UNC Shootings....Hate Crimes or Random Targeted Violence?

[EvilMonkey]

While we're up with it, Islamic Center in Houston burned by arsonist today.

50-50 it was an inside job. Would not be the first time a Muslim damaged their own centers, faked a crime and so on to gain attention, push an agenda, etc.

[Texsox]

yep, can't trust them. Zero evidence for that btw.

[EvilMonkey]

yep, can't trust them. Zero evidence for that btw.

 

Not like it hasn't been done before. And as usual, CAIR and other blowhards who scream 'Islamophobia' never say a word once it was proven that the incident they got their panties in a wad over was false.

 

 

A 47-year-old Moroccan imam who was caught vandalizing his own mosque with anti-Islamic statements has been fined 1000 Euros and expelled from France, La Republique reports.

http://www.dailystormer.com/arab-imam-caug...ed-from-france/

 

Asif Mohammad Khan, 28, who is Muslim, was arrested the day of the burglaries and vandalism at the Fresno Digestive Center, 7405 N. Fresno St., and the Islamic Cultural Center near Nees and Maple avenues.

http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/12/27/430392...1#storylink=cpy

 

McALLEN, Tex., Sept. 29 - The owner of a Middle Eastern meat market who had said he was the victim of a hate crime in this border town was arrested and arraigned Tuesday on a felony arson charge that he set fire to his own business.

 

The man, Amjad Abunar, had complained that "Go Home" was twice spray-painted on a door of his Al Madinah Market before a fire on Aug. 6 that gutted the small delicatessen. Only last week, the graffiti and fire were cited as evidence by a Washington advocacy group that hate crimes against Muslims were on the rise in Texas(False but true, eh? )

http://www.webcitation.org/mainframe.php

 

EL CAJON — The eight-month investigation into the beating death of an Iraqi woman in her El Cajon dining room has led to the arrest of her husband, police announced Friday, putting to rest any notion that the mother of five was the victim of a hate crime.

 

http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http:...date=2013-07-17

 

 

[Texsox]

Zero evidence that the guy shot the people for being Muslim.

This evidence that they torched their own building?

 

 

Really?

[EvilMonkey]

Zero evidence that the guy shot the people for being Muslim.

This evidence that they torched their own building?

 

 

Really?

Tex, I like you but you have to really stop this. I NEVER SAID they torched their own building. I said I would bet 50-50 that they did. You said that doesn't happen, I showed you instances where they have damaged their own stuff/hurt their own people and claimed Islamophobia. Read and quit trying changing words in your replies to make things seem better or worse.

[caulfield12]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/14/europe/denma...ting/index.html

 

More terror/cartoonist-related attacks in Europe....this time in Denmark.

[Texsox]

Tex, I like you but you have to really stop this. I NEVER SAID they torched their own building. I said I would bet 50-50 that they did. You said that doesn't happen, I showed you instances where they have damaged their own stuff/hurt their own people and claimed Islamophobia. Read and quit trying changing words in your replies to make things seem better or worse.

 

I didn't say there was no chance, I said there was no evidence. Unlike the shooting where there is actual evidence.

 

You would bet 50-50 on them torching their own building but fight anyone that says there is a chance the guy shot those other people over religion. You have direct quotes from the guy being explicit he is against religions. You have nothing on the bombing. Why are the bombers 50-50 and the shooter 0?

[EvilMonkey]

I didn't say there was no chance, I said there was no evidence. Unlike the shooting where there is actual evidence.

 

You would bet 50-50 on them torching their own building but fight anyone that says there is a chance the guy shot those other people over religion. You have direct quotes from the guy being explicit he is against religions. You have nothing on the bombing. Why are the bombers 50-50 and the shooter 0?

And I believe I clarified that I said there was so far no evidence that he singled them out because of one specific religion. Being a godless liberal atheist it is clear he hated all religions. But to say he singled them out because of Islam, so far, would be wrong. Is gther a chance? Always a chance.

 

Oh, here is yet another case of Muslims making s*** up to play the victim game.

http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2015/02/mu...tened-her.html/

 

A UT-Arlington student who claimed she was threatened at gunpoint on campus this week admitted Friday that she’d lied, a university spokeswoman said....The student also posted on social media that the man might have targeted her because she is Muslim. In a Facebook post, she referred to the killings of three Muslim students this week in Chapel Hill, N.C.

