patrick.net

Obligatory:

Thunderlips is Tovbot2 says

An knife-wielding assailant was shot dead at OSU's Columbus campus Monday morning

Fire alarm was pulled at Watts Hall just before 10am and attacker mowed down evacuating students and staff with his car

He then got out of the vehicle and started slashing victims with a knife

Hillary Clinton was right. This has nothing to do with Islam and is clearly the result of violent video games like Grand Theft Auto. I'd be surprise if the terrorist didn't punch a hooker as well.

Ban video games, not Islam! Also keep torture centers open because only fictional violence is offensive.

www.youtube.com/embed/d3GTJOZLaPY

Dan8267 says

Hillary Clinton

Actually, even Hillary Clinton acknowledged that lethal terrorism "is clearly rooted in Islamic thinking," but she proposed to import more than 60,000 jihadis/year on behalf of her "moderate" Saudi sponsors, and then increase mass surveillance to spy on everyone in order to figure out who is following Islam (e.g., Koran chapter 8, "the worst of beasts in the sight of Allah are those who reject Him: They will not believe...strike terror into the enemies of Allah...."). It's discouraging that a candidate won the popular vote despite having (a) been highly paid by a foreign power, (b) supported a chronicle of wars elevating the interests of that power over American interests, and (c) campaigned on escalating those wars and importing people who say expressly they believe in killing us. The only worse popular vote in recent history was 2004, when GW Bush won a second term despite a distressingly similar record.

"Artan is reportedly a Somali refugee who fled his home country in 2007, moving first to Pakistan with his family before coming to America in 2014 and gaining legal permanent resident status. His age has not been confirmed, but it has been reported by various outlets as 18 and 20. "

This would not have happened if Trump was President, because this wacko would not have been allowed into the US in the first place.
I urge Trump to ban anyone from terrorist countries coming to America, on his very first day in office.

curious2 says

Actually, even Hillary Clinton acknowledged that lethal terrorism "is clearly rooted in Islamic thinking,"

I stand corrected.

Strategist says

This would not have happened if Trump was President, because this wacko would not have been allowed into the US in the first place.

You got it. Now, a normal Media would be banging down the doors of the WH Press Office, demanding to know if Obama's policy on Syrian Refugees will continue as advertised.

For a couple of minutes there (it was first reported as a mass shooting), you could hear the SJWs:

Islam is a political movement which uses religion as cover.

Thunderlips is Tovbot2 says

Strategist says

This would not have happened if Trump was President, because this wacko would not have been allowed into the US in the first place.

You got it. Now, a normal Media would be banging down the doors of the WH Press Office, demanding to know if Obama's policy on Syrian Refugees will continue as advertised.

For a couple of minutes there, you could hear the SJWs:

This Allah loving SOB had the opportunity of a life time. Free home, food, education, and the chance to make something of himself. Instead he chose to go after the virgins. I am glad this Islamic rat is dead.

Alan Horujko, the Officer who stopped the Servant of the Most Merciful.

Unseen footage:
www.youtube.com/embed/7YyBtMxZgQs

Gee, I wonder where #ISIS got the idea to call for random knife attacks on civilians. Hey, Hamas, know anything about this?

rando says

Islam is a political movement which uses religion as cover.

I don't think it's possible to separate politics from religion. Religion is inherently political because the religious always believe in forcing their "righteous" religious beliefs on others. After all, it's their god's will. How can you question that?

Thunderlips is Tovbot2 says

Gee, I wonder where #ISIS got the idea to call for random knife attacks on civilians.

Thankfully, he only had a knife. If he had a gun, there would be a lot of dead people instead of just injuries.

He was screaming "DIE, INFIDELS, DIE, THE AMERICAN CALIPHATE BEGINS! ALLAH ACKBAR! BEHEAD THE INFIDELS!"

The liberal press characterized him as a "peace loving political refugee, looking for economic opportunity in the US and freedom for his family, while reacting under the oppressions of a judgmental American culture."

The Muslim Ummah is good! Somalians are good people! I will prove this by randomly stabbing people in the Name of the Most Merciful and Compassionate, showing Trump's rhetoric on refugees to be without basis.

Dan8267 says

rando says

Islam is a political movement which uses religion as cover.

I don't think it's possible to separate politics from religion. Religion is inherently political because the religious always believe in forcing their "righteous" religious beliefs on others. After all, it's their god's will. How can you question that?

Islam is uniquely political.

https://www.politicalislam.com/about/

Judaism does not try to impose Jewish law on others. Jesus explicitly differentiated between the religious and the political when he said: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"

Islam has no distinction between religious and political. It is the obligation of every Muslim to attempt to impose sharia law on every human on earth.

Also, it is usually possible to reason with Christians, because nothing in their doctrine says to kill you. To the contrary, it says to love you and to pray for you and not to kill you. There have certainly been exceptions, when Christianity has been combined with government, but those are exceptions rather than intrinsic doctrinal rules. Islam says to kill you if you don't submit to it. Specifically, Koran chapter 8 says to strike above your neck (and cut off your fingertips), which tends to cut short any possibility of reasoning together.

lefties so worried that it is a Jihadi and not a white male.

rando says

Judaism does not try to impose Jewish law on others.

