20+ dead, 40+ hospitalized injured. :(
http://www.bbc.com/news/36510272 (http://www.bbc.com/news/36510272)
Yes, absolutely horrible :mad:
No info yet on the perpetrator.
From BBC live coverage:
Quote
Gunman 'had leanings towards radical Islamic ideology'
Posted at
13:42
Asked whether the gunman had links to radical Islamist terrorism, Ronald Hopper from the FBI said:
"We do have suggestions that that individual might have leanings towards that particular ideology."
However, he added that this was not yet definitively established.
I can't even get mad at this shit any more. Let's hope we awaken to the threat in our midst before it is too late.
The TV didn't mention it was a gay club.
Fuckers.
Quote from: Tyr on June 12, 2016, 07:35:22 AM
The TV didn't mention it was a gay club.
Fuckers.
Whoa! :o
:(
Quote from: The Brain on June 12, 2016, 07:46:46 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 12, 2016, 07:35:22 AM
The TV didn't mention it was a gay club.
Fuckers.
Whoa! :o
I don't think he meant it the way it came across. :lol:
I have to hope that the killer was just a crazy white guy, as per usual.
QuoteAsked whether the gunman had links to radical Islamist terrorism, Ronald Hopper from the FBI said:
"We do have suggestions that that individual might have leanings towards that particular ideology."
He may just be a hipster.
Was he found with a taco filled with Korean bbq in his hand or something? :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on June 12, 2016, 08:35:27 AM
Was he found with a taco filled with Korean bbq in his hand or something? :hmm:
um pretty sure that is so three years ago even hipsters would think it is passé
Maybe radicalising American muslims online and then directing them to carry out gun/improvised attacks has become IS's preferred method for attacking the US?
Hard to counter, blurs the line between domestic and international terrorism. How best to meaningfully respond to it, given challenging the availability of guns to possible terrorists or mentally unstable, is a no-go area of policy for any US administration.
Quote from: mongers on June 12, 2016, 08:52:02 AM
Maybe radicalising American muslims online and then directing them to carry out gun/improvised attacks has become IS's preferred method for attacking the US?
Perhaps they've realized that getting Trump elected would be the greatest act of terrorism in history.
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 07:32:33 AM
I can't even get mad at this shit any more. Let's hope we awaken to the threat in our midst before it is too late.
What exactly would be your solution? Boot out American citizens whose parents came from predominantly muslim countries?
Quote from: garbon on June 12, 2016, 09:12:23 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 07:32:33 AM
I can't even get mad at this shit any more. Let's hope we awaken to the threat in our midst before it is too late.
What exactly would be your solution? Boot out American citizens whose parents came from predominantly muslim countries?
Donald Trump has some ideas.
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 09:41:10 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 12, 2016, 09:12:23 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 07:32:33 AM
I can't even get mad at this shit any more. Let's hope we awaken to the threat in our midst before it is too late.
What exactly would be your solution? Boot out American citizens whose parents came from predominantly muslim countries?
Donald Trump has some ideas.
*sigh*
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 09:41:10 AM
Donald Trump has some ideas.
Those "ideas" only qualify as such if they are implementable and have a reasonable chance to achieve the stated objective.
:mad:
This type of stuff will drive idiots to vote for Trump though. :weep:
50 dead reported now :(
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 09:41:10 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 12, 2016, 09:12:23 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 07:32:33 AM
I can't even get mad at this shit any more. Let's hope we awaken to the threat in our midst before it is too late.
What exactly would be your solution? Boot out American citizens whose parents came from predominantly muslim countries?
Donald Trump has some ideas.
What are his ideas on domestic terrorism? Can you point me to them or write them down here? I am honestly not aware of those.
Fuck. Awful :(
Quote from: Caliga on June 12, 2016, 09:52:20 AM
This type of stuff will drive idiots to vote for Trump though. :weep:
Do those idiots care much about the death of gays?
Trump is a master spin doctor. He (or his people) will figure out a way to scare them and make them not care about that angle.
Quote from: garbon on June 12, 2016, 09:56:50 AM
Quote from: Caliga on June 12, 2016, 09:52:20 AM
This type of stuff will drive idiots to vote for Trump though. :weep:
Do those idiots care much about the death of gays?
Yes. Many of those who support Trump are of a libertarian bent. It is quite comforting, I assume, for you to think that people who support Donald Trump hate gays - but many of them are quite neutral. In any event, it's Muslims, not Christians or Trump supporters, who are apparently murdering gay people - in Middle East or in America.
But go on continuing to be suicidal - thankfully, you are slowly but surely becoming a minority.
Quote from: Caliga on June 12, 2016, 10:05:16 AM
Trump is a master spin doctor. He (or his people) will figure out a way to scare them and make them not care about that angle.
True.
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 10:05:24 AM
But go on continuing to be suicidal - thankfully, you are slowly but surely becoming a minority.
Isn't it about time for you to become banned again? :goodboy:
Quote from: Caliga on June 12, 2016, 10:05:16 AM
Trump is a master spin doctor. He (or his people) will figure out a way to scare them and make them not care about that angle.
I'm disappointed, Cal.
Quote from: garbon on June 12, 2016, 10:06:06 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 10:05:24 AM
But go on continuing to be suicidal - thankfully, you are slowly but surely becoming a minority.
Isn't it about time for you to become banned again? :goodboy:
Quite typical of your ilk. If someone else's speech becomes inconvenient, it's the best solution to ban it.
Quote from: garbon on June 12, 2016, 09:56:50 AM
Quote from: Caliga on June 12, 2016, 09:52:20 AM
This type of stuff will drive idiots to vote for Trump though. :weep:
Do those idiots care much about the death of gays?
I'm sure it varies but the far-right's been pink-washing for ages. The EDL always have a rainbow flag at their rallies (just the one). Hopefully there aren't too many useful idiots who'll believe that they see us as anything but a weapon to use against another minority group.
Ironic that some gays go on supporting mass immigration for a religion whose members would throw them off a roof - yet consider other people "useful idiots".
The death toll up to 50, by the way. Apparently it's the most lethal mass shooting in US history.
Except that there isn't mass immigration of Muslims to the US--there's barely a trickle. Apparently this guy's parents immigrated in the 80s, back when the Afghans were on our side.
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on June 12, 2016, 10:15:29 AM
Except that there isn't mass immigration of Muslims to the US--there's barely a trickle. Apparently this guy's parents immigrated in the 80s, back when the Afghans were on our side.
Well, you convinced me - Muslims cannot assimilate or coexist with a liberal democracy, no matter how many years they live here.
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 10:17:10 AM
Well, you convinced me - Muslims cannot assimilate or coexist with a liberal democracy, no matter how many years they live here.
That's your fucking takeaway? You come to that conclusion, ignore the gigantic amounts of muslims who
don't make national/international headlines, and ignore the conclusion that maybe targeting jihadi recruiters is more critical than just throwing a bunch of foot soldiers into a hail of bullets? What the fuck kind of lawyer are you, anyway?
Quote from: garbon on June 12, 2016, 09:56:50 AM
Quote from: Caliga on June 12, 2016, 09:52:20 AM
This type of stuff will drive idiots to vote for Trump though. :weep:
Do those idiots care much about the death of gays?
I have no idea what Trump supporters care about, but it might depend on what color skin the gay victims have.
Hey, they also care about women's rights, as long as the women are oppressed by Muslims.
Quote from: Solmyr on June 12, 2016, 11:04:19 AM
Hey, they also care about women's rights, as long as the women are oppressed by Muslims.
Which flag do I need to put over my Facebook?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CkwxxLTWsAEqfNo.jpg)
Irony of ironies: because of the sheer number of casualties, they've pushed out "Urgent need for O Neg, O Pos and AB Plasma donors" alerts.
In the US, gay men are not allowed to donate blood.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 12, 2016, 11:39:11 AM
Irony of ironies: because of the sheer number of casualties, they've pushed out "Urgent need for O Neg, O Pos and AB Plasma donors" alerts.
In the US, gay men are not allowed to donate blood.
I would like to see politicians issue calls for blood donations this morning instead of their generic comments.
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 10:17:10 AM
Well, you convinced me - Muslims cannot assimilate or coexist with a liberal democracy, no matter how many years they live here.
John Wayne Gacy had 33 gay murder victims in one location, you know. Not a Muslim.
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 10:07:19 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 12, 2016, 10:06:06 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 10:05:24 AM
But go on continuing to be suicidal - thankfully, you are slowly but surely becoming a minority.
Isn't it about time for you to become banned again? :goodboy:
Quite typical of your ilk. If someone else's speech becomes inconvenient, it's the best solution to ban it.
I think most of us come to this forum as a pleasant way of leisurely passing the time. There is nothing pleasing about your 'contributions'.
If you want to leisurely pass time in a pleasant way perhaps you shouldn't post in a thread about mass murder?
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 11:53:48 AM
If you want to leisurely pass time in a pleasant way perhaps you shouldn't post in a thread about mass murder?
Oh so are you refuting my thesis? What exactly is it that you think we do here?
Quote from: garbon on June 12, 2016, 11:56:17 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 11:53:48 AM
If you want to leisurely pass time in a pleasant way perhaps you shouldn't post in a thread about mass murder?
Oh so are you refuting my thesis? What exactly is it that you think we do here?
What's your thesis?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 12, 2016, 11:41:51 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 10:17:10 AM
Well, you convinced me - Muslims cannot assimilate or coexist with a liberal democracy, no matter how many years they live here.
John Wayne Gacy had 33 gay murder victims in one location, you know. Not a Muslim.
Wow. :lol:
Mart, try for once to stop being a gigantic douchebag.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ckw8a8aW0AEQ1-R.jpg)
Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 12, 2016, 10:45:38 AM
What the fuck kind of lawyer are you, anyway?
The kind that cleans the toilets and picks up a little bit of the law lingo.
Quote from: PDH on June 12, 2016, 12:00:34 PM
Mart, try for once to stop being a gigantic douchebag.
Tell him to flap his arms and fly. It'll be easier.
Apparently, he was on the FBI list of known ISIS sympathisers.
So, to answer garbon's question about what we should do - making sure people like this are not able to walk freely in our societies would be a good start.
Quote from: garbon on June 12, 2016, 11:50:39 AMI think most of us come to this forum as a pleasant way of leisurely passing the time. There is nothing pleasing about your 'contributions'.
that's the paradox attitude of forum administration, though. a forum is where people gather online and talk. over time, characters develop. some are funny, some provoke, etc. marti contributes in his own unique way
Quote from: LaCroix on June 12, 2016, 12:14:40 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 12, 2016, 11:50:39 AMI think most of us come to this forum as a pleasant way of leisurely passing the time. There is nothing pleasing about your 'contributions'.
that's the paradox attitude of forum administration, though. a forum is where people gather online and talk. over time, characters develop. some are funny, some provoke, etc. marti contributes in his own unique way
I see nothing wrong in banning a poster who serves as nothing but a detriment to our forum. Apparently our mods feel the same if the amount of bans he's been given are any indication.
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 12:00:01 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 12, 2016, 11:41:51 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 10:17:10 AM
Well, you convinced me - Muslims cannot assimilate or coexist with a liberal democracy, no matter how many years they live here.
John Wayne Gacy had 33 gay murder victims in one location, you know. Not a Muslim.
Wow. :lol:
QuoteThe suspect's father has spoken out to the media, saying his son was anti-gay and he doesn't believe the attack was motivated by religion.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando-nightclub-shooting-suspected-gunman-omar-mateen/
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 12, 2016, 12:19:48 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 12:00:01 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 12, 2016, 11:41:51 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 10:17:10 AM
Well, you convinced me - Muslims cannot assimilate or coexist with a liberal democracy, no matter how many years they live here.
John Wayne Gacy had 33 gay murder victims in one location, you know. Not a Muslim.
Wow. :lol:
QuoteThe suspect's father has spoken out to the media, saying his son was anti-gay and he doesn't believe the attack was motivated by religion.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando-nightclub-shooting-suspected-gunman-omar-mateen/
How many other mass shootings in gay clubs were perpetrated to date by homophobes? I mean, given the widespread access to guns in the US and homophobia among the racist, right wing rednecks and the like, there must be virtually dozens of cases.
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 12:12:18 PM
So, to answer garbon's question about what we should do - making sure people like this are not able to walk freely in our societies would be a good start.
Imprisonment for thought crime? You just become absurd now.
Incidentally, Seedee, I am seeing other media reports that he was on the FBI watch list since 2013 because of radical islam sympathies. This seems to belie what the father is saying.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 12, 2016, 12:19:48 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 12:00:01 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 12, 2016, 11:41:51 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 10:17:10 AM
Well, you convinced me - Muslims cannot assimilate or coexist with a liberal democracy, no matter how many years they live here.
John Wayne Gacy had 33 gay murder victims in one location, you know. Not a Muslim.
Wow. :lol:
QuoteThe suspect's father has spoken out to the media, saying his son was anti-gay and he doesn't believe the attack was motivated by religion.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando-nightclub-shooting-suspected-gunman-omar-mateen/
How misguided
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 12:23:21 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 12, 2016, 12:19:48 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 12:00:01 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 12, 2016, 11:41:51 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 10:17:10 AM
Well, you convinced me - Muslims cannot assimilate or coexist with a liberal democracy, no matter how many years they live here.
John Wayne Gacy had 33 gay murder victims in one location, you know. Not a Muslim.
Wow. :lol:
QuoteThe suspect's father has spoken out to the media, saying his son was anti-gay and he doesn't believe the attack was motivated by religion.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando-nightclub-shooting-suspected-gunman-omar-mateen/
How many other mass shootings in gay clubs were perpetrated to date by homophobes? I mean, given the widespread access to guns in the US and homophobia among the racist, right wing rednecks and the like, there must be virtually dozens of cases.
