http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/7/16/shooting-at-tennessee-college-reportedly-injures-police-officer.html
QuoteA gunman opened fire at two military facilities Thursday in Chattanooga, Tennessee, killing four Marines, according to law enforcement officials. The suspect also was killed.
Two others, a soldier and a police officer, were wounded, officials said.
“This is a nightmare for the city of Chattanooga,†said Mayor Andy Berke.
FBI officials in Knoxville identified the shooter as 24-year-old Mohammod Youssuf Abdulazeez. He was believed to have been born in Kuwait, and it was unclear whether he was a U.S. or Kuwaiti citizen, a U.S. official requesting anonymity told The Associated Press. He resided in Hixson, Tennessee, which is a few miles across the river from Chattanooga.
Although U.S. attorney Bill Killian initially called the killings an “act of domestic terrorism,†FBI officials said authorities were still investigating a motive.
A military official said the Marines were slain when shots were fired in a Navy reserve center in the city. The wounded Marine was hit by gunfire fired at an Armed Forces recruiting center not far away, the official said on condition of anonymity.
“Lives have been lost from some faithful people who have been serving our country, and I think I join all Tennesseans in being both sickened and saddened by this,†Gov. Bill Haslam said.
Witnesses and local media reports said the gunman, driving an open-top Ford Mustang, fired at two locations including a military recruiting center and a U.S. Navy Reserve center about six miles apart. Witnesses said they heard scores of shots.
Sgt. 1st Class Robert Dodge, 36, is the center leader for U.S. Army recruiting at the facility on Old Lee Highway. He said four Army personnel were in the office at the time. He said the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and National Guard all have their own offices right next to each other. Around 10:30 or 10:45 a.m., Dodge and the others heard a gunshot, “which kind of sparked our attention,†he said.
“Shortly after that, just a few seconds, the shooter began shooting more rounds. We realized it was an actual shooting,†he said. They then got on the ground and barricaded themselves in a safe place. Dodge estimated there were 30 to 50 shots fired.
He did not see the shooter or a vehicle.
Marilyn Hutcheson, who works at Binswanger Glass just across the street from the U.S. Naval Reserve building on Amnicola Highway, said she heard a barrage of gunfire around 11 a.m.
“I couldn't even begin to tell you how many,†she said. “It was rapid fire, like pow pow pow pow pow, so quickly. The next thing I knew, there were police cars coming from every direction.â€
Just like Charley, it was based on his Islamic religious belief of love.
It angers me how moments after photos were posted of the crime scene people were instantly jumping on the sign prohibiting firearms. Recruiting centers are run by federal personnel, just like it's unlawful to carry firearms into federal buildings. Had they been armed, odds are they would have still been slaughtered because let's face it, four people sitting at their desks still aren't fast enough to draw on someone who already has a weapon drawn. People are also criticizing the Army personnel for failing to do something. What they hell were they supposed to do? The way they responded to it is exactly how we were trained to handle an active shooter situation. I may need to stay away from social media for a while.
I watched a show last night that showed the amount of deaths by guns in three months that amounted to 8,000 deaths, most were accidental. With every Tom Dick and Harriet running around half cocked does not in anyway make us safer. I have 45 Para ordinance with blue tip glaziers for protection if I ever need it, but the odds are almost nil I will need it where I live, but I don't sleep with it as a security blanket either. I don't believe there is a bunch of people out there that are gunning for me, and if they want anything in my house, nothing is worth living after killing someone for it. It's not fun living after killing someone that most likely has loved ones that need them. Your brain is your best weapon to keep you safe.
Quote from: Solitary on July 16, 2015, 05:58:29 PM
it was based on his Islamic religious belief of love.
The funny thing is, this might be kinda true (not that I think Islam doesn't say it's ok to kill non-Muslim civilians. It can be interpreted either way I guess, but he didn't kill any civilians and acted fairly gentlemanly. No cutting off heads and no civilians bothered). The shooter showed more compassion than we usually do towards them. I have to at least respect that.
Not much to say other than that. Suck it up and take it like a man. The United States geopolitical gain does not come without a price. A few dozen dead Westerners is a pretty damn good deal for us here in the West, considering we've displaced millions and killed hundreds of thousands. Why are we acting like such victims when an attack like this happens? We are the aggressor and these Marines signed up to die. What's the big deal here? What am I not understanding? We should shrug our shoulders at this news and appreciate how good we have it. Couldn't ask for a better deal, other than the Patriot Act obviously, and C 51 here in Canada which is our version of the Patriot Act that was just passed.
