It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Muslim Cab Driver Charged for Running Over His Passengers

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Uh, except that it all happened because of the driver's religion.

All you appeasers can't stand the fact that muslim cab driver attempted to kill his passengers because he felt they insulted his religion. Which is how (some?, many?) muslims often react to any perceived slight to their "religion of peace". It says in the story that they all got into a religious discussion, which led to "words being exchanged", which led to the muslim's attempt to kill those people.

End of story. End of discussion as to motive.




posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 11:34 AM
link   
If you look at Fox News, theyre not worried about so the story as much as they are stirring controversy(i.e. getting higher ratings). Look at the O'Reilly factor, its an entertainment show more than it is a news show. He admits himself that he brings people on the show that will get things heated. Smart in my opinon, because who doesnt like to see O'Reilly and someone go at it, it splits my sides.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 11:49 AM
link   
The problem with that Luda, is because of their stirring of the $#!+ pot, you get people like Century21 here who can't understand the difference between selective journalistic propaganda, and reality. They base their entire concept of things on what Fox and CNN tells them.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
Uh, except that it all happened because of the driver's religion.


How do you know that? Why wasn't it because of the passengers' religions? Why wasn't it because the driver was a nut? Or a man? Or a criminal?



All you appeasers can't stand the fact that muslim cab driver attempted to kill his passengers because he felt they insulted his religion.


Where do any of the sources say he did it because he felt insulted??? You're assuming that.



End of story. End of discussion...


I hope you mean that because we don't need any more assumptions passed off as facts.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
I must be missing the part where his being Muslim needs to be mentioned.

Its because the arguement was over religion. Most other reports include the student's religion also. The religion is relevant, because its a hate crime.


He could be Jewish, or Christian

It turns out he's a Sunni from Somalia. Of the students, one catholic, the other lutheran.


here who can't understand the difference between selective journalistic propaganda, and realit

Lets not make the topic each other.

This guy was a muslim, and he attacked two other people because of their religion. Religion is the important fact in this instance.


They base their entire concept of things on what Fox and CNN tells them.

I agree that FOX news is garbage, and if this was only being reported on by FOX, I'd consider dismissing it out right, since they have no real journalistic ability any more. But other agencies are reporting this, and no one is disputing the facts of the case.

EVEN IF the two christians had directly and personally insulted this guy's religion, its meaningless, he's in the wrong.


benevolent heretic
Why wasn't it because of the passengers' religions?

Because he ran them over. He was the attacker.

THis is a hate crime, pure and simple. The guy got into an arguement over religion, and then tried to kill the two of them. Its no different than if they were black and he was white, and the arguement was over race.


makeitso
you could contact the owner (Ahmed Abukar) of Unite d Cab Co. in and ask him some questions about his employee

The owner is saying that the guy wasn't actually a hired employee, that he obtained a cab key, and apparently the cab was reported stolen (it's plate came up as such).



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 12:06 PM
link   
If this was a White kid killing a black kid or vice versa, it would be jsut as sensationalized. The fact that he was driving around on stolen plates also shows that this guy was no saint. He may even be an illegal.

No matter what the discussion was, he tried to kill them based on religious beliefs, and that is a hate crime. I say deport his ass.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 12:06 PM
link   
If this was a White kid killing a black kid or vice versa, it would be jsut as sensationalized. The fact that he was driving around on stolen plates also shows that this guy was no saint. He may even be an illegal.

No matter what the discussion was, he tried to kill them based on religious beliefs, and that is a hate crime. I say deport his ass.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
The problem with that Luda, is because of their stirring of the $#!+ pot, you get people like Century21 here who can't understand the difference between selective journalistic propaganda, and reality. They base their entire concept of things on what Fox and CNN tells them.


And we get people here that will defend their religion and opinions at all costs, no matter how logically indefensible their opinion is.

These guys are out in force to defend this creep - because he is a muslim? Notice, there's not a word of condemnation from the appeasers and apologists for this muslim's actions.

BTW, I get my news from many sources, not just al-brassiera.


[edit on 2/20/2007 by centurion1211]



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

benevolent heretic
Why wasn't it because of the passengers' religions?

Because he ran them over. He was the attacker.


