nature of the post-Teddy Roosevelt American Empire, but I don't need to make shit up in order to make that case. The lengths to which you are going to minimize the historically great atrocities of Islam are breathtaking.

Here's some more "made up shit" for you:




The House of Morgan Floats Billions to Allies
England and France weren’t economically prepared to fight such a massive war, and both countries quickly used up all their capital resources and found themselves in debt. Unable to secure any additional loans from within their borders, the Allied powers turned to wealthy American banking families. In 1915, they signed contracts with the Houses of Morgan and Rothschild, which then began to loan millions of dollars to England and France each day. The Allies then chose these American banking families – the very families that lent them the money in the first place – as their purchasing agents. In just a few months time, the House of Morgan was the primary financier and purchasing agent of the entire Allied war effort. While maintaining that he was “opposed to war,” J.P. Morgan pocketed a cool $30,000,000 through his enterprises with England and France alone.

Despite all this financial help from U.S. banking interests, the situation quickly turned against the Allies. German U-boat submarines were dominating naval warfare in the Atlantic, and Britain, as an island country, found it increasingly hard to ship and receive vital supplies. Griffin notes that between 1914 and 1918, one out of every four British ships that sailed away from England was destroyed by the German Navy, and he then quotes British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour as saying, “At that time, it certainly looked as though we were going to lose the war.”

You can imagine Morgan’s dissatisfaction with this new situation. If it looked like the Allies were going to lose the war, who would continue to buy war bonds? If things kept up, there would no longer be sufficient funds to continue to finance the war, which would inevitably cause an Allied defeat. This, in turn, would render the existing war bonds worthless, and so not only would the House of Morgan stop earning new commissions, but it would also lose its entire investment of billions of dollars. It seems obvious, then, that the most powerful American banking and business empires had much to gain from U.S. entry into the war and thus vigorously advocated such involvement, for an Allied victory would effectively save the Morgan empire from total bankruptcy.

Government Comes to the Rescue

A man named Colonel Edward House served as a bridge that connected the Allies, Morgan, and President Woodrow Wilson. Formally occupying the position of Wilson’s personal adviser, House clearly saw that by bailing out the House of Morgan through war, Wilson and the federal government in general would enjoy great increases of power and influence. House then began to negotiate an arrangement for a U.S. Declaration of war in 1916 while President Wilson looked the other way and continued to campaign on his slogan of “keeping America out of war.”

Why would Wilson want to wage war and lie to the American people? He clearly wasn’t in it for the money like House or Morgan. Recall that Wilson’s political dream was a central world government; he was an internationalist’s internationalist. Only through such a large and extreme conflict could the conditions for such an international government ever be developed and accepted by the American people. Wilson went to war in hopes that when the U.S. won, he would be in the supreme position of writing the peace treaty and forming his League of Nations.

Selling the War

How did it all go down? Well now that Wilson was committed to going to war, he had to find a way to sell it to a public that wanted to avoid the “European War” at all costs. Wilson, recognizing that he couldn’t succeed by telling the truth, waited until he was reelected as an anti-war democrat and then began to go to work. Together with Morgan, he embarked on the most massive propaganda campaign that the U.S. had ever seen. In addition to owning thousands of newspapers and magazines (many purchased by the fruits of his war-profiteering), Morgan also enjoyed a considerable degree of influence over a great majority of American media networks. Consequently, after Wilson’s reelection in 1916, thousands of newspapers unsurprisingly and gradually began to print propaganda designed to demonize Germany and drum up support for American involvement in "protecting democracy." While this unrelenting propaganda machine did indeed have some success in eroding isolationist attitudes and molding popular opinion, it didn’t have the far-reaching effects that Morgan and Wilson had envisioned, for the majority of Americans were still anti-war. Something had to be done.

The Lusitania Goes Down

Morgan was also involved with shipping goods during the war. He had only one formidable competitor in the shipping industry: the British owned Cunard Company. Morgan previously tried to purchase this company, but the British refused so that they could outfit British shipping vessels for military use should the need arise. Needless to say, the need arose, and the Cunard company began to militarize its ships and enter them into the British Admiralty fleet register as warships and armed merchantmen. One of these vessels was called The RMS Lusitania, which had been converted from a full passenger liner to a military cargo transport that also carried passengers. As a result, the Lusitania’s captain resigned in 1915, saying he was unwilling to command a warship that used unsuspecting passengers as human shields.

Not all navy officials or politicians were as considerate, however. Winston Churchill, then the First Lord of the Admiralty, began to play politics in attempt to bait the Germans. He ordered all British cargo ships to act as passenger liners and fly the U.S. flag. Furthermore he ordered that no British ship should stop and allow itself to be searched by the Germans; instead, they were to ignore warnings in order to provoke the Germans into taking them out. This was cold blooded strategy, but it worked. As he explained at the time, “The Maneuver which brings an ally into the field is as serviceable as that which wins a great battle.”

It might seem obvious by now what happened to the Lusitania. The German’s knew that it was being loaded with military cargo and ammunitions as well as passengers. They filed complaints to Wilson’s government that went ignored. Frustrated with the lack of cooperation from the U.S. government, the German embassy paid for hundreds of advertisements in U.S. Newspapers saying the following:

NOTICE!
TRAVELLERS intending to embark on the Atlantic voyage are reminded that a state of war exists between Germany and her allies and Great Britain and her allies; that the zone of war includes the waters adjacent to the British Isles; that, in accordance with formal notice given by the Imperial German Government, vessels flying the flag of Great Britain, or any of her allies, are liable to destruction in those waters and that travelers sailing in the war zone on the ships of Great Britain or her allies do so at their own risk.
IMPERIAL GERMAN EMBASSY, Washington, D.C. April 22, 1915

But recall that Morgan owned many newspapers and Wilson had considerable influence over those Morgan did not own outright. As a result, only one paper in Iowa printed the notice. William Jennings Bryan, Wilson’s Secretary of State, knew what was going on. He personally met with Wilson and urged him to warn American’s traveling across the Atlantic of the extreme danger they faced as passengers on military warships. Wilson issued no such warning.

The Lusitania was attacked on May 7, 1915, after it’s escort ship, the RMS Juno, never arrived to protect it. All evidence shows that the German torpedo induced a second, much larger explosion that sank the vessel in a matter of minutes. This second explosion was undoubtedly the result of the torpedo’s contact with the millions of rounds of live ammunition that the Lusitania was carrying, but the government never mentioned this in its initial history. Instead, Wilson and Morgan propagandized the incident and wrote about how the evil and monstrous German’s killed American women and children. After this, popular support for the war was widespread, and the rest, as they say, is history.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2006/02/blake-masters/the-lusitania-is-down-orhowtosellawar/

[enhanced_deficit]

If I had to bet on it I'd say he very likely is a Muslim. But that's the least of my concerns about Obama.

This is very open minded approach if you can bet that Obama is an Islamic man and that does not concern you.

[TheCount]

Without painting all Muslims with a broad brush, and all Muslims are definitely not all the same, what about Salafi Jihadist Sunni Muslims whose basic religious tenet is to convert or kill all "infidels"?

Without painting all members of Ron Paul Forums with a broad brush, what about members of this forum who hold the same basic religious tenets?