I love my country and I'm very grateful to have been born here, but at the same time I can admit that we are a bully, and from time to time a bully is going to justifiably get hit back. I've never had a problem with us white folks taking over the US and Canada from the Native Americans because that was a long time ago, but I grew up being taught in school that that's not the way the world works anymore, and that we are only concerned with helping people around the world, and that we're a country that is all about peace and love and all that BS. I now realise that the world isn't as different from hundreds of years ago as I thought it was. The United States went into the Middle East (with our help) and destroyed the lives of millions for a small geopolitical gain. I'm kind of learning to accept that this is just the way humans work, and that any other country would probably do the same if they had the power that the US does. I guess the US feels like they need to do these things to stay the most powerful country in the world long term.
So the US is probably just doing what it thinks it needs to do to stay on top. Does that mean our wars are not immoral? No. Our wars are very immoral. We are the reason that ISIS has become what it has. We are the cause of a great deal of suffering and in a way the United States really is the "Great Satan". The US can't help but be that. It's what any country with the most power would probably be. I guess that's just human nature and there is no way around it, and this will probably never change.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on July 17, 2015, 12:06:51 AM
The funny thing is, this might be kinda true (not that I think Islam doesn't say it's ok to kill non-Muslim civilians. It can be interpreted either way I guess, but he didn't kill any civilians and acted fairly gentlemanly. No cutting off heads and no civilians bothered). The shooter showed more compassion than we usually do towards them. I have to at least respect that.
Not much to say other than that. Suck it up and take it like a man. The United States geopolitical gain does not come without a price. A few dozen dead Westerners is a pretty damn good deal for us here in the West, considering we've displaced millions and killed hundreds of thousands. Why are we acting like such victims when an attack like this happens? We are the aggressor and these Marines signed up to die. What's the big deal here? What am I not understanding? We should shrug our shoulders at this news and appreciate how good we have it. Couldn't ask for a better deal, other than the Patriot Act obviously, and C 51 here in Canada which is our version of the Patriot Act that was just passed.
I love my country and I'm very grateful to have been born here, but at the same time I can admit that we are a bully, and from time to time a bully is going to justifiably get hit back. I've never had a problem with us white folks taking over the US and Canada from the Native Americans because that was a long time ago, but I grew up being taught in school that that's not the way the world works anymore, and that we are only concerned with helping people around the world, and that we're a country that is all about peace and love and all that BS. I now realise that the world isn't as different from hundreds of years ago as I thought it was. The United States went into the Middle East (with our help) and destroyed the lives of millions for a small geopolitical gain. I'm kind of learning to accept that this is just the way humans work, and that any other country would probably do the same if they had the power that the US does. I guess the US feels like they need to do these things to stay the most powerful country in the world long term.
So the US is probably just doing what it thinks it needs to do to stay on top. Does that mean our wars are not immoral? No. Our wars are very immoral. We are the reason that ISIS has become what it has. We are the cause of a great deal of suffering and in a way the United States really is the "Great Satan". The US can't help but be that. It's what any country with the most power would probably be. I guess that's just human nature and there is no way around it, and this will probably never change.
I don't know. ISIS may or may not exist right now without us. There have always been factions in the Mid East ready to grab power. We did create a power vacuum by getting rid of Saddam who did not tolerate such factions in Iraq. Mid East tension has always been hard for me to explain without considering simple human greed for power and money. I agree our foreign policy can be pretty fucked up, and I don't think we've helped the Arab world at all, but some of the shit they do is pretty fucked up too. The Arab world and it's politics is very complex. It's hard to sort it all out, and I don't think our leaders are bright enough to understand Arab politics, or to understand the dynamics of our relationship with it.
I agree that four deaths by a terrorist is not much considering the sum total of all our own gun violence. We kill more of our own than terrorists do. I've pretty much decided that I have little control over our government and it's policies. I don't make enough money to be taken seriously. No one listens to me, and my vote doesn't count for much.
Religion is of no help at all. Fucked up politics and religion are failures. What else is there?
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on July 17, 2015, 12:06:51 AM
... considering we've displaced millions and killed hundreds of thousands. ...
Hundreds of thousands? Where did you get that estimate, from iraqbodycount.org?
(http://media.giphy.com/media/cQtlhD48EG0SY/giphy.gif)
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on July 17, 2015, 12:06:51 AM
I've never had a problem with us white folks taking over the US and Canada from the Native Americans because that was a long time ago, but I grew up being taught in school that that's not the way the world works anymore, and that we are only concerned with helping people around the world, and that we're a country that is all about peace and love and all that BS.
