or Connect
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Norway "apparently" hit by terrorism
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Norway "apparently" hit by terrorism - Page 3

post #61 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by motoko9 View Post
OK, so when stats fail to prove your point, sheer speculation will suffice?

I'm beginning to believe Yosemite is right: people post links without really checking whether they support their posts...
Where did the stats not support what I said? I said something like 75% of all Muslims, worldwide, support jihad against non-Christians. The statistics back that up, and more.

Here's a survey, also from the Pew Research organization, that is solely about American Muslims. Again, it's 4 years old (2007), so it's not the newest news, but it's interesting. It says the USA has been better at integrating Muslims into the American population than most other countries (not surprising--we have a long history of doing that).

It's interesting that they did find significant support (8%) for jihad among American Muslims, though, again, lower than most countries. It was strongest among young Muslims.

Another shock is that only 40% of Muslims in the U.S. believe that Arabs committed the 9/11 attack. Hard to condemn what you don't think is true, eh?

Muslim Americans
post #62 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
Where did the stats not support what I said? I said something like 75% of all Muslims, worldwide, support jihad against non-Christians. The statistics back that up, and more.
Maybe I'm being a little slow today (I *am* trying to cut back on caffeine), but I do not see anything in the poll previously cited that supports your assertion. 75% of all Muslims worldwide? Where, exactly, does the poll suggest that? Which paragraph or chart?
post #63 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
OK, play the stats backward. In the first round of the survey, only 11% of Jodanian Muslisms said terrorism against civilians was never justified. On the second survey, only 26% said "Never."

I would bet the number is higher in the U.S. who would say never. But that's the point. Do you think 10% of all Christians in the U.S. would say that terrorism against Muslim civilians was justified? One percent?

Here's a test for any Muslim. Can they say this?

"The attacks on 9/11 were wrong, contrary Muslim beliefs, and there is no way that anything the United States government has done that could justify such an attack on its civilian citizens. If there is a fair Allah in heaven, the terrorists are burning in hell now and will forever."

Full stop. No equivocation.

I've heard many Muslim leaders say the first two phrases, but they just can't get past that. They want to excuse the act with mealy-mouthed justifications.

I don't think you'd have any trouble finding a Christian who would be more than willing to say, fervently: "The attacks in Norway were wrong, contrary to everything Christians believe, and there is nothing the Norwegian government has done to justify such an attack on its citizens. If there is a fair God in heaven and a hell below us, the attacker will come before him, be sent to hell, and suffer there through eternity."
That's an interesting, and totally misleading way of stacking the numbers. By dividing it more along political lines than religious one's. Comparing Muslims all over to world to Christians in the US. Why not ask the same question, to both groups, in the same places.

A larger number, by percentage, of Christians in Muslim countries are probably embroidering Brevik's picture on pillows right now. I can guarantee that he is a hero to many of the Maronite Christians. After all, they were the one's that saw fit to murder hundreds of Muslim families in Lebanon. And lets not forget the Christians in Serbia, I'm sure the majority of them are loving they guy. After all, their forces saw fit to wipe out entire unarmed villages, killing thousands, if not tens of thousands. They'll probably contribute to his defense fund. If we're going to compare, let's do it universally.
Quote:
"The attacks on 9/11 were wrong, contrary Muslim beliefs, and there is no way that anything the United States government has done that could justify such an attack on its civilian citizens. If there is a fair Allah in heaven, the terrorists are burning in hell now and will forever."

Full stop. No equivocation.

I've heard many Muslim leaders say the first two phrases, but they just can't get past that. They want to excuse the act with mealy-mouthed justifications.
This particular part demonstrates a desire to NOT be satisfied, possible merely as a means of reinforcing personal stereotypes against Muslims. You state that you're heard the first two, but not the last. Well, there is a very, very good reason for that. One, under Islam, it is not the place of the individual to pass or second guess God's judgement. It isn't under Christianity either, but most of them apparently ignore that. . Two, under Islam, it simply isn't true. Hell is a prison, where sinners are kept until expiation. Once they've atoned for their sins, they are released from hell. So asking for "forever", is asking for something you won't get.