I would label this a Terror attack, not just a vanilla run of the mill US mass shooting.
Quote from: Zanza on June 12, 2016, 12:24:38 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 12:12:18 PM
So, to answer garbon's question about what we should do - making sure people like this are not able to walk freely in our societies would be a good start.
Imprisonment for thought crime? You just become absurd now.
Doesn't Germany punish certain forms of speech with imprisonment? Like Holocaust-denial?
Omar Mateen called 911 just before the shooting and pledged allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/orlando-nightclub-massacre/orlando-nightclub-shooting-emergency-services-respond-reports-gunman-n590446 (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/orlando-nightclub-massacre/orlando-nightclub-shooting-emergency-services-respond-reports-gunman-n590446)
Quote from: 11B4V on June 12, 2016, 12:27:13 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 12:23:21 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 12, 2016, 12:19:48 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 12:00:01 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 12, 2016, 11:41:51 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 10:17:10 AM
Well, you convinced me - Muslims cannot assimilate or coexist with a liberal democracy, no matter how many years they live here.
John Wayne Gacy had 33 gay murder victims in one location, you know. Not a Muslim.
Wow. :lol:
QuoteThe suspect's father has spoken out to the media, saying his son was anti-gay and he doesn't believe the attack was motivated by religion.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando-nightclub-shooting-suspected-gunman-omar-mateen/
How many other mass shootings in gay clubs were perpetrated to date by homophobes? I mean, given the widespread access to guns in the US and homophobia among the racist, right wing rednecks and the like, there must be virtually dozens of cases.
I would label this a Terror attack, not just a vanilla run of the mill US mass shooting.
CdM is saying this is no different than John Wayne Gacy's murders. I am trying to engage him.
Quote from: garbon on June 12, 2016, 12:16:58 PMI see nothing wrong in banning a poster who serves as nothing but a detriment to our forum. Apparently our mods feel the same if the amount of bans he's been given are any indication.
but is there evidence he's a detriment to the forum? a few people having negative feelings over his posts isn't a detriment to the forum. if you mean the allegations that he drove some people off the forum, those can't really be relied on accurately unless a person actually said, "I'm quitting the forum and never returning because of marti." if that were the case with one or a handful of posters, it hasn't happened in years, and IIRC marti isn't the only person who allegedly drove someone to quit the forum.
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 12:28:11 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 12, 2016, 12:27:13 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 12:23:21 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 12, 2016, 12:19:48 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 12:00:01 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 12, 2016, 11:41:51 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 10:17:10 AM
Well, you convinced me - Muslims cannot assimilate or coexist with a liberal democracy, no matter how many years they live here.
John Wayne Gacy had 33 gay murder victims in one location, you know. Not a Muslim.
Wow. :lol:
QuoteThe suspect's father has spoken out to the media, saying his son was anti-gay and he doesn't believe the attack was motivated by religion.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando-nightclub-shooting-suspected-gunman-omar-mateen/
How many other mass shootings in gay clubs were perpetrated to date by homophobes? I mean, given the widespread access to guns in the US and homophobia among the racist, right wing rednecks and the like, there must be virtually dozens of cases.
I would label this a Terror attack, not just a vanilla run of the mill US mass shooting.
CdM is saying this is no different than John Wayne Gacy's murders. I am trying to engage him.
I didn't take that away from his post. You missed his point. WHOOOOOOSH.
Quote from: Phillip V on June 12, 2016, 12:27:51 PM
Omar Mateen called 911 just before the shooting and pledged allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/orlando-nightclub-massacre/orlando-nightclub-shooting-emergency-services-respond-reports-gunman-n590446 (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/orlando-nightclub-massacre/orlando-nightclub-shooting-emergency-services-respond-reports-gunman-n590446)
:glare:
Quote from: LaCroix on June 12, 2016, 12:29:19 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 12, 2016, 12:16:58 PMI see nothing wrong in banning a poster who serves as nothing but a detriment to our forum. Apparently our mods feel the same if the amount of bans he's been given are any indication.
but is there evidence he's a detriment to the forum? a few people having negative feelings over his posts isn't a detriment to the forum. if you mean the allegations that he drove some people off the forum, those can't really be relied on accurately unless a person actually said, "I'm quitting the forum and never returning because of marti." if that were the case with one or a handful of posters, it hasn't happened in years, and IIRC marti isn't the only person who allegedly drove someone to quit the forum.
Yeah, I think there is enough evidence of posters who stand by my statement or something to similar effect. I'm not talking about people he ran, but just people who post currently who would describe his presence as wholly unpleasant.
Enough about him though, in this thread. :blush:
Quote from: LaCroix on June 12, 2016, 12:29:19 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 12, 2016, 12:16:58 PMI see nothing wrong in banning a poster who serves as nothing but a detriment to our forum. Apparently our mods feel the same if the amount of bans he's been given are any indication.
but is there evidence he's a detriment to the forum? a few people having negative feelings over his posts isn't a detriment to the forum. if you mean the allegations that he drove some people off the forum, those can't really be relied on accurately unless a person actually said, "I'm quitting the forum and never returning because of marti." if that were the case with one or a handful of posters, it hasn't happened in years, and IIRC marti isn't the only person who allegedly drove someone to quit the forum.
Eh, he doesn't bother me.
Martinus has already gone Throttle Up and jettisoned his boosters, and is now well into the second stage on his way into orbit beyond the Milosphere.
I expect his douchebagginess will reach trajectory optimization in, oh, less than an hour, at which point I'll be giving him the rest of the day off. Mission Control out.
IN SPACE NO ONE CAN HEAR YOU SHRILL
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 12:27:26 PM
Quote from: Zanza on June 12, 2016, 12:24:38 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 12:12:18 PM
So, to answer garbon's question about what we should do - making sure people like this are not able to walk freely in our societies would be a good start.
Imprisonment for thought crime? You just become absurd now.
Doesn't Germany punish certain forms of speech with imprisonment? Like Holocaust-denial?
The protected legal object there is public peace, not the truth about the holocaust. You can think that the Holocaust never happened, but you are not allowed to utter those thoughts in a way that disturbs public peace or incites hatred. So the crime is not about the thought, but about actions deriving from that thought. As a lawyer, you can surely appreciate the difference.
That said - and I have said that repeatedly - I prefer the American approach to free speech.
Not sure what the relevance to your proposal of pre-emptive detention is though.
Quote from: Phillip V on June 12, 2016, 12:27:51 PM
Omar Mateen called 911 just before the shooting and pledged allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/orlando-nightclub-massacre/orlando-nightclub-shooting-emergency-services-respond-reports-gunman-n590446 (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/orlando-nightclub-massacre/orlando-nightclub-shooting-emergency-services-respond-reports-gunman-n590446)
Maybe he fell and landed on his phone?
Quote from: Caliga on June 12, 2016, 09:52:20 AM
This type of stuff will drive idiots to vote for Trump though. :weep:
He will latch on to this and. politicize this like no other. I hope Obama calls this a Terror attack that will take wind out of his sails. He'll still push his line on accepting Muslim refugees and islamophobia on folks that are still sitting on the fence.
Quote from: Phillip V on June 12, 2016, 12:27:51 PM
Omar Mateen called 911 just before the shooting and pledged allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
I bet al-Baghdadi didn't even know who the hell he was.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 12, 2016, 12:54:31 PM
He will latch on to this and. politicize this like no other. I hope Obama calls this a Terror attack that will take wind out of his sails. He'll still push his line on accepting Muslim refugees and islamophobia on folks that are still sitting on the fence.
Oh, this will wind up following the same script as usual: there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth about Mooselimbs, and even lip service regarding violence against teh gays--but nary a word about the guns. As usual.
QuoteThe gunman was armed with an AR-15-type semiautomatic rifle and a handgun, Chief Mina said.
Imagine that.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 12, 2016, 12:54:31 PM
Quote from: Caliga on June 12, 2016, 09:52:20 AM
This type of stuff will drive idiots to vote for Trump though. :weep:
He will latch on to this and. politicize this like no other. I hope Obama calls this a Terror attack that will take wind out of his sails. He'll still push his line on accepting Muslim refugees and islamophobia on folks that are still sitting on the fence.
Obama is not even capable of using the expression "Islamic terrorism".
Lieutenant Governor of Texas. He later deleted it.
(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13442212_1103401386397829_1868811070431343947_n.jpg?oh=51646068ccecd1df3940f29f180d7d9f&oe=57FF45D5)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 12, 2016, 01:03:10 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 12, 2016, 12:54:31 PM
He will latch on to this and. politicize this like no other. I hope Obama calls this a Terror attack that will take wind out of his sails. He'll still push his line on accepting Muslim refugees and islamophobia on folks that are still sitting on the fence.
Oh, this will wind up following the same script as usual: there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth about Mooselimbs, and even lip service regarding violence against teh gays--but nary a word about the guns. As usual.
QuoteThe gunman was armed with an AR-15-type semiautomatic rifle and a handgun, Chief Mina said.
Imagine that.
What a horrible press brief.
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 01:05:05 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 12, 2016, 12:54:31 PM
Quote from: Caliga on June 12, 2016, 09:52:20 AM
This type of stuff will drive idiots to vote for Trump though. :weep:
He will latch on to this and. politicize this like no other. I hope Obama calls this a Terror attack that will take wind out of his sails. He'll still push his line on accepting Muslim refugees and islamophobia on folks that are still sitting on the fence.
Obama is not even capable of using the expression "Islamic terrorism".
Well he called it terror and then went on to politicize it.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 12, 2016, 01:07:01 PM
What a horrible press brief.
NBC News used both "automatic" and "clip" today. You would've had kittens.
Quote from: Phillip V on June 12, 2016, 01:05:23 PM
Lieutenant Governor of Texas. He later deleted it.
(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13442212_1103401386397829_1868811070431343947_n.jpg?oh=51646068ccecd1df3940f29f180d7d9f&oe=57FF45D5)
Christian fundies trying hard not to be outdone by Muslim fundies - yet, douchebaggery is not as bad as mass murder.
No wonder I avoided the outside world all day. Humans suck.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 12, 2016, 01:12:54 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 12, 2016, 01:07:01 PM
What a horrible press brief.
NBC News used both "automatic" and "clip" today. You would've had kittens.
:lol:
Quote from: Phillip V on June 12, 2016, 01:05:23 PM
Lieutenant Governor of Texas. He later deleted it.
(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13442212_1103401386397829_1868811070431343947_n.jpg?oh=51646068ccecd1df3940f29f180d7d9f&oe=57FF45D5)
Right Wing Christian fundies sticks foot in mouth.
News at 11
He states the tweet automatically goes out every Sunday or some shut like that. Some program.
Accident or the Will of God. You decide :lol:
1500 people in Orlando lining up to give blood. :cry:
Quote from: Phillip V on June 12, 2016, 01:05:23 PM
Lieutenant Governor of Texas. He later deleted it.
Ahahaha. God he is such a buffoon. I remember at the time saying it would be better if we elected the sportscaster Dan Patrick than this guy.
Anyway as I said: never put Texas politicians in positions of authority. We know how to keep them in line down here but it is scary whenever you people elect them to national office.
Quote from: citizen k on June 12, 2016, 01:30:46 PM
1500 people in Orlando lining up to give blood. :cry:
This is how real Americans respond to a situation like this.
Have seen exactly zero news coverage about this, but somewhat surprised if/that this went off without someone having a concealed weapon. It sometimes seems like half the state has a permit.
Quote
ISIS claims responsibility for Orlando mass shooting – affiliated agency
https://www.rt.com/news/346390-isis-claims-orlando-shooting/
Quote from: 11B4V on June 12, 2016, 01:58:57 PM
Quote
ISIS claims responsibility for Orlando mass shooting – affiliated agency
https://www.rt.com/news/346390-isis-claims-orlando-shooting/
If there is an actual international terrorist link and not just dumb posturing from ISIS, this is the biggest terrorist attack on US soil since 911.
Quote from: Valmy on June 12, 2016, 01:50:16 PMbut it is scary whenever you people elect them to national office.
what do you mean by "you people"?
feminists?
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 10:05:24 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 12, 2016, 09:56:50 AM
Quote from: Caliga on June 12, 2016, 09:52:20 AM
This type of stuff will drive idiots to vote for Trump though. :weep:
Do those idiots care much about the death of gays?
Yes. Many of those who support Trump are of a libertarian bent. It is quite comforting, I assume, for you to think that people who support Donald Trump hate gays - but many of them are quite neutral. In any event, it's Muslims, not Christians or Trump supporters, who are apparently murdering gay people - in Middle East or in America.
But go on continuing to be suicidal - thankfully, you are slowly but surely becoming a minority.
What kind of Libertarians do you think support the deportation of natural born American citizens?
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 02:04:06 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 12, 2016, 01:58:57 PM
Quote
ISIS claims responsibility for Orlando mass shooting – affiliated agency
https://www.rt.com/news/346390-isis-claims-orlando-shooting/
If there is an actual international terrorist link and not just dumb posturing from ISIS, this is the biggest terrorist attack on US soil since 911.
Claim before or claim after, six of one, half a dozen of the other
Quote from: Razgovory on June 12, 2016, 02:06:34 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 10:05:24 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 12, 2016, 09:56:50 AM
Quote from: Caliga on June 12, 2016, 09:52:20 AM
This type of stuff will drive idiots to vote for Trump though. :weep:
Do those idiots care much about the death of gays?
Yes. Many of those who support Trump are of a libertarian bent. It is quite comforting, I assume, for you to think that people who support Donald Trump hate gays - but many of them are quite neutral. In any event, it's Muslims, not Christians or Trump supporters, who are apparently murdering gay people - in Middle East or in America.