Except do you realize that an exorbitantly disproportionate amount of Native Americans live in poverty (http://www.spotlightonpoverty.org/exclusivecommentary.aspx?id=0fe5c04e-fdbf-4718-980c-0373ba823da7) on reservations as testament to a system that happened "a long time ago"? Even though a few decades has passed between now and then, there are still very real effects of it in present day, along with resentment.
At this point, it still isn't confirmed that that the shooter had ties to a terrorist organization, though it seems likely. He was a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Kuwait who grew up in Tennessee. That being said, America isn't the only country confronting radicalization of its youth.
Here. The real Irak body count. They did everything to discreet most of the researches been done, esp this one. They even removed the charts and the title pointing about 3 000 000 civilian deaths, around half a million children.
There is also researches on comparison of the general death toll before the invasion in the regions and after the invasion in the site's pages.
The scandalous underestimation of Iraqi civilian casualties
http://www.brussellstribunal.org/article_view.asp?id=803#.Vak7vPntlBe
One would think that Americans are taught to hate their country and themselves.
Pride in their country and patriotism is completely removed.
Anything bad happens to them is their own fault.
So what will you do about it?
Quote from: pr126 on July 17, 2015, 02:55:12 PM
One would think that Americans are taught to hate their country and themselves.
Pride in their country and patriotism is completely removed.
Anything bad happens to them is their own fault.
So what will you do about it?
Yeah... right.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on July 17, 2015, 01:17:14 PM
Hundreds of thousands? Where did you get that estimate, from iraqbodycount.org?
(http://media.giphy.com/media/cQtlhD48EG0SY/giphy.gif)
Scientific surveys of Iraqi deaths resulting from the first four years of the Iraq War found that between 151,000 to over one million Iraqis died as a result of conflict during this time. A later study, published in 2011, found that approximately 500,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the conflict since the invasion. Counts of deaths reported in newspapers collated by projects like the Iraq Body Count project found 174,000 Iraqis reported killed between 2003 and 2013, with between 112,000-123,000 of those killed being civilian noncombatants. Keep in mind these numbers are all estimates.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on July 17, 2015, 01:17:14 PM
Hundreds of thousands? Where did you get that estimate, from iraqbodycount.org?
(http://media.giphy.com/media/cQtlhD48EG0SY/giphy.gif)
I have no clue what the real number is. Everyone has a different answer to that it seems. I hear most atheists go with hundreds of thousands though, so that's what I go with.
Quote from: Solitary on July 17, 2015, 03:22:25 PM
Scientific surveys of Iraqi deaths resulting from the first four years of the Iraq War found that between 151,000 to over one million Iraqis died as a result of conflict during this time. A later study, published in 2011, found that approximately 500,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the conflict since the invasion. Counts of deaths reported in newspapers collated by projects like the Iraq Body Count project found 174,000 Iraqis reported killed between 2003 and 2013, with between 112,000-123,000 of those killed being civilian noncombatants. Keep in mind these numbers are all estimates.
I already posted one. Sorry that I won't take any main stream sources seriously. Esp. American ones. You shouldn't either.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on July 17, 2015, 03:41:11 PM
I have no clue what the real number is. Everyone has a different answer to that it seems. I hear most atheists go with hundreds of thousands though, so that's what I go with.
I don't get it. What does atheism have to do with this?
Quote from: drunkenshoe on July 17, 2015, 04:06:54 PM
I don't get it. What does atheism have to do with this?
Nothing at all. I admit it's not a great reason for me going with the hundreds of thousands number, but what can I say? I've been influenced by the atheists on here and guys like Sam Harris who say the millions number is ridiculous and a joke. Maybe it's ridiculous and maybe it's correct. If Sam Harris and others like him apparently can't come close to figuring out the real number, then how the hell am I supposed to be able to figure this shit out?
And yes, I do realise that when talking about these wars, Harris seems to just defend the US. I like Harris much less than I used to.
Quote from: TomFoolery on July 17, 2015, 01:40:41 PM
Except do you realize that an exorbitantly disproportionate amount of Native Americans live in poverty (http://www.spotlightonpoverty.org/exclusivecommentary.aspx?id=0fe5c04e-fdbf-4718-980c-0373ba823da7) on reservations as testament to a system that happened "a long time ago"? Even though a few decades has passed between now and then, there are still very real effects of it in present day, along with resentment.