As for the "mealy-mouthed"...there is a great, great deal of Christian "mealy-mouthing" going on about Breivik and his terrorists acts in Norway at this very moment. Sauce-goose!
post #64 of 96
AP Exclusive: Insanity ruling not likely in Norway

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?se...rld&id=8280976
post #65 of 96
'Christian terrorist'? Norway case strikes debate

Quote:
"Sadly, the last ten years, the term has been co-opted in public discourse and only applies to Muslims," he said. "Now here we have a right-wing Christian extremist who has committed an act of terror, and many people don't know how to react."
and another;

One man's view, and the conflict it's causing him. Well thought out, I think.

Breivik betrays Christianity

Quote:
He was obviously a terrorist, a Christian terrorist: a good terrorist who betrayed his faith and became a bad Christian. One can be a Christian forger, a Christian thief, and a Christian murderer. The people of Jesus Christ work with anyone who will come and sometimes the people who come ignore or pick and choose from the Church’s teachings and miss the message.
post #66 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthernGlow View Post
They might try to get him 30 years (crime agains humanity ot something like that, can't translate it), but it's more likely he'll get that 21 years which is the sentence for terrorism, unless he is mentally ill which he isn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
AP Exclusive: Insanity ruling not likely in Norway

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?se...rld&id=8280976
I think it's very clear he isn't insane. He really needed to know what he was doing, and he did this all alone. Not with a group of other religious/political people which is what for example the muslim terrorists do. There's always someone 'bigger' behind their attacks, but Breivik planned and carried it out by himself. I find these 'intelligent' psychopaths much more scary than those who are just brainwashed to do what others say whether they know what they are doing or not. Some muslim terrorist group immediately claimed that they were behind the car bomb in Oslo before Breivik was identified.. Sadly I found that a bit funny, and pathetic.

He has now demanded the king of Norway to surrender his crown and that the government needs to resign. He's 'demanding' to become the supreme commander of the defense forces (or what ever the highest position in Norway is called). Such an attention who**. I wonder how long it takes for him to publish a book, somehow I feel he will be writing one.

Religion and politics.. do I need to say more?

Let's see: Norway had Breivik (christian) who managed to kill lots of people, Sweden had a suicide bomber (muslim) trying an attack in Stockholm during a rush hour luckily only killing himself in the process, Finland shares land border with Norway and Sweden.. I hope we are not next (we already have the school massacres, no need for terrorists here..).
post #67 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthernGlow View Post
Some muslim terrorist group immediately claimed that they were behind the car bomb in Oslo before Breivik was identified.. Sadly I found that a bit funny, and pathetic.

He has now demanded the king of Norway to surrender his crown and that the government needs to resign. He's 'demanding' to become the supreme commander of the defense forces (or what ever the highest position in Norway is called). Such an attention who**. I wonder how long it takes for him to publish a book, somehow I feel he will be writing one.
I agree with you!

Breivik has already written a manifesto which is available in several languages online. He dedicated it to his 7,000+ followers and urged them to make more translations so that it would be available to all Europeans.

I've read part of it and like you said, he is a cold and meditated. Not insane.
Some of his ideas even make sense but his methods and his hatred make it unforgivable.

Which makes him much more scarier than if he had a medical condition.
post #68 of 96
And now in a typical knee jerk reaction, Norway is pulling major violent video games off of shelves as the new scapegoat in the wake of the tragedy, 51 in total including popular fantasy titles like World of Warcraft. It still baffles me that people can think that playing a game somehow translates to real life, as if watching Silence of the Lambs at the movie theater with your friend is somehow going to compel me to try out cannibalism. Give me a break...

