Suspect arrested in Arkansas recruiting center shooting

Source: CNN

An Arkansas man was arrested Monday in connection with a shooting at a Little Rock military recruiting center that killed one soldier and wounded another, authorities said.

Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad -- a 24-year-old Little Rock resident formerly known as Carlos Bledsoe -- faces a first-degree murder charge and 15 counts of engaging in a terrorist act, Little Rock Police Chief Stuart Thomas said. The terrorist counts stem from the shots fired at an occupied building.

While authorities continued to investigate a motive, Thomas said Muhammad is a Muslim convert and, based on preliminary interviews with him, investigators believe there were "political and religious motives" in the shooting.

Military officials initially believed the shooting was a random act, but Thomas said police believe the shooter acted alone "with the specific purpose of targeting military personnel."

Read more: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/01/arkansas.recruiter.shooting/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

---

Police identified the suspect as Abdulhakim
Mujahid Muhammad, formerly known as Carlos Bledsoe.

Video: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/01/arkansas.recruiter.shooting/index.html?eref=rss_topstories#cnnSTCVideo

n.t.

are catchin' crap for tiller's murder.

the reality is this. the vast majority of anti-choicers are peaceful

similarly, the vast majority of muslims are peaceful

members of either group should not be slandered due to the actions of the extremist few.

imo

but most people don't seem to get it.

These two incidents (terrible as the are) do serve the purpose of illustrating a very troubling double standard around here. Namely that too many here are perfectly willing to brand all christians with the deeds of a few, but would never dare do the same with muslims.

Think if this were reversed. If the muslim community were blamed for their extremists and the christians given a free pass. Wouldn't that be condemned as bigotry? Why then is it ok the other way around?

Both individuals are terrible people, who deserve whatever punishment they get. But that's it, you can't assign their actions to others who did not advocate violence, but otherwise shared similar views.

"but most people don't seem to get it. "

there are none so blind...


"These two incidents (terrible as the are) do serve the purpose of illustrating a very troubling double standard around here. Namely that too many here are perfectly willing to brand all christians with the deeds of a few, but would never dare do the same with muslims."

or that they will brand all anti-choicers with the deeds of a few, at least.

i noticed this as soon as the shooting was reported. simply put, i saw metric assloads of assumptions that the killer was probably a disgruntled vet, or something like that. i didn't see ONE (out of dozens ) suspicion that it might be a muslim terrorist.

this guy fits all the "victim" profiles of the left - african american, male, alternative religion (iow not a christian), and former inmate of the racist prison-industrial complex (tm).

people have their metanarratives and they filter the news through it.

fwiw, the polling data i have seen also says that muslim americans (especially those under 30) are much more likely to agree with violence vs. anti-choice people.

but here in DU, every anti-choicer is just one bill oreilly speech away from gunning down an abortion provider.

For instance, people who protest Universities such as UCLA or OHSU for their experiments on primates?

in astounded amazement and horrified nausea.

it's like some kind of psychological illness took hold and all of a sudden every opponent of choice is a MURDERER WAITING TO POUNCE.


oh noes!

there is no debate about that

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You assume, ignorantly, that all, most, half, or even a fraction of DUers smile upon Muslims no question asked.

What an excellent way to make friends!

Anti-choicers by definition are anything but peaceful and for life if we both agree that girls and women are lives. Anti-choicers are extreme. If a girl or woman is raped, incested or for health and life reasons need an abortion, anti-choice people are exactly that: ANTI-CHOICE! Girls and women would have no choice; anti-choicers would get to choose for them.

"If we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people to not kill each other? Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want"
-Mother Theresa

"It seems to be clear as daylight that abortion would be a crime."
-Mahatma Gandhi


Scary.

as far as I am concerned, the rest stands

seems peaceful but I doubt many men, women and children would want to be in that predicament.

were just pretending to be non-violent? And were in fact ready to blow their tops at any moment and go on a murder spree?

That's a fairly radical position to take.

what they were pretending to be. Love Doctors?

The full Mother Teresa quote:

"But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself.