Yes, I do realise this. I think the government should do more to help these people out. I'm in favour of helping out all of my fellow Canadians who need it. Am I mad that I was born on the winning team though? No.
We had a lot more to gain when we took over the Native Americans land. It doesn't seem that these wars in the Mid East are worth it, but what do I know?
Quote from: drunkenshoe on July 17, 2015, 01:48:33 PM
Here. The real Irak body count. They did everything to discreet most of the researches been done, esp this one. They even removed the charts and the title pointing about 3 000 000 civilian deaths, around half a million children.
There is also researches on comparison of the general death toll before the invasion in the regions and after the invasion in the site's pages.
The scandalous underestimation of Iraqi civilian casualties
http://www.brussellstribunal.org/article_view.asp?id=803#.Vak7vPntlBe
I honestly misread this 2 times that you were saying the deaths weren't in the hundreds of thousands (as in, they were less). That was slightly confusing.
Anyways, this gives me a topic to go do a paper on, so thats good. Thanks.
I found the video I watched a couple months ago. Harris says he thinks it's just around two hundred thousand and he provides his reasoning, and says others he's talked to like Steven Pinker are close to that number as well. It seems that he's not counting deaths caused by sectarian violence, which would of course have been less without the invasion happening, and I don't think he's counting starvation and things like that either that can be attributed to the US for starting the war. Start at 55 minutes, 50 seconds into the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm8xFaM-raY
The estimates range from a couple hundred thousand to a couple million plus, so I think there's no real way of me knowing what the actual number is. Technically "hundreds of thousands" can also mean a million plus. I've heard Richard Dawkins say that the Earth is hundreds of millions of years old. That is not incorrect. Billions are a number of hundreds of millions.
He talked to a popular science writer and estimates the death toll is 200 000? :rotflmao: I hope somebody sues him for treating Americans as complete morons. We don't need to know the actual number. However, an estimate for a couple of hundred thousands and an estimate of a couple of million makes the whole difference. It's constantly being pull down and gets covered up in front of our eyes. Probably more so in the US media. Aren't you guys bored of being treated like a North Korean citizen?
(Sectarian violence and disease, every kind of life loss under war conditions always included in calculations of an aftermath. For example, the Holocaust numbers or WWII death toll are calculated with the same logic. Two negative examples; there are American writers who claims Mesoamerican Genocide not a genocide because most of the people died as a result of disease and very bad conditions. There are Turkish writers claim the same with Armenian genocide. Because in both cases, there are no death camps and systematic killings are scattered around in war conflict with people running away, marches... That doesn't change a thing what happened to masses of people in every seperate event. So Harris is not just biased, he is also ignorant or trust the ignorance of his audience.)
Harris doesn't just seem to defend the US, he is an apologist of American war policy. He is a perfect type for it too. He is perfectly happy with it. Because he can't exist in another way, make money and be famous. It's his ticket. That man cannot afford to say anything that is not siding with US policies in the main frame -esp.when democrats in power- let alone coming to terms with a fundamentally controversial truth of that politics. He'd lose his place, his fandom. He wouldn't get promoted.
Doesn't it strike anyone odd that compared to the level of his domestic fame, the scope of his topics, despite of all this promotion of the so popular 'scientist-writer' this man isn't really an international name, has no place among scholarship on these topics, but just an American best selling author? Who by the way became famous because he criticised Christianity in 21st century and promotes that 'religion is bad!'. No shit, sherlock. Dawkins is going down by his own hand unfortunately, his time is over. Maher is just a stand up comedian and a jerk making money from it. Hitchens is dead. Dennett is not a stageman. What is he going to do without characters like those? He is only 48. There is always a chance that he might get that being popular gets you nothing, because people who are not afraid to side with the ugly truth almost never are. Yes he is doing a lot of things to promote secularism, good for him, but he aspires to be much more than that consdering his attempts with Chomsky.
And no, I never mean he should side with my opinions or the scholars and philosophers I agree with. I just want to see some BALLS. Because I am not buying that he genuinely believes what he says. Or I hope I am not sure. Because the other road is pretty ugly and bumpy and no apple pie life of popular 'intellectuals'. What he aspires to be needs a lot of balls, serious salt and it is not fun at all. Everything is aside, he should know that if he is enjoying this as a life style, he is doing something wrong. How on earth is that a man in claim of being a world class intellectual CAN SIDE WITH SERIES OF STATE POLICIES THAT RESULTED IN GLOBAL SCALE OF CATASTROPHY? Any state. That means, he is either cut out from the real world, recent history the invention and trasnformation of those concepts he keeps using OR he just don't give a fuck as long as he is the Sam Harris of British-American Atheist fandom. Either way, he is useless like this. He is an advocate of the failed state policy.