But go on continuing to be suicidal - thankfully, you are slowly but surely becoming a minority.
What kind of Libertarians do you think support the deportation of natural born American citizens?
The kind that prefer their country and their lives and lives of their loved ones to some abstract principle.
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 02:18:03 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 12, 2016, 02:06:34 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 10:05:24 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 12, 2016, 09:56:50 AM
Quote from: Caliga on June 12, 2016, 09:52:20 AM
This type of stuff will drive idiots to vote for Trump though. :weep:
Do those idiots care much about the death of gays?
Yes. Many of those who support Trump are of a libertarian bent. It is quite comforting, I assume, for you to think that people who support Donald Trump hate gays - but many of them are quite neutral. In any event, it's Muslims, not Christians or Trump supporters, who are apparently murdering gay people - in Middle East or in America.
But go on continuing to be suicidal - thankfully, you are slowly but surely becoming a minority.
What kind of Libertarians do you think support the deportation of natural born American citizens?
The kind that prefer their country and their lives and lives of their loved ones to some abstract principle.
That sentence does not describe anyone who is honestly "libertarian". Anyone who claims that liberty is an "abstract principle" to be put aside in favor to security theater is no "libertarian".
that abstract principle is the core of american society
Not apple pie? :(
Fair enough. There is probably little you can do about these people who are already US citizens (although you should watch them more closely and try to stop them before they murder innocent people) but you can stop immigration of more of them from Muslim countries. Afghanistan is a great example - 99% of people there support sharia law. You can't hope for such people to assimilate.
A terrible tragedy.
The challenge for Americans is that our Muslim situations like this are isolated. We don't have communities in the US that are hotbeds of Islamic terrorism like in Europe. So how do you address that challenge? How can we prevent all these school shootings? How do you detect when someone has cracked or become radicalized in their beliefs and get to them before they do something terrible?
No one has really presented any good answers to this, even Trump. While I have no concerns with limiting immigration from Muslim countries known to be hot beds of terrorism, how do you deal with those who are already citizens? People who, as a group, are overwhelmingly law abiding.
Its curious the same group that warns against using this as an excuse to curb THEIR liberties (2nd Amendment) would use it as an excuse to curtail the liberties of others.
Quote from: Jaron on June 12, 2016, 02:43:53 PM
A terrible tragedy.
The challenge for Americans is that our Muslim situations like this are isolated. We don't have communities in the US that are hotbeds of Islamic terrorism like in Europe. So how do you address that challenge? How can we prevent all these school shootings? How do you detect when someone has cracked or become radicalized in their beliefs and get to them before they do something terrible?
No one has really presented any good answers to this, even Trump. While I have no concerns with limiting immigration from Muslim countries known to be hot beds of terrorism, how do you deal with those who are already citizens? People who, as a group, are overwhelmingly law abiding.
Its curious the same group that warns against using this as an excuse to curb THEIR liberties (2nd Amendment) would use it as an excuse to curtail the liberties of others.
Behavioral Analytics and Insider Threat Management ;)
Quote from: Jaron on June 12, 2016, 02:43:53 PM
A terrible tragedy.
The challenge for Americans is that our Muslim situations like this are isolated. We don't have communities in the US that are hotbeds of Islamic terrorism like in Europe. So how do you address that challenge? How can we prevent all these school shootings? How do you detect when someone has cracked or become radicalized in their beliefs and get to them before they do something terrible?
No one has really presented any good answers to this, even Trump. While I have no concerns with limiting immigration from Muslim countries known to be hot beds of terrorism, how do you deal with those who are already citizens? People who, as a group, are overwhelmingly law abiding.
Its curious the same group that warns against using this as an excuse to curb THEIR liberties (2nd Amendment) would use it as an excuse to curtail the liberties of others.
I don't believe "that" group is saying Muslims cannot own guns IAW the 2nd.
Even in the face of indescribable tragedies like this, the 2nd Amendment stands strong.
CONSTITUTION STRONG
they don't have to fully assimilate. they just have to follow laws of the land
The only folks using this atrocity to further their gun nutter agenda is well, the prez and his gun nutter crew. He said as much in his news conference.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 12, 2016, 02:51:14 PM
Even in the face of indescribable tragedies like this, the 2nd Amendment stands strong.
CONSTITUTION STRONG
Atrocity left wingnut.
Quote from: LaCroix on June 12, 2016, 02:05:28 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 12, 2016, 01:50:16 PMbut it is scary whenever you people elect them to national office.
what do you mean by "you people"?
feminists?
:unsure:
Feminists? What are you yammering on about?
Quote from: LaCroix on June 12, 2016, 02:52:40 PM
they don't have to fully assimilate. they just have to follow laws of the land
Yes.
Quote from: LaCroix on June 12, 2016, 02:52:40 PM
they don't have to fully assimilate. they just have to follow laws of the land
Which is really all you need to do to assimilate around these parts.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 12, 2016, 02:53:06 PM
The only folks using this atrocity to further their gun nutter agenda is well, the prez and his gun nutter crew. He said as much in his news conference.
Of course, he did not make a single reference to Islamic terrorism at all either.
Quote from: Valmy on June 12, 2016, 02:54:26 PM:unsure:
Feminists? What are you yammering on about?
reference to that one thread awhile back ago that involved feminism. "what do you mean by 'those people'?" -> "college students"
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 02:56:49 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 12, 2016, 02:53:06 PM
The only folks using this atrocity to further their gun nutter agenda is well, the prez and his gun nutter crew. He said as much in his news conference.
Of course, he did not make a single reference to Islamic terrorism at all either.
However, he said terror attack and I credit him with that.
Quote from: LaCroix on June 12, 2016, 02:59:13 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 12, 2016, 02:54:26 PM:unsure:
Feminists? What are you yammering on about?
reference to that one thread awhile back ago that involved feminism. "what do you mean by 'those people'?" -> "college students"
Oh right :lol:
I said 'those people' that time. Now I say 'you people' YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE DUBYA/RON PAUL/CRUZ SUPPORTERS
Quote from: 11B4V on June 12, 2016, 02:59:18 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 02:56:49 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 12, 2016, 02:53:06 PM
The only folks using this atrocity to further their gun nutter agenda is well, the prez and his gun nutter crew. He said as much in his news conference.
Of course, he did not make a single reference to Islamic terrorism at all either.
However, he said terror attack and I credit him with that.
Those damn denominational terrorists, striking all the time.
Though I can see how Obama, as a gay muslim, may feel conflicted.
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 03:01:48 PM
Though I can see how Obama, as a gay muslim, may feel conflicted.
:lol:
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 03:01:48 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 12, 2016, 02:59:18 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 02:56:49 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 12, 2016, 02:53:06 PM
The only folks using this atrocity to further their gun nutter agenda is well, the prez and his gun nutter crew. He said as much in his news conference.
Of course, he did not make a single reference to Islamic terrorism at all either.
However, he said terror attack and I credit him with that.
Those damn denominational terrorists, striking all the time.
Though I can see how Obama, as a gay muslim, may feel conflicted.
I think he's a closet athiest. At the most a deist
Quote from: 11B4V on June 12, 2016, 02:53:06 PM
The only folks using this atrocity to further their gun nutter agenda is well, the prez and his gun nutter crew. He said as much in his news conference.
Seems to me it was a gun nutter that kicked off this whole thing last night.
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 03:01:48 PM
Though I can see how Obama, as a gay muslim, may feel conflicted.
:lol:
I don't really think he is a gay muslim. :secret:
I agree he is most likely an atheist.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 12, 2016, 03:04:52 PM
I think he's a closet athiest. At the most a deist
Well he does try to model himself after Abraham Lincoln.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 12, 2016, 03:05:33 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 12, 2016, 02:53:06 PM
The only folks using this atrocity to further their gun nutter agenda is well, the prez and his gun nutter crew. He said as much in his news conference.
Seems to me it was a gun nutter that kicked off this whole thing last night.
Radical Islamic terrorist to me.
I.e Sandyhook=gunutter
But nice try CountdeAgenda
So, today are we all gay party goers?
Quote from: 11B4V on June 12, 2016, 03:11:54 PM
Radical Islamic terrorist to me.
I.e Sandyhook=gunutter
But nice try CountdeAgenda
If he were truly committed to radical Islamic terrorism, he'd have used a scimitar.
When it comes down to it, gun violence is about the guns. And you fucking know that, so don't be stupid.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 12, 2016, 03:20:01 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 12, 2016, 03:11:54 PM
Radical Islamic terrorist to me.
I.e Sandyhook=gunutter
But nice try CountdeAgenda
If he were truly committed to radical Islamic terrorism, he'd have used a scimitar.
When it comes down to it, gun violence is about the guns. And you fucking know that, so don't be stupid.
Yes, guns are bad news at 11.
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 02:04:06 PM
If there is an actual international terrorist link and not just dumb posturing from ISIS, this is the biggest terrorist attack on US soil since 911.
I'd be astonished if there was an actual international terrorism link. ISIS provide the inspiration (to an extent), the perpetrators claim allegiance, ISIS takes credit providing further inspiration. It's propaganda of the deed.
QuoteEven in the face of indescribable tragedies like this, the 2nd Amendment stands strong.
CONSTITUTION STRONG
Sandy Hook. If an attack on schoolkids won't challenge American support for this interpretation of the 2nd Amendment nothing will.
QuoteSeems to me it was a gun nutter that kicked off this whole thing last night.
Yeah I mean if we're really looking for a common thread in these attacks it's not Islamic terrorism it's angry men with access to guns.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 12, 2016, 03:20:55 PM
Yes, guns are bad news at 11.
The NRA thanks you for your support in being part of the problem.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 12, 2016, 03:26:17 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 12, 2016, 03:20:55 PM
Yes, guns are bad news at 11.
The NRA thanks you for your support in being part of the problem.
:cheers:
"In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots
at Gerald Ford, President of the United States.
In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded
Ronald Reagan, President of the United States.
In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat,
shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.
In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat,
shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.
In 1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot
and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.
In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat,
shot and killed 23 people in a Luby's cafeteria in Killeen, TX.
In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled
Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.
In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat,
shot and killed 8 people at a church service.
In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots
at the White House in a failed attempt to kill President George W. Bush.
In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat,
shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.
In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung - Hui
Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.
In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.
In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes,
went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.
In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled
Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis.
In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza,
shot and killed 26 people in a school in Newtown, CT.
As recently as Sept 2013, an angry Democrat shot
12 at a Navy ship yard.
Guns don't kill people, Democrats with guns kill people.
Not one NRA member, or Republican conservative was involved in ANY of the aforementioned shootings and murders."
Well you can see why Democrats would be so anxious to remove guns from society Siegey. They know first hand how dangerous they can be.
QuoteNot one NRA member, or Republican conservative was involved in ANY of the aforementioned shootings and murders."
Clearly they need to own their NRA/Republican/Conservative privilege and have some compassion for the plight of the moderate Democrats trying to stop the endless murder sprees of their compatriots. Why are they so eager to betray these moderate Democrats and enable radical Democratic terrorism Siegey? Why will they not lock arms with them and fight back against terrorism?
Quote from: Siege on June 12, 2016, 03:45:11 PM
"In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots
at Gerald Ford, President of the United States.
In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded
Ronald Reagan, President of the United States.
In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat,
shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.
In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat,
shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.
In 1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot
and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.
In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat,
shot and killed 23 people in a Luby's cafeteria in Killeen, TX.
In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled
Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.
In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat,
shot and killed 8 people at a church service.
In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots
at the White House in a failed attempt to kill President George W. Bush.
In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat,
shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.
In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung - Hui
Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.
In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.
In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes,
went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.
In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled
Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis.
In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza,
shot and killed 26 people in a school in Newtown, CT.
As recently as Sept 2013, an angry Democrat shot
12 at a Navy ship yard.
Guns don't kill people, Democrats with guns kill people.
Not one NRA member, or Republican conservative was involved in ANY of the aforementioned shootings and murders."
source?
Quote from: Valmy on June 12, 2016, 03:47:13 PM
Well you can see why Democrats would be so anxious to remove guns from society Siegey. They know first hand how dangerous they can be.
QuoteNot one NRA member, or Republican conservative was involved in ANY of the aforementioned shootings and murders."
Clearly they need to own their NRA/Republican/Conservative privilege and have some compassion for the plight of the moderate Democrats trying to stop the endless murder sprees of their compatriots. Why are they so eager to betray these moderate Democrats and enable radical Democratic terrorism Siegey? Why will they not lock arms with them and fight back against terrorism?
Arm yourselves
What else are we going to ban.
Quote
Man en route to LA Pride arrested with car full of explosives
http://www.sgvtribune.com/general-news/20160612/man-en-route-to-la-pride-arrested-with-car-full-of-explosives
Quote from: 11B4V on June 12, 2016, 03:55:15 PM
Arm yourselves
I probably should. I know many Democrats they are probably all getting ready to shoot me at any moment.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 12, 2016, 03:53:23 PM
Quote from: Siege on June 12, 2016, 03:45:11 PM
"In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots
at Gerald Ford, President of the United States.
In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded
Ronald Reagan, President of the United States.
In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat,
shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.
In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat,
shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.
In 1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot
and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.
In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat,
shot and killed 23 people in a Luby's cafeteria in Killeen, TX.
In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled
Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.
In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat,
shot and killed 8 people at a church service.
In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots
at the White House in a failed attempt to kill President George W. Bush.
In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat,
shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.
In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung - Hui
Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.
In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.
In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes,
went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.
In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled
Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis.
In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza,
shot and killed 26 people in a school in Newtown, CT.
As recently as Sept 2013, an angry Democrat shot
12 at a Navy ship yard.
Guns don't kill people, Democrats with guns kill people.