You miss my point. He didn't run over them because he's a Muslim. He ran over them because he's a criminal! They had a disagreement, yes. Over religion, yes. But if the cabbie was white and the passengers were black, you wouldn't say, "He ran over them because he was white." You'd say, "he ran over them because of a racial disagreement."

I'm not even trying to be PC here, but making this about the cabbie's religion being Muslim instead of about a religious disagreement with a criminal just adds to the current feeling of bigotry toward Muslims in the world today.

If the cabbie was a Baptist and hit 2 Muslims, would you say, "He ran over them because he was a Baptist"?


Originally posted by centurion1211
And we get people here that will defend their religion and opinions at all costs, no matter how logically indefensible their opinion is.


That's right. Because some of us believe in the First Amendment.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

You miss my point. He didn't run over them because he's a Muslim. He ran over them because he's a criminal! They had a disagreement, yes. Over religion, yes.


Uh, I was going to say that it was you that missed the point. But then I re-read your comment and realized that, no, you had (perhaps unwittingly) proved the point that the muslim did this because of his religion.


But if the cabbie was white and the passengers were black, you wouldn't say, "He ran over them because he was white." You'd say, "he ran over them because of a racial disagreement."


No, I'm quite sure it would be you yelling out that he did it because he was white.


I'm not even trying to be PC here, but making this about the cabbie's religion being Muslim instead of about a religious disagreement with a criminal just adds to the current feeling of bigotry toward Muslims in the world today.


We have here one of the finest examples of an apologist attempting to split hairs that I've ever seen.


If the cabbie was a Baptist and hit 2 Muslims, would you say, "He ran over them because he was a Baptist"?


Again, no, that would more likely be a lib screaming about fundamentalist Christians. But, back to reality, that isn't what happened, is it?


Originally posted by centurion1211
And we get people here that will defend their religion and opinions at all costs, no matter how logically indefensible their opinion is.



That's right. Because some of us believe in the First Amendment.


You're now claiming the muslim cab driver's got a 1st amendment right to run over people because they insulted his religion?


No, sometimes people realize that this is something that's not worth defending and either shut up or do the right thing and say, "Nail this guy."





[edit on 2/20/2007 by centurion1211]



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
No, I'm quite sure it would be you yelling out that he did it because he was white.


Well, then you haven't been reading my posts lately.




You're now claiming the muslim cab driver's got a 1st amendment right to run over people because they insulted his religion?



Where did I say that? I guess I should know that you'll assume just about anything.


The guy belongs in prison. I've said from the beginning that he's a criminal. And arguing with you isn't worth my time.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ludaChris
If you look at Fox News, theyre not worried about so the story as much as they are stirring controversy(i.e. getting higher ratings). Look at the O'Reilly factor, its an entertainment show more than it is a news show. He admits himself that he brings people on the show that will get things heated. Smart in my opinon, because who doesnt like to see O'Reilly and someone go at it, it splits my sides.

Yes, but this isn't about Fox News, is it? It's about a wacko cab driver.



Originally posted by Rasobasi420
The problem with that Luda, is because of their stirring of the $#!+ pot, you get people like Century21 here who can't understand the difference between selective journalistic propaganda, and reality. They base their entire concept of things on what Fox and CNN tells them.

Who is Century21? We could have a lot of fun with your username, Rasobasi420...

And whatever centurion1211 bases his perception of reality on is your concern, why?

The fact is, this story is about a religious fundamentalist who went wacko over a religious discussion. I don't think it would have mattered if he were Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, or whatever. He's still just a wacko with anger management problems.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You miss my point. He didn't run over them because he's a Muslim. He ran over them because he's a criminal! They had a disagreement, yes. Over religion, yes. But if the cabbie was white and the passengers were black, you wouldn't say, "He ran over them because he was white." You'd say, "he ran over them because of a racial disagreement."

Yes and this guy ran over them because of a religious disagreement.


I'm not even trying to be PC here, but making this about the cabbie's religion being Muslim instead of about a religious disagreement with a criminal just adds to the current feeling of bigotry toward Muslims in the world today.

If he wasn't muslim, there wouldn't've been an issue, if he was the same religion as these guys, there wouldnt''ve been a religious arguement.

