I wasn't necessarily responding to your post, just the idea behind a few of them.
Tragedy, especially when it happens on a massive scale, seems to fall prey to this same argument repeatedly. Cho was under the influence of mind
control. So was Nassan. So was Muhammad. So were the Columbine shooters. Oh yeah, and all of those terrorist videos? Mind control. Same with those
people that died on the planes that hit those buildings in New York. They were all under the influence of mind control.
See where I'm heading with this? It's the exact opposite of "denying ignorance". It's labeling a tragedy a conspiracy for the sake of softening
it's implications. You're taking the responsibility out of human hands; human hands that could reach out and harm an innocent person at random any
time of the day, and putting them in the big bad claws of this maleficent sector of the government or worldwide population. Why? Because you can't
see it; heck, you don't even know if it exists! But, isn't that better than walking down the street and thinking the man getting a cup of coffee
from the newsstand in front of you could turn around and liquefy your skull with a sawed-off shotgun for no reason at all? Sure. But it isn't denying
ignorance.
Again, this wasn't necessarily a response or critique of you or your post, but more of a general explanation behind the psychology of such claims.
They could have boiled Muhammad or let him live in jail for the rest of his life. I really have no desire to care.
Edit-To add, Mr. Canuck, when I say "you", it in no way refers to you, Mr. Canuck, but rather the ultra-paranoid crowd out there.
[edit on 11-11-2009 by hungrydirt]