Luckily, sane experts like Carmack brought reason to the table:
Quote:
I really think, if anything, there is more evidence to show that the violent games reduce aggression and violence. There have actually been some studies about that, that it’s cathartic. If you go to QuakeCon and you walk by and you see the people there [and compare that to] a random cross section of a college campus, you’re probably going to find a more peaceful crowd of people at the gaming convention. I think it’s at worst neutral and potentially positive."
post #69 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
And now in a typical knee jerk reaction, Norway is pulling major violent video games off of shelves as the new scapegoat in the wake of the tragedy, 51 in total including popular fantasy titles like World of Warcraft. It still baffles me that people can think that playing a game somehow translates to real life, as if watching Silence of the Lambs at the movie theater with your friend is somehow going to compel me to try out cannibalism. Give me a break...

Luckily, sane experts like Carmack brought reason to the table:
Well, Norway isn't pulling anying...a retailer is, in their own stores. And in all actuality, the terrorist himself stating in his manifesto that he used combat video games as "training simulations" seems like a quite good reason.
post #70 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Well, Norway isn't pulling anying...A retailer is, in their own stores. And in all actuality, the terrorist himself stating that he used combat video games as "training simulations" seems like a quite good reason.
The two largest retailers of games in the country, correct. Yes, World of Warcraft, rated T for 13+, is actually being used by the US Marines right now for training purposes. Dwarf casts disguise spell! Might want to google this stuff first before commenting.

Since this guy was Christian, couldn't it be argued that the bible may have inspired his actions and we should stop distribution as a precaution as well? A lot of people have killed in the name of God/Allah/etc after all. A lot more than have killed in the name of Blizzard Entertainment at least. *facepalm* Or we could recognize that these are pretty stupid scapegoats for an individual's actions, and it isn't necessary to punish society at large... just a thought.
post #71 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
The two largest retailers of games in the country, correct. Yes, World of Warcraft, rated T for 13+, is actually being used by the US Marines right now for training purposes. Dwarf casts disguise spell! Might want to google this stuff first before commenting.
I would suggest the same, actually. The pertinent excerpt from the manifesto is available in numerous places online.

Quote:
Since this guy was Christian, couldn't it be argued that the bible may have inspired his actions and we should stop distribution as a precaution as well? A lot of people have killed in the name of God/Allah/etc after all. A lot more than have killed in the name of Blizzard Entertainment at least. *facepalm* Or we could recognize that these are pretty stupid scapegoats for an individual's actions, and it isn't necessary to punish society at large... just a thought.
Yes, it could very well be argued. It probably will. I'm not sure why your complaining on this particular subject. Government had absolutely nothing to do with it, and a business (now two, as the article was just now updated) are doing it with their own motivations, a marketing decision. Such as, not wanting like minded people hanging around their stores, perhaps?

I think most of the gamers complaining are doing so simply because this fellow is looking more and more like them all the time.

In my opinion, there will be more to come. This terrorist, on the outside, could be "Joe Anybody". And the things he did, liked and spoke of are going to be getting intense scrutiny, whether it be bloggers, games, toys, weapons, television programs, food, clothes etc. And not one bit of it is any more stupid than banning nail clippers and sippy cups on airlines. And none of it is any near as stupid as "freedom fries".
post #72 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Well, Norway isn't pulling anying...a retailer is, in their own stores. And in all actuality, the terrorist himself stating in his manifesto that he used combat video games as "training simulations" seems like a quite good reason.
Well, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (Columbine) used the FPS games as "training simulations" too. They could barely hit the broadside of a barn. Unfortunately with the sheer number of rounds expended meant that they did get some hits. But overall even drive-by spray & pray gang-bangers get a higher hit ratio than they did. Video games came under the spotlight then too.

The differences between Harris & Klebold and Breivik has nothing to do with the video games they played. Or the fact that Breivik used religion to justify mass murder.
post #73 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb View Post
Well, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (Columbine) used the FPS games as "training simulations" too. They could barely hit the broadside of a barn. Unfortunately with the sheer number of rounds expended meant that they did get some hits. But overall even drive-by spray & pray gang-bangers get a higher hit ratio than they did. Video games came under the spotlight then too.

