Sikh, told to leave country, shot in Washington state

Endorsed by Donald Trump. Way to go, America.

No, not endorsed by the President. That's pure hyperbole. Such ignorant statements are merely antagonistic.

Trump never said 'shoot Sikh'.

toshikoMAR. 05, 2017 - 10:36PM JST Trump never said 'shoot Sikh'.

That's right, he didn't. He just said that Muslims were out to destroy us and put in place a fashy chief advisor who says Muslims are part of a world-wide invasion and he cultivated a general though completely ungrounded fear that any Muslim in the country is a potential terrorist who hasn't been vetted by past administrations. And he also expounded at length about how it used to be in the "good old days" when supposedly Americans used to be able to just assault people they disagreed with, until things got too "PC".

And he said all these things to a demographic generally too ignorant and bigoted to be aware that Muslims and Sikhs aren't the same religion.

But you're right, he never outright told people to shoot Sikhs. He blew the dog whistle, but he never did actually say the words.

katsu78: "And he said all these things to a demographic generally too ignorant and bigoted to be aware that Muslims and Sikhs aren't the same religion. But you're right, he never outright told people to shoot Sikhs. He blew the dog whistle, but he never did actually say the words."

Bingo!

Frederic Bastiat: "No, not endorsed by the President."

Not in so many words, no. But notice how this kind of thing has increased exponentially of late, as well as the rise in hate-related crime in general?

Speaking of... this is a different incident than the one where the white terrorist the other day shot a couple of Indian men, telling them to "Get out of my country!", right? The guy, along with the rest of the nation, who was told by Bannon and Trump that "Islam hates America"?

Endorsed by Donald Trump. Way to go, America.

You got evidence to back that accusation? If that's true, if he did indeed do that that, then it stands corrected that Obama ordered the BLM to go on a rampage and target police officers, I am sure you agree with that.

He just said that Muslims were out to destroy us

No, he meant radical Islamists which he is absolutely spot on.

And he said all these things to a demographic generally too ignorant and bigoted to be aware that Muslims and Sikhs aren't the same religion.

@Katsu78 Yeah the "real" 'muricans that "love" their gawd n guns.

Again, deny and deflect ! But, since we are talking about having proof, does the Toddler-in-Chief have proof that our former Commander-in-Chief wiretapped him ?

smithinjapan: he didn't endorsed them. He was endorsed by them.

That said, some think they have carte blanche with DT in the WH for opened racisms and attacks.

Now, we have to manufacture some graphs showing Sikhs are more prone to violence against white people, plublish it on Breitbart and DT to tweet the graphs.

Oh! Almost forgot to blame Obama and spin the story such as the attacker was as a Clinton voter.

in New- Zealand, we have found Sikhs to be reliable and loyal to their adopted country. .

Very sad. For the record Sikhs were also targeted post 9/11 in the us.

For many ppl beard, dark complexion, some sort of headwear (which is not a baseball cap or a cowboy hat, obviously) are 'warning' signs the bloke may well be an Islamic terrorist. After all, 'they all look the same'. Such ignorance which was already shameful 15y ago is now frankly embarrassing.

Bass4funk: "You got evidence to back that accusation? If that's tr if he did indeed do that that, then it stands corrected that Obama ordered the BLM to go on a rampage..."

Yeah, the usual "b-b-b-b-bwhataboutobama?" 'defense'. And you of all people have no right to ask for proof. I believe you are still defending Donald re. his slander about Obama and wiretapping, as well as the other things he has zero evidence for.

No, he meant radical Islamists..."

Prove it. We're going on what he SAID, not by what his apologists insist he meant when they cannot defend the indefensible.

If this man had been brown, or had a name like Muhammad or Omar, the cries of terrorism would be deafening. But since it was the victim that fit that description, not a single cry of terrorism to be heard.

The hypocrisy is so think you would break a knife trying to cut it.

I can call my son mohammed with no connection.

My Sister is called Tamara(russian) as my grandfather loved it fighting the Russians.

My name translated to russian becomes Pyotre or Banayotie(sic) in greek.

Eastwood = Ostwald in German.

Names are just labels.

Is that somehow supposed to disprove my comment?

Yes, it does unless you got a narrow view of the world where you assign labels.?

You mean labels like 'radical islam' that the right has been freaking out about for the past few years because it wasn't applied?

I'm pointing out hypocrisy, not assigning labels.

Any time there is a terrorist-like incident, if there is even a hint of a Muslim-sounding name, or if there is no information about the assailant at all, the right is all over it calling it terrorism and predicting a Muslim. But this time, the victim is the brown one, and nary a call of terrorism from the right.

I know muslims who are 100% germanic in colour/speech/etc.

Of course you also get religious converts like Cassius Clay, Cat Stevens, Sammy Davis JR, etc which won't tick the boxes.

StrangerlandMAR. 06, 2017 - 11:06AM JST If this man had been brown, or had a name like Muhammad or Omar, the cries of terrorism would be deafening. But since it was the victim that fit that description, not a single cry of terrorism to be heard. The hypocrisy is so think you would break a knife trying to cut it.

No doubt if you get any (coherent) reply at all, it will be that an argument that for something to be terrorism it must involve a political statement, and that "Get out of our country" isn't political in nature. I disagree, as I suspect most non-partisans would. Implicit in the argument that certain people should not be in a country is a statement about who the "proper" owners of a country are and who has the power to be a gatekeeper to that country.

Yeah, right.

You can't show relevance to what I was posting, because there is no relevance.

Extremely disturbing and points to deep moral issues with America. Hopefully they find him and permanently remove him from the streets

The perpetrator is probably a European-American terrorist.

Look up "The battle of Saragarhi' on Wikipedia 21 SIKHS HELD OFF 10,000 Afghans when fighting for the British Raj one of the famous last stands, like modern day spartan's they are fiercely loyal to their allies, people should read history before belittling such noble beings,