Not one NRA member, or Republican conservative was involved in ANY of the aforementioned shootings and murders."
source?
Google
Oh never mind. I found it. Siege told us a lie. Siege, why do you tell lies? Are you just inherently dishonest? Does it bother you that you lie?
https://peninsulalighthouse.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/myth-blaster-mass-shooters-and-assassins-are-democrats/ (https://peninsulalighthouse.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/myth-blaster-mass-shooters-and-assassins-are-democrats/)
http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=83968&page=2 (http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=83968&page=2)
Quote from: Razgovory on June 12, 2016, 03:53:23 PM
source?
Even if he has a source I fail to see the point.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 12, 2016, 03:57:37 PM
What else are we going to ban.
Quote
Man en route to LA Pride arrested with car full of explosives
http://www.sgvtribune.com/general-news/20160612/man-en-route-to-la-pride-arrested-with-car-full-of-explosives
Well your article notes that the car had 5 pounds of tannerite type powder, assault weapons, rifles, and loaded clips. How about we just stick with guns and see where that gets us?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 12, 2016, 03:59:47 PM
Oh never mind. I found it. Siege told us a lie. Siege, why do you tell lies? Are you just inherently dishonest? Does it bother you that you lie?
https://peninsulalighthouse.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/myth-blaster-mass-shooters-and-assassins-are-democrats/ (https://peninsulalighthouse.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/myth-blaster-mass-shooters-and-assassins-are-democrats/)
http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=83968&page=2 (http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=83968&page=2)
It's called "spin"
Quote from: Valmy on June 12, 2016, 04:00:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 12, 2016, 03:53:23 PM
source?
Even if he has a source I fail to see the point.
I see one. He's a liar, and I'm calling him on it. For instance the Virginia tech shooter could not be a registered democrat because he wasn't a citizen and Virginia didn't register by party at the time of the shooting. So I'm calling on him on it, and I want to see if he can man up to being a liar.
Quote from: garbon on June 12, 2016, 04:02:49 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 12, 2016, 03:57:37 PM
What else are we going to ban.
Quote
Man en route to LA Pride arrested with car full of explosives
http://www.sgvtribune.com/general-news/20160612/man-en-route-to-la-pride-arrested-with-car-full-of-explosives
Well your article notes that the car had 5 pounds of tannerite type powder, assault weapons, rifles, and loaded clips. How about we just stick with guns and see where that gets us?
How bout we stick with hate and intolerance. Mmm'k, thanks for playing.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 12, 2016, 04:03:31 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 12, 2016, 04:00:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 12, 2016, 03:53:23 PM
source?
Even if he has a source I fail to see the point.
I see one. He's a liar, and I'm calling him on it. For instance the Virginia tech shooter could not be a registered democrat because he wasn't a citizen and Virginia didn't register by party at the time of the shooting. So I'm calling on him on it, and I want to see if he can man up to being a liar.
You took it serious... :lol:
Banning guns is unconstitutional guys. Heavy weapons and explosives though...well I am reasonable certain they already are illegal to own.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 12, 2016, 04:02:58 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 12, 2016, 03:59:47 PM
Oh never mind. I found it. Siege told us a lie. Siege, why do you tell lies? Are you just inherently dishonest? Does it bother you that you lie?
https://peninsulalighthouse.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/myth-blaster-mass-shooters-and-assassins-are-democrats/ (https://peninsulalighthouse.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/myth-blaster-mass-shooters-and-assassins-are-democrats/)
http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=83968&page=2 (http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=83968&page=2)
It's called "spin"
No, spin it argue different context of known facts. This is just a lie.
SPIN:
"You knocked a hole in my roof"
"I let in fresh air. It was stuffy before"
Lie:
"You knocked a hole in my roof"
"No I didn't, there's no hole"
Quote from: Razgovory on June 12, 2016, 04:03:31 PMI see one. He's a liar, and I'm calling him on it. For instance the Virginia tech shooter could not be a registered democrat because he wasn't a citizen and Virginia didn't register by party at the time of the shooting. So I'm calling on him on it, and I want to see if he can man up to being a liar.
to lie requires intent to lie. why do you think siege lied when it's more likely he believed this myth he posted?
Quote from: 11B4V on June 12, 2016, 04:05:53 PM
You took it serious... :lol:
Is Siege trolling us? He seems quite genuine and sincere to me. He just believes his compatriots are sincere as well when they are often just flinging bullshit.
Quote from: Valmy on June 12, 2016, 04:06:47 PM
Banning guns is unconstitutional guys. Heavy weapons and explosives though...well I am reasonable certain they already are illegal to own.
So is deporting American citizens but that's already been floated out.
Quote from: Valmy on June 12, 2016, 04:08:15 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 12, 2016, 04:05:53 PM
You took it serious... :lol:
Is Siege trolling us? He seems quite genuine and sincere to me.
Ill lean towards trolling, but will defer as more evidence comes to light. :P
Quote from: Razgovory on June 12, 2016, 04:09:21 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 12, 2016, 04:06:47 PM
Banning guns is unconstitutional guys. Heavy weapons and explosives though...well I am reasonable certain they already are illegal to own.
So is deporting American citizens but that's already been floated out.
True. Let me know when the Supreme Court says it is alright with either of those things.
Quote from: Valmy on June 12, 2016, 04:08:15 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 12, 2016, 04:05:53 PM
You took it serious... :lol:
Is Siege trolling us? He seems quite genuine and sincere to me. He just believes his compatriots are sincere as well when they are often just flinging bullshit.
Whoa. :Joos
Quote from: Razgovory on June 12, 2016, 04:07:08 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 12, 2016, 04:02:58 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 12, 2016, 03:59:47 PM
Oh never mind. I found it. Siege told us a lie. Siege, why do you tell lies? Are you just inherently dishonest? Does it bother you that you lie?
https://peninsulalighthouse.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/myth-blaster-mass-shooters-and-assassins-are-democrats/ (https://peninsulalighthouse.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/myth-blaster-mass-shooters-and-assassins-are-democrats/)
http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=83968&page=2 (http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=83968&page=2)
It's called "spin"
No, spin it argue different context of known facts. This is just a lie.
SPIN:
"You knocked a hole in my roof"
"I let in fresh air. It was stuffy before"
Lie:
"You knocked a hole in my roof"
"No I didn't, there's no hole"
Exactly, watch fox news and you'll understand.
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 04:25:53 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 12, 2016, 04:08:15 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 12, 2016, 04:05:53 PM
You took it serious... :lol:
Is Siege trolling us? He seems quite genuine and sincere to me. He just believes his compatriots are sincere as well when they are often just flinging bullshit.
Whoa. :Joos
(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/13413506_1126481490741386_5791738153120257809_n.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoibCJ9&oh=8a4f464fe1107c81fe55a31ecb7b9312&oe=5802267B)
I love siege sweeping in to the conversation,as only thing that makes Marti look less of an idiot.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 12, 2016, 03:20:01 PM
When it comes down to it, gun violence is about the guns. And you fucking know that, so don't be stupid.
QuoteLast night in Orlando, a man armed with an assault-style rifle killed at least 50 people and wounded 53 others in a crowded nightclub.
Six months ago, in San Bernardino, Calif., a man and woman armed with assault-style rifles killed 14 people and wounded 20 others at a holiday party.
In 2012, in Aurora, Colo., a man armed with an assault-style rifle killed 12 people and wounded 58 others in a crowded movie theater.
Also in 2012, in Newtown Conn., a man armed with an assault-style rifle killed 28 people and wounded 2 others at an elementary school.
One common denominator behind these and other high-casualty mass shootings in recent years is the use of assault style rifles, capable of firing many rounds of ammunition in a relatively short period of time, with high accuracy. And their use in these types of shooting is becoming more common: There have been eight high-profile public mass shootings since July of last year, according to a database compiled by Mother Jones magazine. Assault-style rifles were used in seven of those.
In the past 10 years, assault-style rifles have been used in 14 public mass shootings. Half of those shootings have occurred since last June.
Assault-style weapons have long been a flashpoint in the American gun debate. They were outlawed in 1994. But that ban expired in 2004 and Congress opted to not renew it. Gun rights proponents point out that rifles, of any type, are rarely used to kill people in the U.S. Because of that, researchers have generally found that the assault weapons ban had little impact on U.S. homicide rates while it was in effect.
On the other hand, compared to other firearms, assault-style rifles make it fairly easy to kill or injure many people in within a short period of time. So perpetrators wishing to inflict indiscriminate harm on a large crowd of people often turn to them. Of the 10 mass shooting incidents with the highest number of casualties — killed AND wounded — in the U.S., seven involved the use of an assault-style rifle, according to Mother Jones's database.
Terrorist groups have taken note of the widespread availability of assault rifles and other guns in the U.S. In 2011, al-Qaeda encouraged its followers to take advantage of lax guns laws, purchase assault-style weapons and use them to shoot people.
"America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms," American-born al-Qaeda spokesman Adam Gadahn said in a video. "You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?"
Gadahn was incorrect on one point — fully automatic weapons, which shoot continuously when you hold down the trigger, have been banned since 1986. But he was correct on other the other points: Most states don't require background checks for firearms purchased via private sales at gun shows. Most states don't require showing ID to purchase a firearm from a private seller.
Indeed, federal law allows people on terror watch lists to purchase guns, and thousands of them have done so.
The ease of purchasing guns in the U.S., even powerful ones designed to kill many people in a short period of time, is underscored by a crucial fact in Mother Jones's database: Of the 79 mass shootings since 1982 that Mother Jones was able to determine purchasing information for, 63 were committed with guns purchased legally.
What's the argument against outlawing assault rifles? I don't know that they're much use in home defense (unless, I suppose, you're planning to defend your home/compound from the FBI). Is it that they're just so fun to shoot at the range?
Quote
What's the argument against outlawing assault rifles?
Logically, none. They could do it if they had the desire. Dems and GOPtards are just all sellouts.
They got the ACA jammed through when they had the majority. If they really desired they could get something on assault weapons jammed through too.
Quote from: Kleves on June 12, 2016, 05:31:45 PMWhat's the argument against outlawing assault rifles?
people who like guns want another type of gun to have. taking away that ability to buy this type of gun is :mad:. also, slippery slope fear that banning one type inches closer to banning other types
Shooter's father has recorded pro-Taliban videos and claims himself to be President of Afghanistan :wacko:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/12/orlando-shooting-suspects-father-hosted-a-political-tv-show-and-even-tried-to-run-for-the-afghan-presidency/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/12/orlando-shooting-suspects-father-hosted-a-political-tv-show-and-even-tried-to-run-for-the-afghan-presidency/)
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/06/seddique1.jpg)
Quote from: Phillip V on June 12, 2016, 05:52:48 PM
Shooter's father has recorded pro-Taliban videos and claims himself to be President of Afghanistan :wacko:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/12/orlando-shooting-suspects-father-hosted-a-political-tv-show-and-even-tried-to-run-for-the-afghan-presidency/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/12/orlando-shooting-suspects-father-hosted-a-political-tv-show-and-even-tried-to-run-for-the-afghan-presidency/)
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/06/seddique1.jpg)
Terrorism :yes:
OK, I know you all want to throw this strictly into the "Islamic Terror" pot, even though at this point there's no evidence he went overseas, received training and orders to come back and shoot up a gay night club, but think about it:
1) His father says he was radically anti-gay, and flipped out recently when he saw two men kissing
2) His wife said he allegedly beat her for no reason, and described him as "unstable"
3) His first and only act of targeted political violence, ostensibly in the name of "ISIS" (if only because that's the trendy thing these days) was against a gay club which was a centerpiece in the Orlando LGBT activist community
4) Look at these selfies:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gossipextra.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F06%2FOmar-Mateen-2.jpg&hash=73b99716e2d444e10255e08f9915544f42f6c2e3)
I mean, seriously: those pics just scream closeted pillowbither. He has all the makings of a suppressed, I-hate-my-gay-self-so-much-I-have-to-kill-gays asshole. I bet his browser and computer at home is brimming with gay porn. He was probably rejected by one once, if not more.
C'mon, I can't be the only one that thinks that. What about the Languish gay community: what do you say? garbon? Martinus? Shielbh? Siege? Caliga? What say you? Is he a textbook case of homo self-loathing, or what?
:cry: :cry: :cry:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CkxNfZpVAAAbFof.jpg:large)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 12, 2016, 06:07:17 PM
OK, I know you all want to throw this strictly into the "Islamic Terror" pot, even though at this point there's no evidence he went overseas, received training and orders to come back and shoot up a gay night club, but think about it:
1) His father says he was radically anti-gay, and flipped out recently when he saw two men kissing
2) His wife said he allegedly beat her for no reason, and described him as "unstable"
3) His first and only act of targeted political violence, ostensibly in the name of "ISIS" (if only because that's the trendy thing these days) was against a gay club which was a centerpiece in the Orlando LGBT activist community
4) Look at these selfies:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gossipextra.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F06%2FOmar-Mateen-2.jpg&hash=73b99716e2d444e10255e08f9915544f42f6c2e3)
I mean, seriously: those pics just scream closeted pillowbither. He has all the makings of a suppressed, I-hate-my-gay-self-so-much-I-have-to-kill-gays asshole. I bet his browser and computer at home is brimming with gay porn. He was probably rejected by one once, if not more.
C'mon, I can't be the only one that thinks that. What about the Languish gay community: what do you say? garbon? Martinus? Shielbh? Siege? Caliga? What say you? Is he a textbook case of homo self-loathing, or what?
Siege isn't gay, he's Jewish.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 12, 2016, 06:07:17 PM
OK, I know you all want to throw this strictly into the "Islamic Terror" pot...
Standard issue 2nd generation Western-raised Muslim savage a-la the Tsarnaev brothers.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 12, 2016, 01:08:21 PM
Well he called it terror and then went on to politicize it.