And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts. Jesus gave even His life to love us. So, the mother who is thinking of abortion, should be helped to love, that is, to give until it hurts her plans, or her free time, to respect the life of her child. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts.

By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems.

And, by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. That father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion.

Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion."

(You see, the problem is that language such as above accuse women of blowing their tops and murdering babies. That agitates guys like Scott Roeder.)

National Prayer Breakfast Speech Against Abortion - 1994
Mother Teresa

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles4/MotherTeresaAbortion.shtml


Check out Gandhi's views on sex and birth control.

Because, if you say you are in favor of teaching that abstinence before marriage is the only way to avoid pregnancy and disease, then you are contributing to unwanted pregnancies across America.

If those unintentionally pregnant women legally seek an abortion, how shall we punish them?

than a doctor being murdered. It will be interesting to hear the motive and see how many loudly condemn the murder.

Now the left and right have terrorist "shots across the bow" to talk about. Stay tuned for O'Reilly and Lou Dobbs to raise the specter of America's infiltration by radical Muslins.

The two political groups seem to only mourn their own favorite victims and to condemn their favorite opponents.

This guy had nothing to do with the left.

The recruiter attack has similar implications for the right; it's a violent attack in opposition to their value system, or at least they'll perceive it as such.

Sorry for the confusion.

And you're right.

It will probably depend if you are visiting DU or Free Republic.

the double standards on both sides are telling.

as are the preconceptions.

consider that in all the threads prior to this opining about the possible motivations of hte shooter, i heard it all - disgruntled vet etc. OVER AND OVER

but no (that i recall) suspicions that he might be a muslim terrorist.

both sides have their biases.

they both murder and answer to 'a higher power' in life.

In the meantime, I can't wait to find out what turns up in mohammads apartment. There's gotta be some juicy clues about his "inner struggle" on a hard drive,in a book, letter or newspaper/magazine article cut out.
Even though he has been there for only a few months, gotta be a Charles Manson twitch just waiting to pop out.
It'll suck if the FBI takes over the investigation.

and generally share the same outlook on life. And despite that they'd still probably want to kill each other for believing the "wrong" god.

I'd say let 'em.

The Little Rock shooting has now gotten buried at most MSM websites. The abortion doc's murder continues to be listed under the "top news stories" section at most of those same websites. I wanted to read updates about the LR shooting (since that's home for me) and I had to actually go to the US section, and in a couple cases, even go to the regional news section before I could find the story. Meanwhile the other case continues to be front page news. Both are pretty terrible, but it seems that because the one is tied to a politically polarizing subject, it gets promoted more.

... or the guy who killed Dr. Tiller... or... or... oh, the list goes on and on.

It's only terrorism when Teh Muzlems do it.

Geesh.

looked at their front page stories for this guy and the anti-abortion shooter. At no point did either news outlet described either of these men as terrorists.

Maybe your outrage over the public response to these acts should wait until the public response actually fits your description for it.

perhaps not. But shouldn't you wait for it to happen before condemning those "responsible" for making such claims?

I could put words in anyones mouth and eviscerate them for it. And who knows, they may actually say something like my predictions for them. But until they do I don't think it's really fair to berate someone for my own prediction of their future actions.

Those of us paying attention know we've seen this before, and we know what is next.

It must be very exciting for you to be surprised, when the plot twist on "Three's Company" is that there is a misunderstanding and someone thinks someone meant something other than what they really did.

I envy you for how it must all seem fresh and exciting every time.

Oh, look!

"Gilligan's Island" is on!

I wonder if they're almost going to escape from the island, except that Gilligan does something to mess it up!

Go watch, and tell me how it ends!

Bless your heart, I bet you'll be surprised!

This is exact scenario huh? A christian and muslim extremist committing nearly the same crime within about 24 hours of each other? That's pretty common is it?

Wow, I must have missed that. Could you cite the numerous examples you must have to back your predictions? There must be quite a few to have absolutely no error estimate associated with your predictions. Even the best scientific models, based on numerous repetitions under control situations usually have an error estimate of around p less than or equal to .05.

I eagerly await your examples and links for past incidents that exactly parallel the events of the last two days.

when you make outrageous claims.