The differences between Harris & Klebold and Breivik has nothing to do with the video games they played. Or the fact that Breivik used religion to justify mass murder.
I agree, to an extent. Early jet fighter simulators did not simulate the kinetic or g-forces a pilot would encounter, but they used them anyway, mostly for switchology and familiarization with the equipment and situations. But being able to perform flawlessly in a fighter simulation usually didn't translate well when they were pulling g's in dogfight, or having that darned sun jump in their eyes at just the wrong time, etc. That's why with today's advanced simulators, we still burn all that fuel training.

But as for the stores in Norway pulling the games, they are probably more concerned with the feelings and views of their customers (i.e., their business) and the safety of their locations more than anything else.
post #74 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Early jet fighter simulators did not simulate the kinetic or g-forces a pilot would encounter, but they used them anyway, mostly for switchology and familiarization with the equipment and situations. But being able to perform flawlessly in a fighter simulation usually didn't translate well when they were pulling g's in dogfight, or having that darned sun jump in their eyes at just the wrong time, etc. That's why with today's advanced simulators, we still burn all that fuel training.
Breivik did recommend few war games (WoW was not one of them), but mentioned that nothing really compares to the real thing and said he had been training with an actual red dot gun.

He called the cops himself from the island and told them to come and get him, used military terms and said "mission accomplished".
post #75 of 96
From the Christian Science Monitor:
Norway attacks: Was Breivik a Christian terrorist?
Quote:
A columnist in Turkey’s Hurriyet last Friday found that Breivik’s brand of Christianity is essentially anti-Islamic and says, “I agree with the Christian writers who object to the links made between their faith and the Norwegian monster…. But, alas, this is the same thing we Muslims have been saying about Al Qaeda and most of its terrorists: Theirs was not a genuine expression of the Muslim faith, but a highly politicized, paranoid and fanatical expression of Muslim identity.â€
post #76 of 96
"Brand of Christianity?" What's that? Did they mention some denomination, some church, some congregation, or are they just talking about the usual nuts on the internet? (By the way, I am well aware that the Klansmen all claimed to be Christian...and were Democrats.)

It was interesting that the New York Times called the Norwegian attacker a "Christian terrorist," but can't seem to do the same for the Muslim ex-soldier who was planning a big attack in Killeen (where I was last night), or for the psychiatrist/soldier who killed 13 people in Killeen.

I don't have any trouble saying this guy reflected no New Testament attributes I've ever heard of, but that's the thing about religion. It's so open to interpretation.
post #77 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
"Brand of Christianity?" What's that? Did they mention some denomination, some church, some congregation, or are they just talking about the usual nuts on the internet?
He was referring to
Quote:
"a highly politicized, paranoid and fanatical expression of"
post #78 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
"Brand of Christianity?" What's that? Did they mention some denomination, some church, some congregation, or are they just talking about the usual nuts on the internet? (By the way, I am well aware that the Klansmen all claimed to be Christian...and were Democrats.)
Which became today's Republicans. Applying 1880's affiliation with today's political parties is a common mistake.

Quote:
It was interesting that the New York Times called the Norwegian attacker a "Christian terrorist," but can't seem to do the same for the Muslim ex-soldier who was planning a big attack in Killeen (where I was last night), or for the psychiatrist/soldier who killed 13 people in Killeen.
Neither of them have been charged as terrorists. The killer in Norway has. Are you suggesting that the NYT should pass judgement like News Corps does?

Quote:
I don't have any trouble saying this guy reflected no New Testament attributes I've ever heard of, but that's the thing about religion. It's so open to interpretation.
Moderate Muslims have been saying the same thing about Muslim terrorists and Islam for decades, and have been called liars. I suppose it's "different" now though.
post #79 of 96
Lesbian couple saved 40 teens from Norway massacre on Utoya Island, but get little media exposure


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/worl...#ixzz1U6gnMc4u
post #80 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Which became today's Republicans. Applying 1880's affiliation with today's political parties is a common mistake.
Yes... Democrats who claim to be politically descended from such people as Thomas Jefferson and John Adams should keep that in mind, right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Neither of them have been charged as terrorists. The killer in Norway has. Are you suggesting that the NYT should pass judgement like News Corps does?
Only because they have been charged in different countries, with different charging laws. I don't think anyone would try to make the case that the Fort Hood shooter was not a Muslim terrorist, seeing as how that's what he claimed, and what he shouted while shooting the victims. I doubt the Norwegian shooter was shouting, "Praise God," while he did his shooting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Moderate Muslims have been saying the same thing about Muslim terrorists and Islam for decades, and have been called liars. I suppose it's "different" now though.
To some extent it's a matter of numbers (it's hard to find 10% of Muslims who will publicly condemn jihadists), and to some extent it's the equivocation even those 10% are likely to express, as I already said.