How could such an issue
not be political?
Quote from: 11B4V on June 12, 2016, 06:18:42 PM
Siege isn't gay, he's Jewish.
Oh, please. Siegy is six Bartles & Jaymes wine coolers away from sucking your cock, if he doesn't pass out first.
Quote from: LaCroix on June 12, 2016, 04:07:30 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 12, 2016, 04:03:31 PMI see one. He's a liar, and I'm calling him on it. For instance the Virginia tech shooter could not be a registered democrat because he wasn't a citizen and Virginia didn't register by party at the time of the shooting. So I'm calling on him on it, and I want to see if he can man up to being a liar.
to lie requires intent to lie. why do you think siege lied when it's more likely he believed this myth he posted?
I've given him the benefit of the doubt on similar cases before. Not this time. Do you think he's seriously so stupid he would blindly pass on information from people who have lied to him time and time again?
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 12, 2016, 06:23:28 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 12, 2016, 01:08:21 PM
Well he called it terror and then went on to politicize it.
How could such an issue not be political?
Because as long as we're not discussing it, it will go away.
This is a tough issue and no one has any really good ideas to solve it.
The destruction one person can unleash with modern technologies is devastating. We see it with school shootings, we see it in any attack in crowded areas.
However, for the most part we are not experiencing a large number of attacks from radical Muslims in the US. The number of guilty actors is very very small.
The Muslim community is really in a tough position. The Breitbart right demands to know why Muslims don't denounce the attacks and when they do denounce them the Breitbarters claim its part of a secret plot to get us to lower our guards.
The bigger threat to the West isn't violence, but shifting cultural values by Sharia supporting Muslims vs apathetic Westerners.
Just saw the unbelievable bit on Sky News tonight where a gay, leftie ended up walking off the press review after getting shouted down (more-or-less) for pointing out this was a homophobic attack. The right-wing commentator was calling the attacker a lunatic and the host said 'it was an attack on all people' :blink: :bleeding:
It wasn't really an attack on all people any more than attacking a Synagogue is an attack on all people. It's an attack on specific people. Sympathise and empathise all you want but that should be acknowledged :bleeding:
It's like saying the pipe bomb in the Admiral Duncan was an attack on all people - it's really not.
Not a fan of Owen Jones but very impressed. I'd have kicked off a lot more.
Edit: Meanwhile on the internet he's being attacked by the Trump right because he said it was a homophobic attack not an Islamic attack :blink:
Careful Shel, Marti is gonna come after you.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 12, 2016, 06:32:39 PM
Edit: Meanwhile on the internet he's being attacked by the Trump right because he said it was a homophobic attack not an Islamic attack :blink:
Yeah, unfortunately not gonna win that one.
the motive for this particular attack was he hated gays. if he hated gays and killed them because of extremist views re: islam, was this more a hate crime against gays or islamic terrorism, if you had to pick one? :hmm:
If this isn't a homophobic attack, I don't know what is.
There was an exposé about a speaker at a local Orlando mosque expounding on Islamic theology concerning gays a couple of months ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBlwxqqAprQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBlwxqqAprQ)
Quote from: Monoriu on June 12, 2016, 07:11:21 PM
If this isn't a homophobic attack, I don't know what is.
I think the ultimate question is whether he would have attacked a different group in the name of islam if he hadn't ever had a big issue with gays
Quote from: Monoriu on June 12, 2016, 07:11:21 PM
If this isn't a homophobic attack, I don't know what is.
and throwing gays of the rooftops in Ramandi has nothing to do with radical ideology. Oh and it's an homophobic attack too.
Sad to watch the right pretend to care about gay lives because it helps their anti-Islam agenda.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 12, 2016, 06:07:17 PM
C'mon, I can't be the only one that thinks that. What about the Languish gay community: what do you say? garbon? Martinus? Shielbh? Siege? Caliga? What say you? Is he a textbook case of homo self-loathing, or what?
Yes - he does look like a closet case. But he's also a filthy Muslim, which no doubt left him feeling vindicated to shoot gays. He could thus appear at the same time both righteous and *not* gay. The crux here is not that he is/was a closet case - but that he shares/shared an ideology that allows the use violence for 'moral reasons'.
Is he dead by the way?
G.
Quote from: Jaron on June 12, 2016, 07:18:25 PM
Sad to watch the right pretend to care about gay lives because it helps their anti-Islam agenda.
It is rather interesting to see them suddenly fighting for gay and womens rights in this very specific context.
Quote from: Grallon on June 12, 2016, 07:21:56 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 12, 2016, 06:07:17 PM
C'mon, I can't be the only one that thinks that. What about the Languish gay community: what do you say? garbon? Martinus? Shielbh? Siege? Caliga? What say you? Is he a textbook case of homo self-loathing, or what?
Yes - he does look like a closet case. But he's also a filthy Muslim, which no doubt left him feeling vindicated to shoot gays. He could thus appear at the same time both righteous and *not* gay. The crux here is not that he is/was a closet case - but that he shares/shared an ideology that allows the use violence for 'moral reasons'.
Is he dead by the way?
G.
:lol: and yes
Quote from: Jaron on June 12, 2016, 07:18:25 PM
Sad to watch the right pretend to care about gay lives because it helps their anti-Islam agenda.
Exactly. Do not allow these awful people to tarnish the otherwise outstanding reputation of peace that Islam has built up over the years.
Quote from: Valmy on June 12, 2016, 07:22:09 PM
Quote from: Jaron on June 12, 2016, 07:18:25 PM
Sad to watch the right pretend to care about gay lives because it helps their anti-Islam agenda.
It is rather interesting to see them suddenly fighting for gay and womens rights in this very specific context.
It is. That's why they should not be trusted.
Quote from: Legbiter on June 12, 2016, 07:23:34 PM
Quote from: Jaron on June 12, 2016, 07:18:25 PM
Sad to watch the right pretend to care about gay lives because it helps their anti-Islam agenda.
Exactly. Do not allow these awful people to tarnish the otherwise outstanding reputation of peace that Islam has built up over the years.
It has less to do with Islam than the hypocrisy people show in suddenly claiming to care about the rights and well being of a group they spend considerable energy to marginalize and criminalize.
Quote from: Valmy on June 12, 2016, 07:22:09 PM
Quote from: Jaron on June 12, 2016, 07:18:25 PM
Sad to watch the right pretend to care about gay lives because it helps their anti-Islam agenda.
It is rather interesting to see them suddenly fighting for gay and womens rights in this very specific context.
On the other hand being all gay like that during Ramadan was probably a bit culturally insensitive.
Quote from: Jaron on June 12, 2016, 07:24:47 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on June 12, 2016, 07:23:34 PM
Quote from: Jaron on June 12, 2016, 07:18:25 PM
Sad to watch the right pretend to care about gay lives because it helps their anti-Islam agenda.
Exactly. Do not allow these awful people to tarnish the otherwise outstanding reputation of peace that Islam has built up over the years.
It has less to do with Islam than the hypocrisy people show in suddenly claiming to care about the rights and well being of a group they spend considerable energy to marginalize and criminalize.
No this is false equivalence on your part i.e. only Hillaryfags can be Goodpersons such as yourself.
Quote from: Jaron on June 12, 2016, 07:24:47 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on June 12, 2016, 07:23:34 PM
Quote from: Jaron on June 12, 2016, 07:18:25 PM
Sad to watch the right pretend to care about gay lives because it helps their anti-Islam agenda.
Exactly. Do not allow these awful people to tarnish the otherwise outstanding reputation of peace that Islam has built up over the years.
It has less to do with Islam than the hypocrisy people show in suddenly claiming to care about the rights and well being of a group they spend considerable energy to marginalize and criminalize.
And you have these folks.
NSFW
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUOBFjRGvPI
Quote from: 11B4V on June 12, 2016, 07:24:11 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 12, 2016, 07:22:09 PM
Quote from: Jaron on June 12, 2016, 07:18:25 PM
Sad to watch the right pretend to care about gay lives because it helps their anti-Islam agenda.
It is rather interesting to see them suddenly fighting for gay and womens rights in this very specific context.
It is. That's why they should not be trusted.
Also, the stuff that went down in the GWB administration. And Sarah Palin was their VP nominee. And they've picked Donald Trump this time.
Quote from: Legbiter on June 12, 2016, 07:28:01 PM
Quote from: Jaron on June 12, 2016, 07:24:47 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on June 12, 2016, 07:23:34 PM
Quote from: Jaron on June 12, 2016, 07:18:25 PM
Sad to watch the right pretend to care about gay lives because it helps their anti-Islam agenda.
Exactly. Do not allow these awful people to tarnish the otherwise outstanding reputation of peace that Islam has built up over the years.
It has less to do with Islam than the hypocrisy people show in suddenly claiming to care about the rights and well being of a group they spend considerable energy to marginalize and criminalize.
No this is false equivalence on your part i.e. only Hillaryfags can be Goodpersons such as yourself.
I'm not saying right wingers/conservatives are bad people. I am saying their positions are inconsistent. Conservatives rail against painting with too broad a brush if its them being painted. Gun control is a great example of this. Conservative positions in America have brought us arguments like gay marriage will destroy the traditional family, will lead to incest and sex with animals. They argue they shouldn't be forced to serve them in places of business because gays are from Satan.
Now that someone agrees with them enough to mow a bunch of gay people down in a night club, conservatives stand with the gay community? Suddenly the lives and lifestyle are worth defending? Only because the attacker scares them more than the attacked. Had this not been done by a Muslim, I'm sure the argument would be that liberals pushed him too far because of Obama's executive actions and overreach by the Supreme Court.
:yawn:
Quote from: Legbiter on June 12, 2016, 07:26:19 PM
On the other hand being all gay like that during Ramadan was probably a bit culturally insensitive.
:lol: And they're not even halal.
I think it's a condemnation of society that so much energy is being expended over how to "classify" an attack in which 50 people were killed.
The simple reality is, it was an Islamic terror attack targeted against the gay community in America and Orlando in specific. There's no reason to think it can't be both a terrorist attack and a hate crime. If anyone knows anything about fundamentalist Islam, it's filled with no thing but bigotry. So there's always a high chance anytime there's an Islamic terrorist killing, the killer was a bigot. He's not always targeting people based on bigotry, but sometimes they are, and this is one of those cases.
While I think there's valid concerns about our gun laws, and have long advocated for stricter ones, the reality is that someone who is an ISIS sympathizer and hell bent on shooting a place up will almost certainly be able to do so regardless of gun laws. Look at the Paris attackers--they simply acquired guns through the black market. There's no magic secret about how to do that.
Now, I do think for the "mentally unstable white guy" type of attack, stricter gun laws would be a big impediment. I have a hard time imagining guys like Adam Lanza, James Holmes, or Jared Loughner being able to navigate the black market and find an illegal arms dealer. But that isn't really the situation here. This guy wasn't some mentally ill white boy afraid to leave his Mom's basement (except for target practice and shooting people time), I think even with strict gun laws he'd have gotten his weapons. When you can get actual automatic weapons (which are legitimately fucking hard to get in the United States) into Paris, in a country with far stricter gun laws than the United States, the reality is motivated bad people can get guns just about anywhere. Of course interestingly one of the most famous mass shootings--Columbine, did involve some illegally acquired guns (they bought their guns from two different friends who were old enough to buy guns legally.)
Not surprised to see Languish attacking the right, as if they were the actual villains here.
WTF, how does a guy like this who is already on the watchlist slip through the cracks.
http://www.nytimes.com/live/orlando-nightclub-shooting-live-updates/suspect-spoke-of-killing/
Quote
Jun 12, 2016
Sun Jun 12 2016 19:37:38 GMT+0900 (대한민국 표준시)
Alan Blinder
Fort Pierce, Fla.
Former Co-Worker: 'He Talked About Killing People All the Time'
One of Mr. Mateen's former co-workers said in an interview on Sunday that he had expressed concerns about the man's demeanor when they both worked as security guards assigned to PGA Village, a resort in Port St. Lucie, Fla.
"He talked about killing people all the time," the former co-worker, Daniel Gilroy, said.
According to Mr. Gilroy, who said that he had repeatedly complained to G4S, the security company that employed them, Mr. Mateen was a loud, profane presence who was prone to using racial, ethnic and sexual slurs.
Mr. Gilroy, a former police officer in Fort Pierce, described Mr. Mateen as a man who had "issues and just constant anger."
"He was just agitated about everything, always shaken, always agitated, always mad," said Mr. Gilroy, who said his relationship with Mr. Mateen became increasingly tense, with Mr. Mateen badgering him with text messages 20 or 30 times a day.
Mr. Gilroy, who joined G4S after a career with the Fort Pierce police and later left the security firm, said he could not provide names of any other co-workers who could support his account of Mr. Mateen's behavior.
He expressed a measure of regret for not having pressed G4S to take more action.
"I kind of feel a little guilty that I didn't fight harder," Mr. Gilroy said. "If I didn't walk away and I fought, then maybe 50 people would still be alive today."
But he said he was not surprised to hear of what had happened in Orlando.
"I wasn't shocked," he said. "I saw it coming."
Quote from: garbon on June 12, 2016, 09:56:50 AM
Quote from: Caliga on June 12, 2016, 09:52:20 AM
This type of stuff will drive idiots to vote for Trump though. :weep:
Do those idiots care much about the death of gays?
Wow.
In my experience, he actually looks like a normal Tehrangeleno, and they can't all be gay.
Quote from: derspiess on June 12, 2016, 08:20:03 PM
Not surprised to see Languish attacking the right, as if they were the actual villains here.
Attack? I thought we were just being mildly grumpy with them.