[StrangeSox]

Bill Maher and Sam Harris are two godless liberal atheists who nonetheless speak more strongly against Islam than other religions.

[Texsox]

The key difference you are missing is on one hand we have a specific individual involved who has made anti religious statements, and you believe that does not mean anything. On the other hand you point out other people not involved in this case to prove that a totally different group may have torched their own place.

 

How can you ignore statements by the person involved but cite as evidence in a different case people not even involved? Your evidence that they may have torched their own building is other Muslims have done it. Other killers have murdered Muslims over religion. If I post a list of people who have killed Muslims because of religion would that change your mind about the shooting?

 

or another way

 

Shooting case? Zero evidence he shot them over religion. He said it was about a parking space and that's good enough. You ignore the shooters own statements.

Arson case? Those Muslims are always making this stuff up. 50-50 they did it themselves.

 

Be consistent.

 

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Bill Maher and Sam Harris are two godless liberal atheists who nonetheless speak more strongly against Islam than other religions.

 

I mean, have you been reading the news the last decade?

[caulfield12]

I mean, have you been reading the news the last decade?

 

 

If there were newspapers during the Inquisition, wouldn't the headlines have looked even worse?

[EvilMonkey]

The key difference you are missing is on one hand we have a specific individual involved who has made anti religious statements, and you believe that does not mean anything. On the other hand you point out other people not involved in this case to prove that a totally different group may have torched their own place.

 

How can you ignore statements by the person involved but cite as evidence in a different case people not even involved? Your evidence that they may have torched their own building is other Muslims have done it. Other killers have murdered Muslims over religion. If I post a list of people who have killed Muslims because of religion would that change your mind about the shooting?

 

or another way

 

Shooting case? Zero evidence he shot them over religion. He said it was about a parking space and that's good enough. You ignore the shooters own statements.

Arson case? Those Muslims are always making this stuff up. 50-50 they did it themselves.

 

Be consistent.

Zero evidence, so far, he shot them SPECIFICALLY because they were Muslim. I know you can read. And the shooter has offered statements against all religions, and religion in general. He hasn't just singled out one for his scorn.

 

And I didn't present evidence that they DID make it up. YOU said not likely. I showed you cases where it did happen and offered my OPINION that I thought it was even money they did it themselves. And I have told you both of these at least twice now.

 

So once again, zero evidence that he shot them because he specifically hated Islam. Hating all religions and shooting someone because of that is different that 'Islamophobia'. But don't let that detract from the narrative that Muslims are always the victims because of their religion.

[caulfield12]

Zero evidence, so far, he shot them SPECIFICALLY because they were Muslim. I know you can read. And the shooter has offered statements against all religions, and religion in general. He hasn't just singled out one for his scorn.

 

And I didn't present evidence that they DID make it up. YOU said not likely. I showed you cases where it did happen and offered my OPINION that I thought it was even money they did it themselves. And I have told you both of these at least twice now.

 

So once again, zero evidence that he shot them because he specifically hated Islam. Hating all religions and shooting someone because of that is different that 'Islamophobia'. But don't let that detract from the narrative that Muslims are always the victims because of their religion.

 

 

1) He hasn't targeted any Christians before in the neighborhood, even though they comprise roughly 90% of the North Carolina population.

2) He's never said anything specifically anti-Christian, although any of his FB comments can be considered to be anti-Muslim by their context.

3) Dawkins, his role model, has been outspoken against Islam specifically

4) Interjecting the arson comparisons have zero relevance to this particular situation. Let's put it this way...if our own children were Muslim and they were executed in this fashion by this particular lunatic, I think it would be hard to convince us that religion wasn't at least a POSSIBLE factor.

 

In the last couple of days, there was ALSO a fire in Alabama with McCants' $1.5 million home. Does that mean all NFL football players set their homes ablaze to collect the insurance money? I'd say there's better odds in those cases (when the player is having financial problems) than the fire being deliberately set to provoke anti-American sentiment within the Muslim-American community.