Btw, went to CNN, foxnews, CBSnews, and MSNBC this morning. Not a single one described either men as terrorists.

I wonder, do you ever let it bother you that the facts don't support your conclusions, or have you made peace with that?

The unequal treatment of two religiously motivated crimes
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x455354

Ooh! There's an episode of "House" on tonight! I bet he makes the wrong diagnosis a few times, and then an offhanded comment someone else makes about something mundane helps him save the patient!

Oh...

But YOU would have been surprised.

Ok, so first you claimed they would be labeled as terrorists within 24 hours, that never happened. So by objective/sane reasoning you were wrong there.

Second, one isn't being labeled a terrorist because he's a muslim, it's because it happened in another state with different laws; Arkansas has a certain set of terrorist laws, Kansas has another. So again, to a rational person you would be wrong.

Third, I have yet to read any major newsoutlet label either as a terrorist, you're referencing specific charges brought about by the differences in their crime. So you're wrong for a third time.

It is important to me that you understand that at no point where your predictions correct. Do you understand that? I'd like to help you move forward and improve yourself but I need feedback about your varying levels of comprehension before I can do that. Don't be shy about asking questions when you don't understand, that's how we learn.

And finally, try to find a more objective site than "altmuslim" perhaps something mainstream next time to avoid further embarrassments.

"Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Paul Schaefer!"

The camera will cut to Paul, and when it cuts back to Dave, he will already be sitting at his desk.

Sorry to ruin the surprise for you.

Every prediction you made was demonstratively wrong. And yet you still think you were right.

Do you ever let reality interfere with your prejudices? Or would that be painful.

Look back, see what you claimed would happen, and then see if you can find any evidence of it actually happening. When you keep coming up with "no" that means your predictions were wrong.

Nice try, but you should stick with vague predictions Mrs Cleo.

After the Tiller murder Obama responded within hours:

"I am shocked and outraged by the murder of Dr. George Tiller as he attended church services this morning. However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence."

After the Private Long murder Obama responded three days later:

"I am deeply saddened by this senseless act of violence against two brave young soldiers who were doing their part to strengthen our armed forces and keep our country safe. I would like to wish Quinton Ezeagwula a speedy recovery, and to offer my condolences and prayers to William Long’s family as they mourn the loss of their son."


Shocked and outraged by a heinous act, versus saddened by a sensless act. Seems a little unbalanced doesn't it?

Also US marshals were immediately dispatched to protect abortion clinics, but unarmed soldiers at recruiting centers are still not allowed to carry their sidearms.

To be clear his response to the tiller murder was appropriate. His response to the other left something to be desired.

You think both were bad right? Roeder wasn't more evil because he was a christian was he? If so you're guilty of the bias you're accusing (without evidence thus far) everyone else of. Psychologists call this projection. It isn't healthy.

i would really like to find out if he was in prison.

U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04
Section 2331. Definitions

=snip=

(5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that -
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation
of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended -
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass
destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of
the United States.

From: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/113b/sections/section_2331.html

ETA: I'm not sure why they had to use the 'shots fired at a building' thing as a reason to class it as terrorism. His (and Dr. Tiller's murderer's) actions fit squarely into 5 - B - iii above...

In fact, the actions of the anti-abortion protesters could be described as domestic terrorism, as defined in 5 - B - i.

They BOTH are domestic terrorists, and should be treated as such.....




ter⋅ror⋅ist
 
/ˈtɛrərɪst/ Show Spelled Pronunciation Show IPA
–noun
1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
3. (formerly) a member of a political group in Russia aiming at the demoralization of the government by terror.
4. an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.
–adjective
5. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of terrorism or terrorists: terrorist tactics.
Origin:
1785–95; terror + -ist; cf. F terroriste

Related forms:
ter⋅ror⋅is⋅tic, adjective

maybe it will be;

We are fighting "them" over "there" so we don't have to fight "them" over here.

oh wait.

This mohammad is no DC sniper but on a side note we all know where he will be going
but I wonder,
what gang in prison will take him in ? And who is the DC sniper hanging with?

just things that make you go hmmmm.