Quote from: derspiess on June 12, 2016, 08:56:02 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 12, 2016, 09:56:50 AM
Quote from: Caliga on June 12, 2016, 09:52:20 AM
This type of stuff will drive idiots to vote for Trump though. :weep:
Do those idiots care much about the death of gays?
Wow.
do you think if it wasn't a muslim killer they'd care as much (or at all)?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 12, 2016, 08:19:20 PMI think it's a condemnation of society that so much energy is being expended over how to "classify" an attack in which 50 people were killed.
agree
QuoteThe simple reality is, it was an Islamic terror attack
agree with your classification of the attack. I think so especially after this:
Quote"He talked about killing people all the time," the former co-worker, Daniel Gilroy, said.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 12, 2016, 02:51:14 PM
Even in the face of indescribable tragedies like this, the 2nd Amendment stands strong.
CONSTITUTION STRONG
We can keep going on about this until we're blue in the face. The plain facts of the matter are that the 2nd is safe, because by definition, it's the most likely to incite armed insurrection if they try to take it away.
The gun nuts will tell you they've still got their guns because somehow, having an undisciplined potential shooter somehow makes people "safer," and they'll ignore how much worse they make threat management for actual law enforcement, but at the end of the day, the 2nd will just hang around because the people who would be pissed off if it went away are the ones with the weapons.
Quote from: HVC on June 12, 2016, 09:47:34 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 12, 2016, 08:56:02 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 12, 2016, 09:56:50 AM
Quote from: Caliga on June 12, 2016, 09:52:20 AM
This type of stuff will drive idiots to vote for Trump though. :weep:
Do those idiots care much about the death of gays?
Wow.
do you think if it wasn't a muslim killer they'd care as much (or at all)?
"At all?" :rolleyes: Yes. 53 people being massacred and 100 (?) more injured is flat out horrifying. You know, one can oppose gay marriage and not want gays to be murdered.
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on June 12, 2016, 09:36:33 PM
In my experience, he actually looks like a normal Tehrangeleno, and they can't all be gay.
lulz, Persian Shore
Quote from: derspiess on June 12, 2016, 10:11:17 PM
You know, one can oppose gay marriage and not want gays to be murdered.
At least during the first trimester.
A lot of people probably bled out during those three hours. Shouldn't the police be more proactive in mass shooting incidents like this? B4, CdM, what do you think?
QuoteAfter a standoff of about three hours, while people trapped inside the club desperately called and messaged friends and relatives, police crashed into the building with an armored vehicle and stun grenades and killed Mateen.
I think Orlando PD will have to answer that question. Maybe they didn't get the memo that it's about confronting threats instead of trying to control threats when it comes to active shooter events these days.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 12, 2016, 06:07:17 PM
OK, I know you all want to throw this strictly into the "Islamic Terror" pot, even though at this point there's no evidence he went overseas, received training and orders to come back and shoot up a gay night club, but think about it:
1) His father says he was radically anti-gay, and flipped out recently when he saw two men kissing
2) His wife said he allegedly beat her for no reason, and described him as "unstable"
3) His first and only act of targeted political violence, ostensibly in the name of "ISIS" (if only because that's the trendy thing these days) was against a gay club which was a centerpiece in the Orlando LGBT activist community
4) Look at these selfies:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gossipextra.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F06%2FOmar-Mateen-2.jpg&hash=73b99716e2d444e10255e08f9915544f42f6c2e3)
I mean, seriously: those pics just scream closeted pillowbither. He has all the makings of a suppressed, I-hate-my-gay-self-so-much-I-have-to-kill-gays asshole. I bet his browser and computer at home is brimming with gay porn. He was probably rejected by one once, if not more.
C'mon, I can't be the only one that thinks that. What about the Languish gay community: what do you say? garbon? Martinus? Shielbh? Siege? Caliga? What say you? Is he a textbook case of homo self-loathing, or what?
One doesn't preclude the other. The fact that there is a hateful ideology out there which, as a part of its mainstream (and not a total fringe, like Westboro) allows you to preach hatred to gay people and say that the right punishment for homosexual sex is death means that if it finds a closeted self-hating gay in its midst, he will go and shoot up a gay club - rather than hold a passively aggressive placard about repenting and coming back to Jesus.
Quote from: LaCroix on June 12, 2016, 07:05:27 PM
the motive for this particular attack was he hated gays. if he hated gays and killed them because of extremist views re: islam, was this more a hate crime against gays or islamic terrorism, if you had to pick one? :hmm:
Well, Islam is a homophobic religion par excellance. All Abrahamic religions are, to a degree, even though Christianity and (reformed) Judaism have made some progress lately. But Islam remains staunchly homophobic and murderously so.
Quote from: Valmy on June 12, 2016, 07:22:09 PM
Quote from: Jaron on June 12, 2016, 07:18:25 PM
Sad to watch the right pretend to care about gay lives because it helps their anti-Islam agenda.
It is rather interesting to see them suddenly fighting for gay and womens rights in this very specific context.
Yeah. I mean, it's not like grallon, or me, or, say, Milo Yiannopoulous or anyone like that have ever before supported gay rights.
People like you, in your ivory tower of liberal progressive "tolerance" for Muslims, fail to acknowledge that over last years many people with classic liberal views and many gay people for that matter went over to the "right" precisely because of the left's apologetic attitudes about Islam and precisely because of how Islam is incompatible with gay and women rights.
Did you not notice me condemning them in the Gay spa thing? I have little patience for fundy assholes of any religion.
Quote from: Jaron on June 12, 2016, 07:41:20 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on June 12, 2016, 07:28:01 PM
Quote from: Jaron on June 12, 2016, 07:24:47 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on June 12, 2016, 07:23:34 PM
Quote from: Jaron on June 12, 2016, 07:18:25 PM
Sad to watch the right pretend to care about gay lives because it helps their anti-Islam agenda.
Exactly. Do not allow these awful people to tarnish the otherwise outstanding reputation of peace that Islam has built up over the years.
It has less to do with Islam than the hypocrisy people show in suddenly claiming to care about the rights and well being of a group they spend considerable energy to marginalize and criminalize.
No this is false equivalence on your part i.e. only Hillaryfags can be Goodpersons such as yourself.
I'm not saying right wingers/conservatives are bad people. I am saying their positions are inconsistent. Conservatives rail against painting with too broad a brush if its them being painted. Gun control is a great example of this. Conservative positions in America have brought us arguments like gay marriage will destroy the traditional family, will lead to incest and sex with animals. They argue they shouldn't be forced to serve them in places of business because gays are from Satan.
Now that someone agrees with them enough to mow a bunch of gay people down in a night club, conservatives stand with the gay community? Suddenly the lives and lifestyle are worth defending? Only because the attacker scares them more than the attacked. Had this not been done by a Muslim, I'm sure the argument would be that liberals pushed him too far because of Obama's executive actions and overreach by the Supreme Court.
"Conservatives" are a diverse group as much as Liberals are (is Hillary Clinton "inconsistent" because he expresses a view that contradicts something a Bernie bro might believe?). Trump is a perfect example of this actually - he seems to be very friendly neutral towards gay people.
And I believe, depending on your motivation and how you verbalize it, you can in fact be anti-gay marriage and anti-gay adoption, but still support gay people's right to live their lives as they please and be free from oppression or violence. Just as you can have a non-anti-women motive to be opposed to abortion, for example.
Quote from: Valmy on June 12, 2016, 11:42:20 PM
Did you not notice me condemning them in the Gay spa thing? I have little patience for fundy assholes of any religion.
I know. All I am saying is that conservatives these days are not all homophobic fundy assholes.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 12, 2016, 08:37:48 PM
WTF, how does a guy like this who is already on the watchlist slip through the cracks.
You know how? Because people are afraid to report something like that to the authorities lest they are accused of islamophobia. Remember garbon and his ilk screaming their face off about islamophobia and racism when a fellow passenger reported that Muslim guy on a plane? The flip side of this approach is this - sure, maybe 50+ people are dead, but at least noone was inconvenienced on their flight or at their workplace.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 12, 2016, 08:19:20 PM
While I think there's valid concerns about our gun laws, and have long advocated for stricter ones, the reality is that someone who is an ISIS sympathizer and hell bent on shooting a place up will almost certainly be able to do so regardless of gun laws. Look at the Paris attackers--they simply acquired guns through the black market. There's no magic secret about how to do that.
Now, I do think for the "mentally unstable white guy" type of attack, stricter gun laws would be a big impediment. I have a hard time imagining guys like Adam Lanza, James Holmes, or Jared Loughner being able to navigate the black market and find an illegal arms dealer. But that isn't really the situation here. This guy wasn't some mentally ill white boy afraid to leave his Mom's basement (except for target practice and shooting people time), I think even with strict gun laws he'd have gotten his weapons. When you can get actual automatic weapons (which are legitimately fucking hard to get in the United States) into Paris, in a country with far stricter gun laws than the United States, the reality is motivated bad people can get guns just about anywhere. Of course interestingly one of the most famous mass shootings--Columbine, did involve some illegally acquired guns (they bought their guns from two different friends who were old enough to buy guns legally.)
It may be true that potential attackers could get their AR-15 on the black market anyway, if they can't get it legally, but it's an additional risk factor that get the perpetrator caught or flagged. I imagine that there would be quite a few undercover FBI agents selling their wares on the black market, or monitoring the legit scum that does. It's obviously no guarantee, but successful attacks always make bigger news than failed attacks (especially when the cops may not even realize just what it is that they prevented).
Goddammit. :(
Fifty fucking people are murdered in cold blood (and even more people seriously injured), and everyone treats it like a fucking Rorshach test - they see what they want. The left complains about gun control, the right complains about islam.
Can't we just mourn all these deaths? Can't we agree this was an attack motivated by BOTH radical islam and homophobia?
I replied to something Raz said flippantly, but I think is true. Today we are all gay nightclub partiers. Not because it is literally true - but today we stand with those who didn't deserve to die just because they fancy other men and went to a place to meet people with a similar outlook on life.
You know... I didn't support gay marriage 10 years ago, and even now I'm not convinced that was a good move for our society to take. But even so... I weep for people to be murdered in cold blood because they are attracted to the same sex. What the fuck is wrong with people?
How many people were killed in mass shootings in the US over the last 15 years, and how many people were killed by Islamists in the US over the last 15 years (including 911)?
Let's compare the numbers and then consider whether we should restrict people's access to guns or to Islam.
Quote from: Barrister on June 12, 2016, 11:56:20 PM
Can't we agree this was an attack motivated by BOTH radical islam and homophobia?
I think everybody who is non-left agrees with that. It's just the left that is trying to white wash this by refusing to mention Islam.
For the record, I understand (but it may be misreported) that Obama has not even mentioned that the attack was homophobic either - it was just about guns for him.
QuoteYou know... I didn't support gay marriage 10 years ago, and even now I'm not convinced that was a good move for our society to take. But even so... I weep for people to be murdered in cold blood because they are attracted to the same sex. What the fuck is wrong with people?
And now you care for gays? garbon will tell you you're a hypocrite. You can't be a conservative and care for gay people being murdered.
Quote from: derspiess on June 12, 2016, 08:20:03 PM
Not surprised to see Languish attacking the right, as if they were the actual villains here.
Which right? People like Martinus or the religiously conservative homophobe?
Martinus sure loves his blanket statements.
Apparently the entire left is responsible for not acknowledging Islam for the attacks and he's also happy to throw responsibility for this on all Muslims. But that's pretty standard for a Breitbarter.
I saw comments today on Breitbart calling for patriotic Americans to burn mosques down. This is the kind of person Martinus has allied himself with politically.
Quote from: Barrister on June 12, 2016, 11:56:20 PM
Can't we just mourn all these deaths?
Preaching about mourning people you don't know sounds like an empty platitude, not to mention a delaying tactic.
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 11:56:50 PM
Let's compare the numbers and then consider whether we should restrict people's access to guns or to Islam.
that's easy. Number wise, guns kills more people than islam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
Quote from: DGuller on June 13, 2016, 12:12:48 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 12, 2016, 11:56:20 PM
Can't we just mourn all these deaths?
Preaching about mourning people you don't know sounds like an empty platitude, not to mention a delaying tactic.
FFS
Isn't it a bit of a stretch to say that Marty has joined the "right"? Unless I've missed something huge. :P
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 13, 2016, 12:23:18 AM
Isn't it a bit of a stretch to say that Marty has joined the "right"? Unless I've missed something huge. :P
Based on his own words, that seems to be how he self-identifies... :unsure:
Here we go
(https://hiddenremote.com/files/2016/05/turn-306-robert-westrate-rogers-macfadyen-anna-lind-935x658-850x560.jpg)
By the measurement Martinus asked for mass shootings vs Islamic attacks...
You don't need to research past 9/11. That one day alone counters every mass shooting for 15 years. If you include all gun violence its a different story I'm sure.
Quote from: Jaron on June 13, 2016, 12:30:16 AM
By the measurement Martinus asked for mass shootings vs Islamic attacks...
You don't need to research past 9/11. That one day alone counters every mass shooting for 15 years. If you include all gun violence its a different story I'm sure.
QuoteAccording to the FBI, in 2012, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the US, with 6,371 of those attributed to handguns.[8] The Centers for Disease Control reports that there were 11,078 firearm-related homicides in the U.S. in 2010.[10] The FBI breaks down the gun-related homicides in 2010 by weapon: 6,009 involved a handgun, 358 involved a rifle, and 1,939 involved an unspecified type of firearm.[11] In 2005, 75% of the 10,100 homicides committed using firearms in the U.S. were committed using handguns, compared to 4% with rifles, 5% with shotguns, and the rest with unspecified firearms.[34]
Quote
While motor-vehicle deaths dropped 22 percent from 2005 to 2010, gun fatalities are rising again after a low point in 2000, according to the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Shooting deaths in 2015 will probably rise to almost 33,000, and those related to autos will decline to about 32,000, based on the 10-year average trend.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015
As for 9/11:
Deaths 2,996 (2,977 victims + 19 hijackers)
Non-fatal injuries 6,000+
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks#Damage
still more gun deaths per year than from terrorists in the US. Even if they overlapp, 20, 50 deads, that's nothing in the 8-10 000 homicides by guns per year.