No, but they do mix religion and politics and their laws are often purely religious nonsense. It even took several centuries for Jews to allow doctors to practice life-saving procedures on the Sabbath.

While there is little doubt that the Jewish people always healed and saved life on Shabbat, the ruling which allowed it came only after nearly three centuries of debate. Shabbat prohibitions were taken very seriously in Maccabean times. When one thousand strictly observant Jews, including women and children, were attacked by the Macedonians on the Sabbath, the Jews refused to fight in accordance with Sabbath law and, not surprisingly, all of them were killed.

After this tragedy, Mattathias the priest and Jewish leader at the time — he was the father of the famous Maccabee brothers — decreed that the Jews could defend themselves on the Sabbath day. Otherwise, he explained, their enemies would always attack on the Sabbath day and the Jewish people would cease to exist. This ruling was thus wholly pragmatic and sensible, and what you might expect. But it was not justified according to written Torah law.

rando says

Jesus explicitly differentiated between the religious and the political when he said: "Render unto Caesar..."

Obviously the Romans wouldn't have sanctioned Christianity if the leaders of the church didn't throw in that tidbit. Nonetheless, there are a plethora of "blue laws" that impose crazy Christian restrictions on basic freedoms and commerce in the U.S. today.

Islam is worse, but only because its followers have stronger faith.

lostand confused says

lefties so worried that it is a Jihadi and not a white male.

You'd think they would be worried that their "safe space" was violated, but I guess that doesn't count if it's not a white male doing the violation.

I wonder if this act of terrorism triggered anyone. Actually, me calling it terrorism would probably trigger someone. I am a straight CIS white male.

Ironman says

This argument applies to banning guns as well. If only a tiny percentage of gun owners murder people, we shouldn't allow gun owners. But wait, banning guns won't stop criminals from using them. Yeah, and banning Muslims won't stop Muslims from committing acts of terror. But both will make it a lot harder. It's about throwing up obstacles. Isn't it?

Dan8267 says

banning Muslims won't stop Muslims from committing acts of terror.

Stopping them from coming here would stop them from committing acts of terror here.

Also, the State Department should publish an official list of foreign places currently at war against us, e.g. expressly the Islamic State and reportedly Saudi Arabia. Congress should enact legislation stating that any person who chooses to travel to a listed place is thereby renouncing whatever right (s)he may ever have had to return here (visa, citizenship, whatever). Finally, offering everyone a free ticket to Hajj, and reminding everyone that Islam says believers must go to Hajj if they can afford to, would eventually get rid of Islamic terrorism from this country.

As an additional benefit, such policies would stop Muslims from imposing Islam on non-Muslims via other legal demands (e.g. dietary and workplace rules, and amplified calls to prayer 5x/day). It would be a quite logical response to say that believers are free to practice their religion, which says to go on Hajj, "Here have a free ticket, enjoy the trip, have a nice day."

If other countries choose to import Islam, then let that be their problem, not ours.

curious2 says

Stopping them from coming here would stop them from committing acts of terror here.

Kind of my point. Applies to Muslims, guns, and a lot of other things.

Dan8267 says

guns, and a lot of other things.

Respectfully, "where there's a will, there's a way." If you import people who have a compelling motive to kill you, and/or fail to export the ones who are already here, then security would require banning guns, knives, trucks, cars, fertilizer, ropes&rooftops, stones, and countless other means that have been used to kill people in the name of Islam. In addition, the presence of such people becomes an excuse to take away privacy rights, e.g. the emergency powers in France, which bans guns but allows Muslims. At the Bataclan, only the Muslims had guns. If you outlaw guns, then only the most motivated outlaws will have guns, and you can end up worse off as a result. A political platform of importing jihadis and disarming Christians would have been perfect for the Democrats' Saudi sponsors, but not for Americans.

Ironman says

99% Muslim, 43,000 Somali refugees settled in US under Obama.

Meanwhile, the administration set records for deporting Christians from south of the border. The crime rate for illegal aliens tends generally to approximate the crime rate for the domestic population, but the crime rate for Muslims tends to be significantly higher, and especially the terrorist kill rate is at least an order of magnitude higher.

Nothing happens against the will of Yahweh/Jehovah.
The question is:Why is GOD so pissed that a Muslim was allowed to commit this act.

Ironman says

Based on your thought process, we should ban cars, as approximately 100 people a day die from them, a hell of a lot more than guns. Where's your outrage about banning cars??

Everyone should be able to own anything that can maim or kill.
You maim or kill someone, YOU DIE NOW!
Rep/Con/Tea/Neo-Nazis motto: It's not my fault. I refuse to take responsibility.

HEY YOU says

Nothing happens against the will of Yahweh/Jehovah.

The question is:Why is GOD so pissed that a Muslim was allowed to commit this act.

Sadly, it's the devil Allah who is responsible for these acts.

