Beltway sniper is Muslim

Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by jimnyc, Oct 21, 2003.

  1. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    "It came as no surprise to learn that the lead suspect as the Washington, D.C.,--area sniper is John Allen Muhammad, an African-American who converted to Islam about 17 years ago. Nor that seven years ago he provided security for Louis Farrakhan's "Million Man March." Even less does it amaze that he reportedly sympathized with the 9/11 attacks carried out by militant Islamic elements. All this was near-predictable because it fits into a well-established tradition of American blacks who convert to Islam turning against their country."
    ****************

    And this guy is defending himself in court on the murder charges. You know what they say about having a fool for a client!
     
  2. janeeng
    Online

    janeeng Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Figures, but already heard that. What ever happened to the other trador?? the one from California??? can't remember the slimes name.
     
  3. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    My understanding is that Farrakhan's Nation of Islam is to mainstream Islam what David Koresh's cult is to Christianity: a wacky spinoff cult that bears little resemblance to the actual religion.
     
  4. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    I agree, Jeff. I was more interested in his "sympathy" with those involved in the 9/11 attacks and the ensuing acts he himself committed, I can't help but wonder if his thought process somehow connected the 2.
     
  5. Man of 1951
    Online

    Man of 1951 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    yeah what he did was a tragedy, but i don't see how that relates in the "Muslim" forum. Unless you're implying something.
     
  6. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Because he was "Muslim" is why it was posted in this forum. Should I have posted it in the France forum?

    I'm implying that he committed murders. I'm implying he seemed to have sided with terrorists.

    If it was an Iraqi, I would have posted it in that forum with the same thoughts.
     
  7. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Interesting reading from Ann Coulter. Read some stories on this guy and then tell me I'm crazy for linking "muslim" and "sniper" together to make anti-american.
    *********

    AFTER ALL THE speculation about the sniper terrorizing Maryland and Virginia, at last we have some cold hard facts. He is a Muslim. He converted to Islam 17 years ago. He changed his name to John Muhammad. He belonged to Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam. He cheered the terrorist attack of Sept. 11. He registered his getaway vehicle with the DMV on the anniversary of Sept. 11 – writing down the time of registration as 8:52 a.m.

    Naturally, therefore, the mainstream media have decided the crucial, salient fact about sniper John Muhammad is that he is a Gulf War veteran. Thus, the New York times described the snipers as: "John Allen Muhammad, 41, a Gulf War veteran, and John Lee Malvo, 17, a Jamaican."

    They are now hot on the trail of whether Osama bin Laden ever served with the U.S. military in the Gulf War.

    To review recent events, last year, 19 Muslims slaughtered thousands of Americans on U.S. soil. Since then, one Muslim tried to blow up a U.S. commercial jet with a shoe bomb and another Muslim shot up Los Angeles airport. The Religion of Peace has also been active abroad, decapitating an American journalist and blowing up a French tanker. In the last few weeks alone, Muslims bombed a nightclub in Bali and were narrowly prevented from slaughtering hundreds of theater-goers in Moscow.

    Inasmuch as the nation is at war with Islamic terrorists, you might think it would be of passing interest that the sniper is a Muslim. But you need a New York Times decoder ring to figure out that GULF WAR VETERAN John Muhammad is a Muslim. The main clue is the Times' repeated insistence that Islam had absolutely nothing to do with the shootings.

    Wrestling with the freakish development that a practitioner of the Religion of Peace is a killer, the Times has even rushed to print with the completely unsubstantiated speculation that John Muhammad had recently rejected Islam. Experts explained that a "rapid and bizarre change in religious beliefs" is common among "serial killers." One doctor said a change in religious beliefs before committing violent crimes is "a fairly well-known phenomenon in clinical psychiatry," adding that he "was not diagnosing Mr. Muhammad's condition."

    His condition? He's a Muslim. That's his condition and his diagnosis. It may be time to update the DSM-IV by adding "Jihad Impulse-Control Disorder" to its index of official diagnoses.

    In addition to copious articles intimating that John Muhammad was practically not even a Muslim, the media have universally concluded that there is "no evidence" connecting him to al-Qaida. Of course, it will be difficult to find any evidence, having instantly pronounced the case closed.

    In one hard-hitting investigative piece on Muhammad, for example, the Times produced amazing details from his life, including conversations with relatives, neighbors, friends and ex-girlfriends. The article droned on about how he met one ex-girlfriend – her job, her hobbies, her hopes and dreams. But when she said, "We stopped talking after he asked me about religion," the Times dropped the subject and moved on to the next topic.