I have a good friend from college who is a Muslim cleric today (and, I think, quite a bit of a nutjob, but that was always true, even when he was a Christian pastor). I wish I could get hold of him, but it's not easy.
post #81 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
Yes... Democrats who claim to be politically descended from such people as Thomas Jefferson and John Adams should keep that in mind, right?
The thing that makes "common mistakes" common is the fact that they are made by lots of people, either intentionally or unintentionally.

Quote:
Only because they have been charged in different countries, with different charging laws. I don't think anyone would try to make the case that the Fort Hood shooter was not a Muslim terrorist, seeing as how that's what he claimed, and what he shouted while shooting the victims. I doubt the Norwegian shooter was shouting, "Praise God," while he did his shooting.
Terrorism is terrorism. Just because another country applies it equally and honestly doesn't change the definition. The Ft. Hood shooter has been equated by attending psychologists to a "postal shooter", whereas the Norway terrorist had a very distinct and publicized religious and political agenda. He is also demanding a pulpit for his ideas while in custody, the mark of a true terrorist. He did all his "praising" in his manifesto...that allowed him time to just laugh while he was murdering people.

Quote:
To some extent it's a matter of numbers (it's hard to find 10% of Muslims who will publicly condemn jihadists), and to some extent it's the equivocation even those 10% are likely to express, as I already said.
Muslims won't condemn Jihad because it's the Islamic equal of "WWJD". You may as well ask a Christian to condemn sacraments. Jihad is not terrorism, terrorism is terrorism, and Muslims everywhere condemn it. If you are talking about the number of Muslim Leaders that condemn Muslim terrorism, at this point, it looks to be about the same percentage as Christian Leaders condemning Christian terrorism. Since the massacre in Norway, numerous Christian leaders and organizations have expressed "sympathy" and "solidarity", but not one has condemned Christian terrorism.
post #82 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Lesbian couple saved 40 teens from Norway massacre on Utoya Island, but get little media exposure


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/worl...#ixzz1U6gnMc4u
Still no US media carrying this story.

I guess a Lesbian couple saving children from a Christian terrorist is just more reality than some people can handle.
post #83 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Still no US media carrying this story.

I guess a Lesbian couple saving children from a Christian terrorist is just more reality than some people can handle.
If you give them distinction as a lesbian couple, you are not giving them equality.

It's like gays who want to march in a parade, under a gay banner. Is that ALL they are? Does being gay define them? I am not defined by my sexual orientation, I don't recall there being a straight pride parade, and frankly, who cares if they are gay or straight?

Does the fact that they are lesbians make them better heros than a heterosexual couple? Is the fact that they are a same sex couple make them more newsworthy, and the fact that they are lesbians need to be noted?

Frankly, that's making them DIFFERENT, then the same as everyone else. I'm sure if it was a heterosexual couple that saved anyone, the word "Heterosexual" would not be mentioned either.
post #84 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Still no US media carrying this story.

I guess a Lesbian couple saving children from a Christian terrorist is just more reality than some people can handle.
Good for them...but what they do in their bedroom has no bearing on what they did on the island.

So...you want newspapers to say, "Heterosexual policeman arrests shooter?"
post #85 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by resqchick View Post
If you give them distinction as a lesbian couple, you are not giving them equality.

It's like gays who want to march in a parade, under a gay banner. Is that ALL they are? Does being gay define them? I am not defined by my sexual orientation, I don't recall there being a straight pride parade, and frankly, who cares if they are gay or straight?

Does the fact that they are lesbians make them better heros than a heterosexual couple? Is the fact that they are a same sex couple make them more newsworthy, and the fact that they are lesbians need to be noted?

