Missouri mosque destroyed by second fire in weeks

Remember, it's not a hate crime if it's against Muslims...

Don't you mean it's a hate crime so long as the victim isn't white?

Muslims aren't humans, right?

Muslims aren't humans, right?

According to FOX News, they're the new .

Not really that bad, as the last people to bear that title were eliminated even if they had converted generations earlier and looked like a stereotypical 'Aryan'. Brown skin and a beard, rather than the actual religion gets people stereotyped, as the shooting in Wisconsin shows. There are plenty of fair skinned, blond haired and blue eyed Muslims from Bosnia, Chechnya, the Pashtun tribes of Afghanistan, Kurdistan and Albania who escape persecution.

Seriously? Check out the actual record of the U.S. government in prosecuting hate crimes against Muslims in the U.S.

http://www.justice.gov/crt/legalinfo/discrimupdate.php


All these Federal cases,and convictions. All these State convictions. I wonder what the conviction rate is in some Middle East countries for Muslim on Muslim violence? It seems like every day there is a story about some Sunni blowing up some Shia,or vice a verca. Was it not just yesterday when I was watching video of a funeral procession under attack in Syria? How many Muslims died in that attack? Will anyone go to jail for this? I doubt it. I am not saying that some asshole destroying a Mosque anywhere is a good idea, I'm not. I am saying that the U.S. will spend a hell of a lot more time and money pursuing this asshole than any Middle Eastern country will.

Don't you mean it's a hate crime so long as the victim isn't white?

Muslims can't be 'white'?

They can be, but if you commit a crime against them, more so if the crime was commited by a non white person it's not a hate crime, it's just a normal crime.

Or so it seems.

The idea of a hate crime is a stupid idea. A crime is a crime, the motivation for the crime isn't important just the harm done.

From the article:



Since when?

1776.

I disagree. The motivation for a crime is extremely important. Crimes of passion, for instance as opposed to one that is pre-meditated.

Hate crimes are especially distasteful, because they are motivated usually by something the victim cannot change and probabally didn't do.

I can't change being white. If I'm walking down the street, and a group of white guys attack me, how is that any more or less a hate crime than if I was brown? You're implying the victim in non-hate crimes did something to deserve the crime. Or a white on white attack is somehow less serious, than white on brown. Or in this case, if the fire was set by other Muslims, it's not as serious a crime as it would be if Jews did it.

They can be, but if you commit a crime against them, more so if the crime was commited by a non white person it's not a hate crime, it's just a normal crime.

Or so it seems.

The idea of a hate crime is a stupid idea. A crime is a crime, the motivation for the crime isn't important just the harm done.

No its not. Hate crime modifiers were introduced for occasions such as this. An attack on a Mosque like this isn't just arson. It's an attack on an entire community intended to make them fearful and unwanted.