    After weeks of blithe theorizing that the sniper was an "angry white male" – based on invidious and offensive stereotypes – aren't we entitled to a little theorizing about Muhammad's terrorist ties? There is surely more evidence that he was a member of al-Qaida than that he abandoned Islam before carrying out the sniper attacks.

    Emerging as al-Qaida's leading spokesman in America, the Times has also blacked out the information that the terrorists who seized a Moscow theater last week were practitioners of the Religion of Peace.

    I note again: America is at war with Islamic fanatics. But in a prolix front-page article about the "hostage siege" in Russia, the Times referred to the Islamic fanatics who stormed the theater exclusively as the "captors," the "separatists" and the "guerrillas." One searches in vain for a clear statement that the Moscow hostage crisis was yet another enterprise of the Religion of Peace.

    The only hint that the "captors" were even Muslims was the Times' dismissive description of Russian President Vladimir Putin's reaction to the terrorists' demands. Instead of acquiescing, Putin "cho(se) to cast the rebels as international Islamic terrorists." The Times knows a cheap political ploy when it sees one.

    In one of the oddest attempts to soften depictions of Islam – the one religion the media respects – the Times has apparently banned the word "burka" from its pages. (Burkas have gotten such a bad name recently!) Instead, one reads only about the "burka-style gowns" of the Islamic terrorists in Moscow or the "burka-like robes" of women in Bahrain. (How about: The swastika-like adornment on the skinhead's forearm.)

    Not to be outdone by the Times, CNN has valiantly insisted on calling John Muhammad by his Christian name. The night the snipers' names were first released, CNN's Jeanne Meserve repeatedly called Muhammad two names he does not answer to: "Here are the names. John Allen Williams, aka Muhammad Williams, and also a John Lee Malvo." Williams isn't his name. It's not even "Muhammad Williams." It is John Allen Muhammad.

    After assuring viewers "we will deal with this carefully," Aaron Brown summed up Meserve's report, saying, "We will say again that these two men, John Allen Williams and John Malvo – and I'm not clear on the spelling on Malvo ..." While telling whoppers about Muhammad's name, he's fretting about spelling issues.

    The next night Brown slipped and mistakenly called Muhammad by his actual name. He was quickly corrected by Kelli Arena:

    BROWN: "And then it was sometime later that they got the second name, Muhammad or Williams, I guess."

    ARENA: "Right, Williams."

    Perhaps CNN should go whole hog and start describing Muhammad as a member of the "religious right" whose name is "Jerry Falwell."
     
  8. Man of 1951
    Online

    Man of 1951 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    So why don't you create a christian forum, and under that I'll list the atrocities of hiroshima, vietnam war, south american and central american death squads and the overthrows of democratic governments. Along with timothy, KKK members and all of the other christian rapists, murderers, and thiefs in america and abroad. No you shouldn't have posted it in the France forum either, i would have thought USA General would have been good.

    you know its funny how she doesn't say this explicitly, but its obvious of her hatred against the islamic religion. This hatred as obviously blinded her from realizing any logic whatsoever. Shall we call Christianity the Religion of Peace as i lay down the facts of all the christian murderers in the world?
     
  9. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Because this is a board about the USA, terrorism and how the world has been effected since 9/11. Try reading the main page of this site. If you want to create another forum, I suggest you purchase a bulletin board and a domain name.

    Christian rapists? Show me where these rapists do their dirty work in the name of God. Show me where thieves steal in the name of God.

    This sniper is Muslim. He sympathized with the attackers of 9/11. It's quite obvious he is another Muslim fanatic. Yes, this is in the correct forum.

    Her feelings aside, the facts are the facts. Sure, she puts her spin on things, but if you ignore her spin you'll see the facts: Muhammad is a Muslim fanatic killing as a result of 9/11 and ensuing actions.

    If you want to talk about christianity and christianity murderers, find another board! You'll come back and claim freedom of speech now, but thats bullshit. Bringing up irrelevant acts doesn't do anything to argue the case for Muhammad. I notice you have a tendency to bring up other people in comparison for all your arguments. Do you realize this does absolutely nothing to support your defense of these people? All you are trying to do is change the subject, and since we are in a Muslim forum I suggest we stick to the topic on hand.
     
  10. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    You know what, just so that I don't have to hear you whine, feel free to start a topic in the newly created "Anti-USA" section about "Christian rapists, Christian Murderers & Christian thieves" I'll be happy to discuss that with you.

    Also, in that section you can explain to us how you feel Vietnam, Hiroshima, death squads & overthrow of governments were acts committed by Christians.
     

Share This Page