Really, if that's Martinus' argument, then let's restrict access to guns and promote access to Islam.
MASS shootings.
Quote from: Barrister on June 13, 2016, 12:24:08 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 13, 2016, 12:23:18 AM
Isn't it a bit of a stretch to say that Marty has joined the "right"? Unless I've missed something huge. :P
Based on his own words, that seems to be how he self-identifies... :unsure:
I guess I should say I am non-left.
Quote from: Jaron on June 13, 2016, 01:02:55 AM
MASS shootings.
We have established already few days ago that viper, despite being a Canadian, has a really poor grasp of English. If he has not assimilated by now, I hope they deport him to France.
So, some people are changing their profile pics to pink triangles at the moment. I am not sure how it is appropriate or relevant. It's like changing your profile pic to a yellow start with "Jude" on it after some Muslim bombs a Tel-Aviv cafe.
Quote from: derspiess on June 12, 2016, 08:20:03 PM
Not surprised to see Languish attacking the right, as if they were the actual villains here.
It gets better:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xtl1/v/t1.0-9/13450915_1110992278971680_6601082435393502159_n.jpg?oh=576efa69312895a7cc5d40c22589cccd&oe=57C7E46E&__gda__=1472516189_7cd6465e430c87ace8bcca1277f3fdc3)
https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-lone-wolf-attacks-are-almost-impossible-to-prevent-012346606.html?nhp=1
QuoteWhy 'lone wolf' attacks are almost impossible to prevent
Shortly before opening fire inside a crowded Orlando nightclub, Omar Mateen called 911 and pledged his allegiance to the Islamic State.
While law enforcement officials have yet to confirm ties between the 29-year-old and the terrorist organization FBI agent Ron Hopper told reporters Sunday that Mateen had been on the FBI's radar since 2013 when coworkers reported him for making "offensive" comments about islamic extremism.
After two interviews, Hopper said, agents could not prove that Mateen was connected to any terrorist groups. The FBI questioned him once more in 2014 about ties to a suicide bomber, but again let him go after determining that their "contact was minimal."
Mateen's ability to still carry out the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history despite this record highlights the uniquely impenetrable threat of "lone wolves."
Yahoo News talked to terrorism experts about what makes lone wolf attacks so difficult to prevent.
Simply put, the answer is that lone wolves are so hard to detect because they're, well, acting alone.
"There are no co-conspirators by definition," said Michael German, a former FBI agent specializing in domestic terrorism, now a fellow with the Brennan center for Justice's Liberty and National Security Program. "It is less likely that information about the plot will leak to others, so it could be reported to law enforcement."
Scott Decker, a professor of criminology and criminal justice at Arizona State University, elaborated.
"Law enforcement is organized to work through multiple sources of information to identify suspects and understand the characteristics and motivations of crimes, especially violent crimes," said Decker, who focused his research on the similarities between gangs and terrorist organizations.
"The more contacts an individual has, the more sources of information law enforcement has at its disposal," he said. In the same vein, "The more people involved in an attack, the more likely it is that there will be 'traces' of evidence regarding the attack or information that could lead to individuals involved in an attack."
Jeffrey Simon, a visiting lecturer in UCLA's Political Science department and author of the book "Lone Wolf Terrorism: Understanding the the Growing Threat", noted that in recent years, lone wolves have shown that while they prefer to work alone, they still like to talk—mostly online.
"So many lone wolves, prior to an attack, have published very extremist types of blogs, sometimes indicating that they're thinking about doing violence," Simon said. "But often times these postings are right before they perpetrate the attack and it's too late for the authorities to intercept."
Even when law enforcement is able to detect such signs of potential violence before an attack, Simon points out that free speech complicates the issue.
"We don't know yet how to separate those individuals who may be espousing extremist views or hate type of views from those who are actually going to follow through with an attack," he said.
Filtering through online comments for legitimate threats is just one way which, Decker and Simon argue, the internet has made lone wolves easier to cultivate and harder to identify.
"The internet has played a central role in the spread of terrorism, particularly individuals in the U.S. who have become radicalized or adopted extremist views," said Decker, pointing to the use of discussion boards, social media and email by radical Islamic groups as well as right-wing extremist organizations.
"The lack of direct contact makes both the prevention and solving of such incidents more difficult," he said.
Decker also noted that, "While much electronic communication (online and via telephone) can be tracked, the controversy between Apple and the FBI regarding the San Bernardino shootings illustrates that identifying such information is not always straightforward."
Simon agreed that "the internet is really the game-changer in today's terrorism, especially for the lone wolves," and said "ISIS has proven incredibly savvy in using social media and the internet to spread their ideology, to call for violent attacks."
But German argues that the sort of "leaderless resistance" strategy employed by ISIS and other groups is neither new nor impressive.
"It was pioneered by white supremacists in the 1990s, and followed by all sorts of other groups since," German said. "The strategy is a sign of weakness, not of strength."
At the same time, German warned, "We should also be careful not to give troubled, angry people the idea they can become newsworthy by claiming allegiance to ISIS or any other terrorist group before they act violently."
In lieu of being able to stop individuals from carrying out violent attacks, some countries, such as Scotland and Australia, have enacted bans on automatic weapons in the wake of their own mass shootings.
Decker pointed out that the U.S., in fact, also enacted an assault weapons ban in 1994, but that 10 years later Congress allowed the ban to expire.
Today, Decker said, "it may be possible to implement some restrictions on weapons with high capacity magazines, but it likely would take a great deal of political will."
Though people are often mobilized in the aftermath of tragedies like the shooting in Orlando, he said, "that appears to be short-lived."
"There are more than 300 million guns in the United States," Decker said. "Reducing the scarcity of high capacity assault rifles would be a difficult task and likely take a considerable amount of time."
Even then, Simon argued, the problem would hardly be solved.
"Preventing access to automatic weapons might help prevent the casualties toll from rising in some of these attacks, but we've got to realize that a determined terrorist, whether it be a lone wolf or an organized group, will find weapons to commit their violence," Simon said. "If they can't get guns, they may use bombs. We saw in the Boston Marathon bombing that there was a homemade pressure cooker bomb that was used."
Had Mateen not been able to get his hands on a gun, Simon suggested, "he might just as easily put a homemade pressure cooker bomb into a backpack and walked into the club and exploded it."
So what can be done?
Surveillance and security are the two best steps forward, Decker said. Though, he acknowledged, "expanding those will pose debates about the extent of personal liberties." Simon added that we're going to see an increase in security at many public venues in the next few weeks, but as the months go when we let "our guard down" it will open us up to future attacks.
"We need to treat all violent crime more seriously," he said. "Half the violent crime goes unsolved each year, including more than a third of the homicides. ...If we reduced the unsolved violent crime, all American communities will be safer from violence."
QuoteMateen had been on the FBI's radar since 2013 when coworkers reported him for making "offensive" comments about islamic extremism.
Languish is doomed. :(
Quote from: The Brain on June 13, 2016, 03:38:51 AM
QuoteMateen had been on the FBI's radar since 2013 when coworkers reported him for making "offensive" comments about islamic extremism.
Languish is doomed. :(
:ph34r:
Quote from: Razgovory on June 12, 2016, 06:25:26 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on June 12, 2016, 04:07:30 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 12, 2016, 04:03:31 PMI see one. He's a liar, and I'm calling him on it. For instance the Virginia tech shooter could not be a registered democrat because he wasn't a citizen and Virginia didn't register by party at the time of the shooting. So I'm calling on him on it, and I want to see if he can man up to being a liar.
to lie requires intent to lie. why do you think siege lied when it's more likely he believed this myth he posted?
I've given him the benefit of the doubt on similar cases before. Not this time. Do you think he's seriously so stupid he would blindly pass on information from people who have lied to him time and time again?
I don't take anything he posts seriously enough to worry about whether he's trolling us or just that stupid.
Quote from: Martinus on June 12, 2016, 11:47:40 PM
You know how? Because people are afraid to report something like that to the authorities lest they are accused of islamophobia. Remember garbon and his ilk screaming their face off about islamophobia and racism when a fellow passenger reported that Muslim guy on a plane? The flip side of this approach is this - sure, maybe 50+ people are dead, but at least noone was inconvenienced on their flight or at their workplace.
First, do a little more digging than just the Reuters and AP headlines. He was on the radar 3 years ago
because somebody reported him making whacked-out comments. They investigated him and couldn't verify the threat, so they closed the investigation- while there's no omniscient federal agency, if there is a valid gripe here, it's that the US' domestic intelligence apparatus is so dysfunctional and uncommunicative that it's ineffective (this is exactly what bulk data gathering opponents have been complaining about- the volume is so large that the data is meaningless and almost impossible to use).
Also, your argument about immigrants is bunk. His parents are the immigrants from back in the '80s, and they sound just as upset at the bullshit he pulled as we are. It's a cultural war, not a racial war, and it doesn't even follow normal geopolitical lines.
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 01:47:08 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 12, 2016, 08:20:03 PM
Not surprised to see Languish attacking the right, as if they were the actual villains here.
It gets better:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xtl1/v/t1.0-9/13450915_1110992278971680_6601082435393502159_n.jpg?oh=576efa69312895a7cc5d40c22589cccd&oe=57C7E46E&__gda__=1472516189_7cd6465e430c87ace8bcca1277f3fdc3)
Poor ISIS fanboy. He commits a horrible atrocity and people give the credit to the Christians.
I am not sure if his parents sound upset or not (it would be surprising if they did not sound upset) but journalists have dug up some statements his father made in the past, where he supported Taleban.
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 07:54:51 AM
I am not sure if his parents sound upset or not (it would be surprising if they did not sound upset) but journalists have dug up some statements his father made in the past, where he supported Taleban.
And by Taleban you mean the anti-LGBT Christian Right who is really behind this right?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 13, 2016, 07:43:39 AM
Also, your argument about immigrants is bunk. His parents are the immigrants from back in the '80s, and they sound just as upset at the bullshit he pulled as we are. It's a cultural war, not a racial war, and it doesn't even follow normal geopolitical lines.
What's concerning to me is how you have moderate (ish) muslim immigrants followed by a second generation that radicalizes.
Quote from: derspiess on June 13, 2016, 08:00:54 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 13, 2016, 07:43:39 AM
Also, your argument about immigrants is bunk. His parents are the immigrants from back in the '80s, and they sound just as upset at the bullshit he pulled as we are. It's a cultural war, not a racial war, and it doesn't even follow normal geopolitical lines.
What's concerning to me is how you have moderate (ish) muslim immigrants followed by a second generation that radicalizes.
Yep. It is the internet. It keeps them from assimilating and keeps them in touch with the nutters back home.
An interesting tidbit from a local newspaper:
QuoteGilroy, a former Fort Pierce police officer, said Mateen frequently made homophobic and racial comments. Gilroy said he complained to his employer several times but it did nothing because he was Muslim.
http://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/crime/2016/06/12/who-omar-mateen/85791280/
"If you see something, say something" has always been the mantra of non-intrusive social policing that keeps everybody safe at a basic level - but when those who do (even if sometimes they report false flags, like the guy on the Ryanair plane) are derided as ignorant bigots, the system collapses.
QuoteGilroy said he complained to his employer several times but it did nothing because he was Muslim.
I think he may be assuming something there. Generally you don't fire people just because of a few racist/homophobic comments.
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 08:08:19 AM
QuoteGilroy said he complained to his employer several times but it did nothing because he was Muslim.
I think he may be assuming something there. Generally you don't fire people just because of a few racist/homophobic comments.
Read the article. He was talking about killing people too.
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 08:08:19 AM
QuoteGilroy said he complained to his employer several times but it did nothing because he was Muslim.
I think he may be assuming something there.
Yes, how exactly does Gilroy know?
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 08:05:27 AM
"If you see something, say something" has always been the mantra of non-intrusive social policing that keeps everybody safe at a basic level - but when those who do (even if sometimes they report false flags, like the guy on the Ryanair plane) are derided as ignorant bigots, the system collapses.
I thought the analysis from NYC was that having that policy on public transport had actually done little apart from wasting time and money.
Quote from: garbon on June 13, 2016, 08:10:14 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 08:08:19 AM
QuoteGilroy said he complained to his employer several times but it did nothing because he was Muslim.
I think he may be assuming something there.
Yes, how exactly does Gilroy know?
Why don't you ask him?
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 08:11:13 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 13, 2016, 08:10:14 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 08:08:19 AM
QuoteGilroy said he complained to his employer several times but it did nothing because he was Muslim.
I think he may be assuming something there.
Yes, how exactly does Gilroy know?
Why don't you ask him?
I don't have his contact details nor do I really care enough. :(
Fair enough. Why do you ask here then, if you don't really care?
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 08:13:59 AM
Fair enough. Why do you ask here then, if you don't really care?
It was rhetorical. A reasonable person can assume it is unlikely he was told by decision makers that his colleague wasn't fired because he was muslim.
Here's what I was referring to.
http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/mta-anti-terrorism-2012-10/
QuoteThe MTA's "If You See Something, Say Something" campaign is one of those fixtures of post-9/11 life in New York. (And beyond: The MTA, which trademarked the catchphrase, has licensed it to 54 different agencies around the world.) The message is a reminder that the threat of another terror attack is real, but it also provides some comfort: Average New Yorkers, by watching each other's backs, can do something to stop one. But what if "See Something, Say Something" actually compromises subway safety? That's the argument made by Harvey Molotch, an NYU sociologist with an interest in urban design, in his new book, Against Security. His case against the program breaks down into four central points.