Granted, we can say that the idea of a 'hate crime' as a special crime in bogus in the first place, and that an attack is an attack, no matter what the motivation, but in this case, if there are hate crimes, this was one of them. He fought with them over religion, and then attacked them. What more is required for religious hate? It does't matter that he was also a bad person to begin with. Anyone that's going to commit a hate crime of any type is already a bad person.


If the cabbie was a Baptist and hit 2 Muslims, would you say, "He ran over them because he was a Baptist"?

Yes, if they argued over religion right before it, I would.


centurion1211
No, I'm quite sure it would be you yelling out that he did it because he was white.

I don't know if you know BH too well, but I very much suspect that that is NOT what she'd be saying.

You're now claiming the muslim cab driver's got a 1st amendment right to run over people because they insulted his religion?

She's saying that people are free to say whatever they want, and if they want to say that it wasn't over religion, they are entitled to do so.



jsobecky
He's still just a wacko with anger management problems.

Do you think it was a hate crime?



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 02:47 PM
link   
No, at first glance I don't think it was much more than a severe case of cabbie rage. I don't think there was any pre-meditation.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
And with a name like Ibrahim Ahmed, I'm sure he's a Buddhist.


The same logic is used by people to justify Barack Obama as Muslims, and look at how far it has gotten those people. Just because the man has an Arabic name doesn't not make him a Muslim. Ibrahim is the Arabic version of the name "Abraham" and "Ahmed" means "praised." Ibrahim Ahmad = "Abraham praised."



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Yes and this guy ran over them because of a religious disagreement.


Yes, not because he's a Muslim, but because they had a religious disagreement. (Have we gone full circle yet?
)



If he wasn't muslim, there wouldn't've been an issue,


He could have been a Morman or a Jew. There still would have been an issue. All I'm saying is it wasn't the man's specific religion (Muslim) that made him run these guys over.



What more is required for religious hate?


I'm not arguing that it wasn't a hate crime.



Yes, if they argued over religion right before it, I would.


Okay. I just think that the fact that he had a different religion than the passengers is more relevant than what specific religion he was.
The way this title and article are written, it IMPLIES that Muslims are more likely to run over people.



I don't know if you know BH too well, but I very much suspect that that is NOT what she'd be saying.


(I also wouldn't bring up his race if he was black or any other race, by the way.
)



She's saying that people are free to say whatever they want, and if they want to say that it wasn't over religion, they are entitled to do so.


I actually mentioned the First amendment in response to this:


Originally posted by centurion1211
And we get people here that will defend their religion and opinions at all costs, no matter how logically indefensible their opinion is.


I was defending the cabbie's religion and his opinions. I wasn't defending the fact that he ran his car into someone, which is what centurian was ridiculously trying to say.


ps, If you're going to add a tag to a thread, please look it up if you're not sure how to spell it. Thanks.

[edit on 20-2-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
ps, If you're going to add a tag to a thread, please look it up if you're not sure how to spell it. Thanks.


I just noticed that as well. I wonder who placed that tag, because this has nothing to do with religious extremism. I hope the tagger knows the difference between extremism and anger.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Don't look at me. I haven't tagged a thread for months - ever since a mod decided they didn't like one of my tags ...



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 08:35 PM
link   
I wrote the thread tag and misspelled the tag ( i was in a hurry) I felt that the actions of the cab driver were that of a Muslim extremist due to the fact that he tried to kill the passengers over the dispute concerning religion,

How far does someone have to go before the term applies??

I suppose had he actually blown the cab up, via a bomb or explosive vest he would have earned the extremist label, who decides when the line is crossed???

Anyway sorry if the tag offended anyone, I felt the actions of the cab driver were that of an extremist.

[edit on 20-2-2007 by the_sentinal]



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Do we call anyone who commits a hate crime an "extremist"? If the subject had been race (a white guy running over a black guy) or politics (a democrat running over a republican) would they be considered a "racial extremist" or a "political extremist"?

I personally don't know where the line is, but I think it should be reserved for terrorists. People wo do things to "terrorize" large groups of people for political reasons. I don't think this guy deserves the title of religious extremist. He's a lowly criminal. He's nobody. Is a guy who robs a liquor store an alcoholic extremist?

I don't know...

Props for saying something sentinal!



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join