Machete-Wielding Man Shot at Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport

[Sousuke 1,214]

I'm assuming this is covered by a different news source?

A neighbor, Donna Jackson, told the Times-Picayune that White was a former Army serviceman, long since retired and living off Social Security and disability checks. He was a deeply religious man, she said, a Jehovah's Witness who shunned Western medicine and encouraged Jackson to use herbal remedies, even to treat her diabetes.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/03/21/new-orleans-airport-attack-scene/25136201/

Edited March 22, 2015 by Sousuke

[GandD 5,966]

I look forward to hearing the motive. I'm going with "crazy". Mostly because of the wasp spray

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

But it wasn't his belief in Christianity that was his motive?

and that basic fact is so simple even a cave man could understand.

[unsmiley 111]

This has turned into the stupidest, off topic thread imaginable.

[Darnell 8,478]

No, not yet.

[Sousuke 1,214]

No, not yet.

Wait for it.....

Do you think he died because they couldn't give him a blood transfusion....you know since he is a Jehovah's witness?

(I hope I'm delivering enough religious hatred to satisfy ppl in this thread...just giving VJ what it wants...)

Edited March 22, 2015 by Sousuke

[lostinblue 1,989]

Suspect in New Orleans airport machete attack dies; explosives found in bag

Officials said they noticed White had been carrying a bag when they checked surveillance video after the incident.

In the bag they found six half-pint mason jars with cloth wicks. The jars were filled with gasoline. The bag also held a barbecue lighter, Jefferson Parish Sheriff Newell Normand said.

Normand said as the bag was being checked other investigators from the Bomb Squad were combing through White’s car parked on the airport ramp. They found in the trunk an acetylene tank, a freon tank and an oxygen tank.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/03/22/shooting-confirmed-at-new-orleans-airport/

[Darnell 8,478]

So must dig and find machete-man manifesto. Maybe his foreign bride leave him, he was trying to meet her at airport ?

[JohnR! 5,495]

He's dead, so we'll never know, but from experience, every time you see someone do something crazy it's normally in the name of some deity.

In any case, he was a christian...

But it wasn't his belief in Christianity that was his motive?

[GandD 5,966]

He's dead, so we'll never know, but from experience, every time you see someone do something crazy it's normally in the name of some deity.

In any case, he was a christian...

What he was doesn't matter if it wasn't part of the motive. I know you're trying but its not at all the same.

[JohnR! 5,495]

But it does. Had he been a Muslim his religion was going to be front and center in this case. I think we should extend the courtesy of prominence to all faiths.

Goose. Gander.

He is now deceased and we can never discount the possibility he acted on his religious beliefs.

What he was doesn't matter if it wasn't part of the motive. I know you're trying but its not at all the same.

[GandD 5,966]

But it does. Had he been a Muslim his religion was going to be front and center in this case. I think we should extend the courtesy of prominence to all faiths.

Goose. Gander.

He is now deceased and we can never discount the possibility he acted on his religious beliefs.

No one would/should care whether he was Muslim/Christian unless that was his motive. The ones we usually talk about on here are people committing an act and then claiming it was in the name of a religion. That's different. Why can't you see the difference? Why do you let other's prejudiced and often baseless accusations form your argument? A Muslim person shooting someone because they broke into his house or something is not the same as say killing a bunch of journalists because they posted a picture of a religious character. I'll say it again, the religion/color/culture/sexual orientation/whatever of someone doesn't matter UNLESS it is the direct motive for the action. Then it has to be part of the discussion. To not include a motive in the discussion because of some PC junk is to do a dis-service to all of us.

[JohnR! 5,495]

We agree to disagree.

That someone should kill another and claim it's being done in the name of religion doesn't make it so, no matter if the religion being highjacked is Islam or Christianity.

If we're going to indulge in the fallacy that one religion condones murder while the other doesn't, at least we need to acknowledge and be honest about it.

It's both or neither. In fact, you can't indict/absolve one and not the other - they both worship the same deity and it would stand to reason such deity would give both sisters similar instructions.

No one would/should care whether he was Muslim/Christian unless that was his motive. The ones we usually talk about on here are people committing an act and then claiming it was in the name of a religion. That's different. Why can't you see the difference? Why do you let other's prejudiced and often baseless accusations form your argument? A Muslim person shooting someone because they broke into his house or something is not the same as say killing a bunch of journalists because they posted a picture of a religious character. I'll say it again, the religion/color/culture/sexual orientation/whatever of someone doesn't matter UNLESS it is the direct motive for the action. Then it has to be part of the discussion. To not include a motive in the discussion because of some PC junk is to do a dis-service to all of us.

[GandD 5,966]

We agree to disagree.

That someone should kill another and claim it's being done in the name of religion doesn't make it so, no matter if the religion being highjacked is Islam or Christianity.

If we're going to indulge in the fallacy that one religion condones murder while the other doesn't, at least we need to acknowledge and be honest about it.

It's both or neither. In fact, you can't indict/absolve one and not the other - they both worship the same deity and it would stand to reason such deity would give both sisters similar instructions.

Ok, so I guess if someone kills someone in the name of Islam, that means we check the "motive doesn't matter" check box. Makes sense. You're letting the other side drive your argument. Doing something in the name of religion doesn't inherently make that religion culpable. But its still the reason you did it.

[JohnR! 5,495]

BINGO!

I believe people do stupid things in the name of their religion and based on their misunderstanding of the books used by such religion. That is true of Christianity, Islam and Judaism. They also attempt to justify their actions on some ill informed opinion derived from their books. That is true of all three sister religions.

ISIS can do whatever they want in the name of their religion and yet they no more are acting in the name of the god of Abraham then Mr. Torquemada did was when he was around or when Christians burned Jews at the stake. I don't think any of the above are representations of the deity these faiths claim to represent.

That is true in the 1300s, 1400s or 2000s...

Ok, so I guess if someone kills someone in the name of Islam, that means we check the "motive doesn't matter" check box. Makes sense. You're letting the other side drive your argument. Doing something in the name of religion doesn't inherently make that religion culpable. But its still the reason you did it.