 

Or do we want to say 50% of the time a crime is committed, that a white victim is likely to blame a minority for doing it to cover themselves?

Edited February 15, 2015 by caulfield12

[EvilMonkey]

1) He hasn't targeted any Christians before in the neighborhood, even though they comprise roughly 90% of the North Carolina population.

2) He's never said anything specifically anti-Christian, although any of his FB comments can be considered to be anti-Muslim by their context.

3) Dawkins, his role model, has been outspoken against Islam specifically

4) Interjecting the arson comparisons have zero relevance to this particular situation. Let's put it this way...if our own children were Muslim and they were executed in this fashion by this particular lunatic, I think it would be hard to convince us that religion wasn't at least a POSSIBLE factor.

 

In the last couple of days, there was ALSO a fire in Alabama with McCants' $1.5 million home. Does that mean all NFL football players set their homes ablaze to collect the insurance money? I'd say there's better odds in those cases (when the player is having financial problems) than the fire being deliberately set to provoke anti-American sentiment within the Muslim-American community.

 

Or do we want to say 50% of the time a crime is committed, that a white victim is likely to blame a minority for doing it to cover themselves?

On #1, he has had altercations with everyone in the neighborhood.

 

On #2 'can be considered' is a lot different than 'I hate those God Damned Muslimns'.

 

On #3, if you are going to guilt by association, don't forget the SPLC which he also liked, who has been anti CHristian, anti Tea Party and anti Republican.

 

On #4, that was on a tangent relating to the post about the fire. I didn't interject it first, someone else did. I offered my comment on it, and then Tex blended them in one response.

 

[Texsox]

Zero evidence, so far, he shot them SPECIFICALLY because they were Muslim. I know you can read. And the shooter has offered statements against all religions, and religion in general. He hasn't just singled out one for his scorn.

 

And I didn't present evidence that they DID make it up. YOU said not likely. I showed you cases where it did happen and offered my OPINION that I thought it was even money they did it themselves. And I have told you both of these at least twice now.

 

So once again, zero evidence that he shot them because he specifically hated Islam. Hating all religions and shooting someone because of that is different that 'Islamophobia'. But don't let that detract from the narrative that Muslims are always the victims because of their religion.

 

Zero evidence they torched their own business, yet you call the odds 50-50.

Evidence he hated religion, yet you call it zero evidence he killed them because of their religion.

 

How can you not see the hypocrisy?

[Balta1701]

50-50 it was an inside job. Would not be the first time a Muslim damaged their own centers, faked a crime and so on to gain attention, push an agenda, etc.

Alarming allegations are being made against the man accused of setting fire to a Houston Islamic center.

 

After Darryl Ferguson, 55, walked into court for a probable cause hearing Tuesday, prosecutors revealed new, disturbing details about the arson suspect.

 

Ferguson is accused of burning the Quba Islamic Institute on FM 1959.

 

Ferguson told KPRC 2 he was only trying to keep warm, but the district attorney's office said Ferguson may have revealed a more sinister motive to a convenience store clerk after the fire.

 

"He told a nearby convenience store clerk that he hated Muslims, they got what they deserved, and things happen for a reason," a county clerk said during Ferguson's court appearance.

Link.

 

I should have taken you up on those odds.

[EvilMonkey]

Link.

 

I should have taken you up on those odds.

You snooze you lose.

[caulfield12]

Or it simply means the next time arson is claimed/insinuated it has to be the correct call.

[EvilMonkey]

Or it simply means the next time arson is claimed/insinuated it has to be the correct call.

You obviously don't understand probability and statistics because each events probability is independent of the prior events outcome. You probably bet red on roulette when you see there has been 3 black in a row, too, because it is 'due'.

[caulfield12]

You obviously don't understand probability and statistics because each events probability is independent of the prior events outcome. You probably bet red on roulette when you see there has been 3 black in a row, too, because it is 'due'.

 

It would probably be 50%, lol, although odds say getting four in a row would be 6.25%

 

At any rate, I guess you missed the humor.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

It would probably be 50%, lol, although odds say getting four in a row would be 6.25%

 

At any rate, I guess you missed the humor.

 

It's not. It's roughly 47%.

[Jake]

Bayesian statistics disagree with some of the statistical assertions made in here!