Isn’t that interesting?

If true (this early information is frequently nothing more than unsubstantiated rumors) this tidbit about the mass murder in Oregon today is very interesting:

The gunman who opened fire at an Oregon community college was forcing people to stand up and state their religion before he began blasting away at them, survivors said Thursday.

A woman who claimed to have a grandmother inside a writing class in Snyder Hall, where a portion the massacre unfolded, described the scene in a tweet.

“The shooter was lining people up and asking if they were Christian,” she wrote. “If they said yes, then they were shot in the head. If they said no, or didn’t answer, they were shot in the legs. My grandma just got to my house, and she was in the room. She wasn’t shot, but she is very upset.

For certain he was a nut job. But what flavor? Probably not “right-wing” as the anti-gun people want to speculate. Probably not Jewish because for the last few hundred years Jews seldom have differences with Christians so great they think it worth killing for.

So my wild speculation is they were either Muslim or some flavor of the political left.


10 thoughts on “Isn’t that interesting?

  1. Too bad nobody was equipped to shoot him in the back of the head while he was interrogating his next victim. I sure sounds like there would have been opportunity.

  2. sirs:

    if the narrative you’ve presented is accurate, this indicates to me that the lid is gonna come off things pretty damned quickly. that is, if he was selectively killing christians, and if he is muslim (hard to imagine anyone else harboring such ill will at christians, even leftists), then people are going to retaliate, sooner or later.

    simple as that.

    john jay
    milton freewater, oregon

    • Certainly the president got that going, with his political rant within hours of the event, and well before any significant facts were known. The most likely explanations are that it’s a combination of cynical gun-ban grandstanding, and an equally cynical attempt to distract attention from the many recent failure of his policies. There certainly is no reason to believe that anything he said was in good faith — not based on his previous actions, and also not given that several of the “facts” he quoted were in fact outright lies and well known to be so.

      • The economy isn’t doing well and he knows he can drum up gun sales by saying “gun control.” He’s the best gun salesman ever.

  3. What Erico said. The movie producer, Phelim Mcaleer said that the first 24 hours of news reports are worthless.

    As for the identity/name of the murderer, it’s been how many hours and no name yet? Is this a recent convert and they’re trying to learn his birth name which is not incriminating?

    • I was very impressed by the county sheriff’s statements at an evening press conference. He made a big deal out of not stating the criminal’s name, not now, not ever, and that he would do his very best to suppress all attention paid to that sack of evil. Good for him. It’s very clear that what these people crave is attention, and — apart from ending all disarmed victim zones — the best thing we can do to prevent these events is to end that attention.

      Years ago, Dean Ing wrote a good novel — “Soft Targets” — built around the premise of mocking, rather than glorifying, the actions of terrorists.

Comments are closed.