Frankly, that's making them DIFFERENT, then the same as everyone else. I'm sure if it was a heterosexual couple that saved anyone, the word "Heterosexual" would not be mentioned either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
Good for them...but what they do in their bedroom has no bearing on what they did on the island.

So...you want newspapers to say, "Heterosexual policeman arrests shooter?"
The Lesbian distinction isn't necessary for the story. They haven't been mentioned by major US news organizations at all. It's as thought they are afraid that if they even bring them up, that "dirty little fact" might find it's way to the surface, and of course they can't have that.

But then, using your very own examples...why report the religious affiliations of terrorists when merely "terrorist" is more than adequate???
post #86 of 96
Uh...because it IS important to the story?
post #87 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
Uh...because it IS important to the story?
Important to who? And why? Why is an Arab terrorist worse than an Irish or Jewish terrorist? Why should anyone care? When being gay is used by the media day in and day out to identify people and points of view, why is it suddenly taboo to mention it when a gay couple saves children from a Christian terrorist?
post #88 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Important to who? And why? Why is an Arab terrorist worse than an Irish or Jewish terrorist? Why should anyone care? When being gay is used by the media day in and day out to identify people and points of view, why is it suddenly taboo to mention it when a gay couple saves children from a Christian terrorist?
There is a difference. Irish, Arab, Israeli, American, are all Nationalities. "Jewish" is a Religion, not a nationality. I happen to think the worst kind of terrorist is the Domestic Terrorist, Like Timothy McVeigh. But that's only my opinion.

Religion or nationality is not someone's sexual orientation. Mentioning in a news story that Al Qaeda bombed something is not saying anything about those people's sexual habits. It is important in reporting a story that people know what group committed the crime, not who they sleep with or love.

I personally couldn't care less what a person does in the bedroom, nor do I care if they are married, domestic partners, or simply friends with benefits. However, it has no bearing on a story, or on my opinion of them as just people.
post #89 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Important to who? And why? Why is an Arab terrorist worse than an Irish or Jewish terrorist? Why should anyone care? When being gay is used by the media day in and day out to identify people and points of view, why is it suddenly taboo to mention it when a gay couple saves children from a Christian terrorist?
Important to anyone who wants to know about the motivation of such an attack. I'm going to assume you're just arguing for the sake of argument on this point, unless you're a lot more of a "koolaid drinker" than I think you are.

Why should anyone care? Because motivation is VERY important when it comes to violence such as this.

I personally don't have any problem with news stories mentioning that the heroic couple were lesbian, but it has nothing to do with their motivation for their actions. At best it would be a gratuitous PC injection. I don't for a moment imagine that, while being interviewed, either one of them said, "Oh, yeah, be sure to mention we're lesbians, that's really important." I don't have any trouble at all imagining (in fact, I don't have to imagine it, since it's in the news reports) that either of the Fort Hood guys said, "I did this because I'm Muslim and they aren't." See the difference?
post #90 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by resqchick View Post
There is a difference. Irish, Arab, Israeli, American, are all Nationalities. "Jewish" is a Religion, not a nationality. I happen to think the worst kind of terrorist is the Domestic Terrorist, Like Timothy McVeigh. But that's only my opinion.

Religion or nationality is not someone's sexual orientation. Mentioning in a news story that Al Qaeda bombed something is not saying anything about those people's sexual habits. It is important in reporting a story that people know what group committed the crime, not who they sleep with or love.

I personally couldn't care less what a person does in the bedroom, nor do I care if they are married, domestic partners, or simply friends with benefits. However, it has no bearing on a story, or on my opinion of them as just people.
Arab, Irish and Jewish are all ethnic groups. Judaism is the religion practiced by many Jews. You will also find Christian, Muslim and Atheist Jews.

News stories involving gays in any fashion always make a point of using that as an identifier. It's just as relevant in this case as any other. It appears that words like "equality" and "fair" are only used in the subject of gays when the story is something people don't want to hear.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Norway "apparently" hit by terrorism