If we're lookto ban things that are harmful, why not start with alcohol? At the very least, stop forcing the rest of us to subsidize all the harms alcohol wreaks on society.

errc says

armful, why not start with alcohol? At the very least, stop forcing the rest of us to subsidize all the harms alcohol wreaks on society.

It's been tried, didn't work.

errc says

If we're lookto ban things that are harmful, why not start with alcohol?

Moderate amounts of alcohol are good for you. What good is Islam?

HEY YOU says

Nothing happens against the will of Yahweh/Jehovah.

The question is:Why is GOD so pissed that a Muslim was allowed to commit this act?

So if you were an all powerful and all merciful God, you would prevent people from doing anything harmful to each other? Or immoral, too, I suppose. Or sacrilegious, or unlawful or rude or racist etc etc etc.
And we would all live in nice plastic bubbles of sterility lest we bump into one another and get boo-boos!

What a vision of Hell!
Good thing God isn't as short-sighted as you!

Quigley says

errc says

armful, why not start with alcohol? At the very least, stop forcing the rest of us to subsidize all the harms alcohol wreaks on society.

It's been tried, didn't work.

When did we try to allow alcohol consumers to pay their way? We've been subsidizing their costs forever.

If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. We have ~ a century of cannabis prohibition to use as a model for alcohol prohibition 2.0. Put everyone involved in prison, and seize all their money and property, and maybe they'd think twice before burdening society with their toxic substance and the resulting havoc they wreak on society.

errc says

When did we try to allow alcohol consumers to pay their way? We've been subsidizing their costs forever.

If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. We have ~ a century of cannabis prohibition to use as a model for alcohol prohibition 2.0. Put everyone involved in prison, and seize all their money and property, and maybe they'd think twice before burdening society with their toxic substance and the resulting havoc they wreak on society.

What about over eating. Society subsidizes the ill effects of health from over eating fattening food.

Liberal Logic 101:

What about it?

Quigley says

Good thing God isn't as short-sighted as you!

Not as bad as the braindead,brainwashed that believe in something that doesn't exist.
Post proof that any deity that man has ever worshiped existed.

Suckers are easily trolled.

Strategist says

What about over eating. Society subsidizes the ill effects of health from over eating fattening food

soda tax has been proposed in the recent past

curious2 says

Finally, offering everyone a free ticket to Hajj, and reminding everyone that Islam says believers must go to Hajj if they can afford to, would eventually get rid of Islamic terrorism from this country.

giving money to go away. Didn't they trying that in Denmark? wonder why they stopped

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1226698/Denmark-pay-immigrants-12-000-home-wont-assimilate.html

This morning:
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/29/503693426/police-search-for-motive-in-ohio-state-attack
"At the moment little is known about Artan. Authorities believe he acted alone but they do not know the motives behind the attack. "

A little later:
BREAKING: #ISIS’ ‘Amaq News Agency reports that #OhioState attacker Abdul Razak Artan was an ISIS “soldier” pic.twitter.com/1XQAQJXcSR
— Rita Katz (@Rita_Katz) November 29, 2016

zzyzzx is deplorable says

Sounds like no one died, except the terrorist, precisely because the terrorist did not have a gun. Had he had a gun like this asshole, dozens of innocent people would be dead.

Sounds like a great case for getting rid of guns.

Ironman says

No asshole, it's a great case for allowing more citizens to carry concealed, since cops can't be everywhere at every minute, since you can't prevent terrorists or loonies from roaming free.

There is no problem between citizens that isn't best solved by a good firefight in a mall.

zzyzzx is deplorable says

Liberal Logic 101:

The only way I would go with a weapons ban is if it included a ban on armed bodyguards except for high government officials.

That is, Ana de Rothschild, Hollywood Actors, would only be allowed to have protectors armed with knowledge of Judo or have pepper spray. They couldn't have any firearms, either.

MMR says

curious2 says

Finally, offering everyone a free ticket to Hajj, and reminding everyone that Islam says believers must go to Hajj if they can afford to, would eventually get rid of Islamic terrorism from this country.

giving money to go away. Didn't they trying that in Denmark? wonder why they stopped

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1226698/Denmark-pay-immigrants-12-000-home-wont-assimilate.html

That was a somewhat different program, offering to pay the equivalent of US$15k to repatriate any foreigner who didn't assimilate. It did not target Islam specifically, and AFAIK it did not include a lifetime ban on re-entry, because Denmark (a) doesn't have border control and (b) doesn't have NATO cooperation to speed Muslims to Hajj, and (c) doesn't have the global military reach to enforce a re-entry ban on its own.

Since President-Elect Trump campaigned on re-examining NATO, I would suggest two things:
1) expel Turkey from NATO, based on several already available legitimate reasons;
2) extend the free Hajj ticket and lifetime re-entry ban to all of NATO.
There is no need to offer $15k. Islam commands Muslims to go; if they refuse the free trip, they might as well renounce the whole fraud, which is the point. KSA bans "heretic" Muslims, so the opportunity to deliver heretics directly via NATO airlift would entice many who can't even go otherwise. Whatever happens after that is, according to Islam, the will of Allah. Which is to say, no longer our problem.