Also, although he looks somewhat controversial in the American media, aside form being an atheist, actually his opinions are very commonplace ideas in his country which can find supporters from EVERY group, even from christian base, because if its basic nature. Nationalism. Religion of the modern state. Safe and rewarding. Those could have been said by an average American atheist with a solid right tendency. But it made/makes money when Harris say, becuse he is the right type of person to be promoted. He is white, a male, he comes from famous parents in show business and he has a scientific education. Camera loves him. He knows what to say. Not to mention youngest and most 'handsome' of the four horsemen.:lol:
His point of view; perspective is based on a very typical understanding of 'American patriotism' sold with American dream and Uncle Sam defending democracy and freedom. You are kidding right? In a nutshell, he says 'America has done bad things and probably will do again, but I don't agree that American policy is abuse of power'. :lol: That's not critical thought. It's propaganda. We have better defenders of the US policies in this very forum.
His writings about Baudrillard and Chomsky is a very good examples of where he comes from and tries to go to. Talk about trying to reach out of one's league. He ignores and denies any one who criticises general American policy -with simple rhetoric of casaulties, fantasy threats, a few 'regrets' and designed 'bad examples'- denies its goal -by the way which is admitted and transformed in to a culture AND an industry already decaaades ago- and then pretends an intellect that can addrees global issues with conclusive results, which are the result of those policies into our face and which the above philosophers and some others have spent the time of his life span to deal with.
I wouldn't be surprised if he said something like 'oh everybody is against us, guys' at some point in the future, in a talk show.
He is as sound as religious politicians we have in my country. Now, that's an insult. Sorry, Sam. :lol:
--------------------------------------
So if someone defines themselves as a sceptic, it is really ridiculous for them to look at the world from a one person's or one group's point of view. This is exactly the opposite of scepticism. I think, it's also the common problem of British-American atheist movement(s) of the last decades. Yes it was a good thing to have scientists to come out and yell 'this is bullshit', but today, instead of a real sceptics group made up by individuals who can think for themselves beyond mainstream political bullshit, there is a mass of people who bear pretty much the same political views with the religious right in a different level served up with milder flavours, whose receptions is tuned into a small world around them, treating a few famous names pretty much their own prophets. Yes, I am making a generalisation, because it stands.
The lack of intellectualism in America that Americans criticise does not just exist among religious groups. It also exists among the 'enlightened', because it follows the same course of understanding and vision of the world which was established by the religious, so the nationalist foundations. The thing is you can't have it both ways. You only enter a new delusion by trading religion with nationalism. The latter is more dangerous, because while there is no real and actual belief more than politics and what's beneficial and profitable for a specific group with the former in a given society, nationalism is a far more bigger, warm and safe trap that can cover all of those groups.
Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens of the four horsemen in this defense of war policies is the same shit. Probably the only moment I really warmed up to Dawkins was then when he spoke against Iraq war, Israeli war policies which lost him a considerable amount of American fans but he didn't care. I don't know his opinions now. Dawkins doesn't mean much to me, because I am too old for his cult. We didn't have agressive white-male idols screaming their heads of from a stand when I was learning what is atheism. We didn't need them either.
:question: Does any of you honestly believe that any American source that we can reach at the tip of our fingers is to give even a remote estimate of real Iraq body count? Even if those invasion had not been the failures they were? That's not naive, it is right down stupid to believe in something like that. And this is not just about the US. It's about every fucking state and government and its policies, but this ones effects all of us.
This is not about someone being an American, it is about how state policies and governments work. The general Western delusion about nationalism and patriotism that is because the governments can provide the basics in these countries -also hyped up perception management of western culture(s) by constant definition by contrast from all channels- making big political deals out of a few western citizens killed in main stream media, most of you have this unconscious trust and acceptance that the general policy and what comes with it is not far off and that the main stream opinions on it counts as information. It's also why rules and laws are highly likely to be obeyed in general in western societies I suppose.
So, NO. A best selling author doesn't have a place in estimating Irak body count or confirming or falsifying a number in an official manner that is offered by an independent source, which doesn't have any benefit or profit or something to lose with the results, in a research made with an open scientific method.
So, I'll go with 'who the fuck Sam Harris is to talk about Irak body count with some assuring authority?'
Anyway, I am really not into put in more energy and time for Harris.