• where do you store your outrage?

    by  • September 30, 2008 • too random • 7 Comments

    Mosque in Dayton, Ohio gets gassed by a couple of guys who don’t hate.

    Police: No evidence of hate crime at local mosque

    Mosque board member Tarek Sabagh said many people within the mosque speculated that the incident was the result of a DVD about Islamic radicalism titled “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West” that was mailed to area homes by its producers and circulated as a paid advertisement with more than 70 newspapers, including the Dayton Daily News.

    “We are not linking the two at all,” Sabagh said.

    . . .

    The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant (1) targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

    US dept of navy

    fing_idiots.jpg

    Comments

    comments

    Powered by Facebook Comments

    About

    7 Responses to where do you store your outrage?

    1. The Doctor
      September 30, 2008 at

      So, let me understand this, in your infinite wisdom, you think that the video caused these people to gas the mosque. Despite the fact that the Mosque’s leader found no connection.

      Guess you have some insight here in San Fran that they don’t in Dayton. Are you Columbo?

      Using that logic, I would come to your house and fart in your face.

      You are just plain stuck on stupid son.

    2. Michael Hernandez
      September 30, 2008 at

      so … it’s often that 2 guys spray stuff into a church, into the face of a 10-year old’s. at 10pm at night…some would say, i better time not to get caught.

      “… sprayed something through the open window and into the girl’s face from a white can with a red top, according to a police report. The girl said she immediately felt burning on her face and felt “sick to her stomach,” the report stated.”

      Other children and a woman in the room felt affects from the chemical and the mosque was evacuated.”

      … Right, that’s not a hate crime.

      right.
      - – -

      in your church, during service, someone spraying your 10-year old daughter in the face with a chemical.

      … i would suggest you consider the source of your dehumanization of that child. and the people around her.

    3. nitro
      September 30, 2008 at

      I think that the title of the story should have been “Journalist finds now evidence of a hate crime.” As the story clearly stated that the incident was under investigation. It only notes that they could not identify what was sprayed. There is not a list of chemical agents that qualifies an act as a hate crime.

      Also, Doc, the board member is saying that he is not linking the DVD with the act, but that does not mean that there was not a link. And, though the board member does not think there is a link, some members of the mosque do.

      Places of worship have long be the focus of hate crimes. The probability that this was a random act of mischief given prior actions toward places of worship is pretty low. So, the act itself presents evidence of a hate crime, regardless what chemical traces are left.

      I think the real crime is that this reporter is allowed to write stories, or the editor is allowed to write titles.

    4. Michael Hernandez
      September 30, 2008 at

      ““Journalist finds now evidence of a hate crime.”

      we all make mistakes…

    5. nitro
      September 30, 2008 at

      No, I meant to say that the journalist found that NOW (the National Organization for Woman) did this, as clearly they are a terrorist organization.

      Yeah, I get slammed all the time for not copy editing my work. Geez.

      Nevertheless, the title of the article, and much of its contents sucked balls, but so did the comment by the officer. The crime is still under investigation so the officer should not be making any final conclusions. More importantly, the scene of the crime suggests that this was possible a hate motivated crime, even if epitaphs may were uttered during the action. For crying out load, it was acted out on a 10 year old girl.

      But, it’s a tricky line with hate crimes. It could be prosecuted, though, as a hate crime if the perpetrators were caught and evidence suggesting a hate motivation–such as a diary or video taken before or after the act–is uncovered.

      A 10 year-old girl, in front of her place of worship, on a holy holiday. Nah, there’s no evidence suggesting a hate motivation. More sinuous connections and arguments for motive have been made for 1st degree murder convictions that send people to the death chamber.

    6. nitro
      September 30, 2008 at

      For crying out loud, our maybe load? What the hell do I know? I’ve gotten all my education in public institutions.

    7. nitro
      September 30, 2008 at

      Even if no epitaphs were uttered during the action, no epitaphs.

      Please feel free to find any other errors. I suck.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *