In the case of this guy, his actions and words are clearly an extension of his religious beliefs. Why would we pretend they are not?
There's the forthcoming statement that I was expecting. This is not what you said earlier. You said earlier that your comments didn't have anything to do with labeling this as something associated with religious affiliation. You were just innocently clarifying what the article didn't confirm. You weren't trying to point out that he was Muslim because this was significant or suggesting that this was the motivation behind this.
Specifically, you described the man as, "
Siraj Wahhaj, Jr. sounds like a mess, in comparison. He was living in squalor in East Methville, New Mexico, with his sisters and eleven starving children.
He wasn't training anyone. He was failing. And now he's in jail and will most likely be charged with the murder of his own handicapped son. It's all pretty tragic, and I feel bad for his dad.
Anyway, that is the story I was following.
The camp was never going to produce a school shooter, and if MKUltra still exists in the way people think it does, let's give them a little more credit than this.
I wasn't making any kind of statement about Muslims or drawing any undue connection to anything. I was just aware of a lot more information than your source seemed to be, and I was adding what I knew to the pile."
Would you like to revise this statement to include your additional comments about his actions are an extension of his religious beliefs? Do you think considering the circumstances of this event and the apparent mental instability of this man that is not an extension of his religious beliefs, that it is responsible for the media to include "Muslim extremist" in the headline? Who is the target audience for this headline?
Specifically, what words or actions relating to this situation are an extension of his religious beliefs?