General News U.S. beheading suspect, Muslim convert, to be charged Monday

No direct link to terrorism, no conclusive evidence of religious motivation in murder.

Report focuses more on his religion than the murder itself.

Interesting.

 

not really he's just a psycho

 

I was reading he also had a Jesus tattoo...not to mention, quite a prior record.

But the US is in a war-like mood, so of course, the Muslim angle is going to get played up.

 

Getting beheaded, is really no more 'barbaric' than getting filled full of lead. Or getting blown up by an unexploded landmine. Or getting your flesh burned off by white phosphorous. There is a lot of barbarism around, and our own governments seem just as willing to perpetrate it, when it suits their purposes, as the religious fanatic nutjobs. And I resent the fact that my own government has immediately, and with no debate, launched my country into a war with ISIL. We were not a target for them before they did this, but we sure as hell are now.

 

Disagreed, cutting someone's artery and letting him bleed to death then cut of his head is 1000 times more barbaric than shooting someone dead. And why would you want your country to stand and watch thousands of people getting killed and suppressed just because they don't follow sharia law? I think it's great nations are finally stepping up and taking action against this barbaric organisation. But then again everyone is entitled to their I own opinion

 

Funny how you give an extended description of decapitation, yet not of shooting.

What about; "the damage of a bullet causing internal haemorrhaging potentially lasting several hours and which does not automatically sever the brain from the rest of the nervous system is a 1000 times more barbaric than swiftly decapitating someone." ?

Or does that change the intended result of what you want to say? Funny how different wording achieves very different meanings despite no direct correlation with the actual facts.

 

Filling someone with lead does not generally imply shooting someone on a non vital spot with 1 bullet. Besides that I don't seem to find anything funny about this convo so I'd rather not have you use "funny" when discussing horror.

 

Your command of English isn't fully developed, I see. "Funny" can refer to an oddity, not necessarily humour. It's essentially the same as saying "odd how..." or "it's curious that..." In this particular instance, it's a slightly more polite way of saying "I find it incredibly poorly-expressed and deliberately misleading that...."

But that's entirely the point; you have left out so much information to evoke an emotional response, one of repugnance, not to accurately portray a fact. I called you out on that poor argumentative technique.

 

My bad I guess, I'm not a native speaker and felt the word funny was rather unfitting in this conversation Anyways left out information where exactly? I'm pretty clear I think, besides I ain't here to evoke emotional responses from any one yet you seem to rage on my every post. I wasn't staring an argument just stating my opinion. Besides you haven't even responded on my previous post properly about how filling someone with lead does not mean shooting a single bullet on a random non vital spot. How's that for poor argument. Once again you seem eager to turn this post into a flaming session which I'm not really here for :O

 

You're absolutely right. Let me explain a bit; you dealt in absolute terms, then moved the goalposts (changed the point you were making) to mean a perfect, fatal kill. I wasn't trying to engage you in debate so much as to explain why your opinion was misleading. You didn't mention that shootings can be mangled in the same way a poorly-performed beheading can. You openly said that decapitation is more barbaric with a flawed argument to support it.

My point was merely that all executions, all murders are barbaric, not defined conveniently by which methods by different groups and cultures are used.

Now, as for raging, I'm actually rather calm. I'm more amused by this than I am angered.

 

Ok

 

People here actually believe this is not directly related to terrorism? Lol.

 

The bold words stating "[n]o terrorism link found" in the article would rather indicate that.

 

It doesn't matter what his religion was, or even if he intended terror. What does matter, is that he committed 1st degree murder, and is therefore a criminal. What also matters is that a legal gun owner, the business owner, stopped further killing by wounding the criminal murderer.

Try him for 1st degree murder, and sentence him to life in prison if/when he is found guilty.

 

So if the article said that trees could fly, you'd believe that too I suppose?

 

What exact link is there to terrorism? Tell me.

 

Anti-American statements on his facebook page, and killing people the same way as ISIS does, along with statements indicating Muslim extremism, there is a link to terrorism.

 

Agreed. He was obviously influenced by ISIS. Remember the statement they released not too long ago calling on Muslims to kill all citizens from the countries in the coalition? This is a response to that.

 

That's easy enough to think, and I admit it crossed my mind. But we still don't have any confirmation, and there was another motive; he was sacked.

"This is a response to that" is a far too certain statement when the only indication is his Facebook page. That sort of online radicalism is not exactly rare, and usually doesn't become violent extremism (I have a source for that, but it's on ABC iview, which is only available for those inside Australia). It becomes far too alienating for Muslims to have an act of violence committed by a Muslim immediately linked to their religion and background.

I'm not saying to rule it out. I'm just saying that it's not a good idea to immediately cry Islamic extremism before there's further explanation.