ISIS Gunman strikes Marine Recruiters

Started by Robtard8 pages
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So how is a Arab with a gun killing White marines not racist?

Because so far there is nothing to indicate that he shot the people because of their "race".

Compare that to the SC shootings, where the gunmen specifically did so.

No but Wilson was called a racist for shooting Brown.

Originally posted by Surtur
Speaking of drones I know someone who has one. Not a military drone obviously, they use it to take pictures and had it up in the clouds on the 4th of July taking photo's of fireworks at interesting angles.

He is a civilian, so it makes me wonder how long until we have civilians hooking up guns or other weapons to the drones they can buy? Since he already modded the drone(not for guns) but I'm thinking someone clever enough could probably rig something up.

YouTube video

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
No but Wilson was called a racist for shooting Brown.

Could it be because there's a very, very, very long history of violence against black people (esp men) in America that is racially based?

Or see OV's #2 point in his post.

GD Rob, I got his point.

This made me think of you, idk why.

Odd

Why are you shopping for a "No!No!"?

Originally posted by Robtard
Odd

Why are you shopping for a "No!No!"?

I heard in on the TV, I thought you might like it.

Right.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I think the US has had plenty of Jihad, more then people think or remember, we just all forget as well.

Here is the list
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/americanattacks.htm


Robtard basically addressed this. Whether 20 or 40 years, it's nothing compared to the history of racially motivated killings of blacks in America.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So how is a Arab with a gun killing White marines not racist?

Here's my question: if there had been a black guy or an Asian among the Marines, do you think the shooter would have spared them? If so, that's an assumption based on absolutely no evidence.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Robtard basically addressed this. Whether 20 or 40 years, it's nothing compared to the history of racially motivated killings of blacks in America.

Here's my question: if there had been a black guy or an Asian among the Marines, do you think the shooter would have spared them? If so, that's an assumption based on absolutely no evidence.

Of coarse not, but if it had been 4 black marines, then what?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Of coarse not, but if it had been 4 black marines, then what?

He probably would have killed them because they were marines.

But not labeled racist.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
But not labeled racist.

Because there's killings that are racially motivated and killings that aren't. Most people can differentiate between those.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Because there's killings that are racially motivated and killings that aren't. Most people can differentiate between those.

The killings of Michael Brown and Eric Garner were not racial motivated. However you still think they are.

Eric Garner not? Funny dude.

Why do they have to be white for it to be racist?

Guy specifically targetted a different group of people than himself. Whether that be because of race, religion, or just hailing from a different country there's a hate aspect to it. Really doesn't matter at that point what sort of place you want to file that under.

It doesn't.

By all accounts so far, he targeted a military installation.

Originally posted by One Big Mob
Why do they have to be white for it to be racist?

Guy specifically targetted a different group of people than himself. Whether that be because of race, religion, or just hailing from a different country there's a hate aspect to it. Really doesn't matter at that point what sort of place you want to file that under.

No one is denying that the attack was targeted against a specific group of individuals (soldiers), but racism has a definition. There's nothing wrong with pointing out that his actions don't align with the definition of racism.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
No one is denying that the attack was targeted against a specific group of individuals (soldiers), but racism has a definition. There's nothing wrong with pointing out that his actions don't align with the definition of racism.
It's a retarded schemantic though is what I'm saying. Does labeling it an act of hate really make a difference? As long as it wasn't racism it's fine.

Guy killed some American "enforcement" because they were against his bottom dawgs. I don't see why skin color really makes a difference in the amount of hate there. It wasn't racism, it was just based on severe hate because they differed from him!

Though not really sure in the first place how that would make this worse or better. Guy got sent in the murder "his" enemies, but it's worse because hate was involved in the motivation or something? I don't see the point in strong against or for "racism" in this case. Almost diminishes the actual act. Like when people call cold blooded murderers goofballs or bullies.

Flag's never went to half mass at the white house, and no call from the President to any of the family's.

Stark contrast to this.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/obama-joins-michael-brown-parents-calls-calm