1. It hasn't helped to catch any terrorists.
A 2008 MTA public-service announcement stated that nearly 2,000 New Yorkers had "seen something and said something" that year, but the only public data on the initiative's efficacy comes from a Times article from the same year, which reported that in 2006 and 2007 calls to the campaign's tip line led to just eighteen arrests for offenses such as selling fake I.D.'s, owning unregistered guns, and immigration violations. None of the reported busts was terrorism-related. "There have been no people stopped from doing an act of terror, there have been no people charged with terror through the informants that have come forward," says Molotch. The street vendor who helped to stop the Times Square bombing in 2010 did so by reporting the smoking SUV to a mounted patrol officer—the danger was unambiguous, and taking action did not require remembering a phone number. (It's 1-888-nyc-safe, for the record.)
2. There's just too much weird stuff going on in New York City.
"We have everything," says Molotch. "People lugging their art project around with wires sticking out, people who indeed look Islamic operating counting machines to count their prayers in Islam as they go." Reports of such harmless goings-on can clog the law-enforcement system and keep officials from investigating serious threats. Molotch interviewed 80 subway workers for his book and concluded that "See Something" would be an even bigger nuisance if MTA staffers didn't often opt to check out suspicious packages themselves rather than call in investigators. "If they really acted on each of these things, the subway system would come to a halt."
3. It creates a "Chicken Little" effect.
Encouraging New Yorkers to call in leads that are likely to amount to nothing can cause subway workers to ignore credible threats—too much bogus information makes them dubious. "When people don't tell the truth about security, when they give false impressions, it's a real danger to believing in the system when in fact it does tell the truth," says Molotch. "The people who work in the subway regard most of these measures as jokes having no bearing on their actual practices."
4. The signs themselves are a safety hazard.
Those "See Something" placards plastered on station agents' glass booths? They actually make it harder for the agent, a trained professional, to see anything.
An MTA spokesman insists the program is successful, and a valuable part of keeping the city safe. And for all his qualms, Molotch does acknowledge one unintended benefit of the program: New Yorkers now have a better chance of getting back a gym bag or package accidentally left behind when getting off at their stop. "It seems to be," he says, "that there is actual retrieval of lost goods."
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 08:10:08 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 08:08:19 AM
QuoteGilroy said he complained to his employer several times but it did nothing because he was Muslim.
I think he may be assuming something there. Generally you don't fire people just because of a few racist/homophobic comments.
Read the article. He was talking about killing people too.
I read it. It sounds like he was great with the residents which was probably the reason he got to keep his job despite that weird shit with that co-worker.
QuoteGilroy, a former Fort Pierce police officer, said Mateen frequently made homophobic and racial comments. Gilroy said he complained to his employer several times but it did nothing because he was Muslim. Gilroy quit after he said Mateen began stalking him via multiple text messages — 20 or 30 a day. He also sent Gilroy 13 to 15 phone messages a day, he said.
I mean WTF man?
This dude's dad is a trip.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando-shooting-omar-mateen-father-seddique-mateen-taliban-god-punish-gays/
QuoteIn his Facebook videos, the alleged gunman's father has often appeared wearing a military uniform and declaring himself the leader of a "transitional revolutionary government" of Afghanistan. He claims to have his own intelligence agency and close ties to the U.S. Congress -- assets he says he will use to subvert Pakistani influence and take control of Afghanistan.
Weird. His son was quoting Jinnah on his facebook page. Obviously he and his father had their disagreements.
Wait how can his dad say stuff like this and also be pro-Taleban?
Quote from: garbon on June 13, 2016, 08:15:31 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 08:13:59 AM
Fair enough. Why do you ask here then, if you don't really care?
It was rhetorical. A reasonable person can assume it is unlikely he was told by decision makers that his colleague wasn't fired because he was muslim.
I don't know it is unlikely, especially off the record. I can see how he could be reporting this and he could get a feedback with a wink and "you know how Muslims are about gays".
Quote from: Jaron on June 13, 2016, 01:02:55 AM
MASS shootings.
it's silly to split "mass shootings" from gun related homicides, especially when you have multiple definitions of what constitutes a mass shooting. Is a man killing his entire family a mass shooting or is it only when someone shoots a gun in a public space?
In any case:
Quote
United States
It has been reported that more mass shootings occur in the United States than in other countries. Although the frequency of mass shootings varies upon their definition, it has been reported that 31% of public mass shootings occur in the U.S despite the U.S. having only 5% of the world's population.[10][16] CNN reports that "there are more public mass shootings in the United States than in any other country in the world, according to a new study."[10]
The frequency in which mass shootings occur varies upon definition. Mother Jones which ran a series of articles on mass shootings stated that as of 4 December 2015, there have been four mass shootings in that year. In contrast, in "Behind the Bloodshed", a report by USA Today, has stated that mass killings occur every two weeks and that public mass killings only account for 1 in 6 of all mass killings.[11][
Might be less victims, but certainly more attacks of the type. And recently, they tend to overlap, and they will keep overlapping in the future, since it's so easy to get a gun and shoot people.
So, the father apparently disagrees with his son murdering over 50 people, although he chose a rather unique way to express it:
QuoteThe father of the gunman behind the Florida massacre voiced sadness that his son took it upon himself to attack the gay community, saying it was "up to God to punish homosexuals".
In a video posted on Facebook early Monday, Seddique Mateen said he was grieved by the rampage that left 49 people dead in a gay nightclub in Orlando, calling the 29-year-old killer Omar Mateen a "good and educated son".
"I am deeply saddened and have announced this to the people of America," Seddique said in the three-minute video in the Dari language, voicing disbelief that his son carried out the killings during the holy month of Ramadan.
"It is up to God to punish homosexuals. It is not up to servants," the US resident added, sitting before a flag of his home country Afghanistan
Quoteit has been reported that 31% of public mass shootings occur in the U.S despite the U.S. having only 5% of the world's population
That just cannot be possible. We have the 112th highest murder rate in the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
I mean Brazil has 50,000 homicides a year. Surely a good number of those were mass shootings.
Sounds like shitty statistics and reporting to me.
That piece of shit should be on his knees begging for forgiveness because he raised a murderous psychopath by feeding him his bullshit savage culture and religion - yet he is sorry his "good and educated son" just took God's work in his own hands rather than observing Ramadan.
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 09:02:39 AM
So, the father apparently disagrees with his son murdering over 50 people, although he chose a rather unique way to express it:
QuoteThe father of the gunman behind the Florida massacre voiced sadness that his son took it upon himself to attack the gay community, saying it was "up to God to punish homosexuals".
In a video posted on Facebook early Monday, Seddique Mateen said he was grieved by the rampage that left 49 people dead in a gay nightclub in Orlando, calling the 29-year-old killer Omar Mateen a "good and educated son".
"I am deeply saddened and have announced this to the people of America," Seddique said in the three-minute video in the Dari language, voicing disbelief that his son carried out the killings during the holy month of Ramadan.
"It is up to God to punish homosexuals. It is not up to servants," the US resident added, sitting before a flag of his home country Afghanistan
I am not sure what you were expecting from this dude.
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 09:08:28 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 09:02:39 AM
So, the father apparently disagrees with his son murdering over 50 people, although he chose a rather unique way to express it:
QuoteThe father of the gunman behind the Florida massacre voiced sadness that his son took it upon himself to attack the gay community, saying it was "up to God to punish homosexuals".
In a video posted on Facebook early Monday, Seddique Mateen said he was grieved by the rampage that left 49 people dead in a gay nightclub in Orlando, calling the 29-year-old killer Omar Mateen a "good and educated son".
"I am deeply saddened and have announced this to the people of America," Seddique said in the three-minute video in the Dari language, voicing disbelief that his son carried out the killings during the holy month of Ramadan.
"It is up to God to punish homosexuals. It is not up to servants," the US resident added, sitting before a flag of his home country Afghanistan
I am not sure what you were expecting from this dude.
1) Don't be Muslim.
2) Don't be a parent grieving the actions/death of your child.
If I had to hazard a guess.
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 09:08:28 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 09:02:39 AM
So, the father apparently disagrees with his son murdering over 50 people, although he chose a rather unique way to express it:
QuoteThe father of the gunman behind the Florida massacre voiced sadness that his son took it upon himself to attack the gay community, saying it was "up to God to punish homosexuals".
In a video posted on Facebook early Monday, Seddique Mateen said he was grieved by the rampage that left 49 people dead in a gay nightclub in Orlando, calling the 29-year-old killer Omar Mateen a "good and educated son".
"I am deeply saddened and have announced this to the people of America," Seddique said in the three-minute video in the Dari language, voicing disbelief that his son carried out the killings during the holy month of Ramadan.
"It is up to God to punish homosexuals. It is not up to servants," the US resident added, sitting before a flag of his home country Afghanistan
I am not sure what you were expecting from this dude.
This:
QuoteThat piece of shit should be on his knees begging for forgiveness because he raised a murderous psychopath by feeding him his bullshit savage culture and religion - yet he is sorry his "good and educated son" just took God's work in his own hands rather than observing Ramadan.
But I guess his reaction just confirms what we already know about the difference between radical and moderate Muslims - the former murder people, the latter just excuse their barbaric actions.
I don't think that nutter counts as a moderate muslim. He is a fruitcake. Calling himself the President of Afghanistan and insisting he has connections in the US government and shit.
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 09:14:41 AM
I don't think that nutter counts as a moderate muslim. He is a fruitcake. Calling himself the President of Afghanistan and insisting he has connections in the US government and shit.
That's just moving the goal posts all the time.
First it was: this had nothing to do with religion.
Then: ok, maybe it had something to do with religion, but he got radicalized in the second generation, his parents were normal people.
Then: ok, his father is a weird guy but clearly not pro-Taleban.
Now: ok, his father is a religious fruitcake, not a moderate muslim, but that's an exception not a rule.
So, yeah, filth like this should have never been allowed to come into the US in the first place. The lieutenant governor of Texas was right - you reap what you sow.
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 09:17:16 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 09:14:41 AM
I don't think that nutter counts as a moderate muslim. He is a fruitcake. Calling himself the President of Afghanistan and insisting he has connections in the US government and shit.
That's just moving the goal posts all the time.
First it was: this had nothing to do with religion.
Then: ok, maybe it had something to do with religion, but he got radicalized in the second generation, his parents were normal people.
Then: ok, his father is a weird guy but clearly not pro-Taleban.
Now: ok, his father is a religious fruitcake, not a moderate muslim.
So, yeah, filth like this should have never been allowed to come into the US in the first place. The lieutenant governor of Texas was right - you reap what you sow.
So is this what happens to old queens? First, we had only Grallon then you aged and became this way. Is this what will happen to me when I become aged? :o
I don't know - do you have a death wish?
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 09:06:06 AM
Quoteit has been reported that 31% of public mass shootings occur in the U.S despite the U.S. having only 5% of the world's population
That just cannot be possible. We have the 112th highest murder rate in the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
I mean Brazil has 50,000 homicides a year. Surely a good number of those were mass shootings.
Sounds like shitty statistics and reporting to me.
that's why it's pointless to measure mass shootings, because there is no widely accepted definition. the US federal government use one definition. Medias uses another. Other countries have different measurements.
Where as with homicides and even general gun related injuries, since not all regions of the world have decent healthcare coverage, you get a clearer picture. An injury is an injurdy, a death is a death. No matter how you take it, dead is dead is dead in this world ;)
I think we can all agree that the world would be a better place if we just got rid of both guns and Muslims.
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 09:17:16 AM
So, yeah, filth like this should have never been allowed to come into the US in the first place. The lieutenant governor of Texas was right - you reap what you sow.
and yet, they gave him a gun :)
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 09:17:16 AM
That's just moving the goal posts all the time.
Huh. I don't recall not claiming his father was insane.
QuoteFirst it was: this had nothing to do with religion.
From who? I never said that.
QuoteThen: ok, maybe it had something to do with religion, but he got radicalized in the second generation, his parents were normal people.
Then: ok, his father is a weird guy but clearly not pro-Taleban.
Now: ok, his father is a religious fruitcake, not a moderate muslim, but that's an exception not a rule.
I don't know if he is a religious fruitcake or not but he surely is a fruitcake.
QuoteSo, yeah, filth like this should have never been allowed to come into the US in the first place. The lieutenant governor of Texas was right - you reap what you sow.
You may not have noticed but we are not exactly amazing at regulating who we allow into this country.
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 09:20:50 AM
I think we can all agree that the world would be a better place if we just got rid of both guns and Muslims.
Yeah, something like that was written in Mein Kampf.
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 08:17:25 AM
I read it. It sounds like he was great with the residents which was probably the reason he got to keep his job despite that weird shit with that co-worker.
QuoteGilroy, a former Fort Pierce police officer, said Mateen frequently made homophobic and racial comments. Gilroy said he complained to his employer several times but it did nothing because he was Muslim. Gilroy quit after he said Mateen began stalking him via multiple text messages — 20 or 30 a day. He also sent Gilroy 13 to 15 phone messages a day, he said.
I mean WTF man?
I told you. A big fag.
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 09:21:00 AM
You may not have noticed but we are not exactly amazing at regulating who we allow into this country.
That's why you need to elect Donald Trump. :P
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 01:44:22 AM
So, some people are changing their profile pics to pink triangles at the moment. I am not sure how it is appropriate or relevant. It's like changing your profile pic to a yellow start with "Jude" on it after some Muslim bombs a Tel-Aviv cafe.
Nice to see that, even in the face of an Islamic-inspired attack on the gay community, there's still room to knock around those nasty, filthy Jews.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 13, 2016, 09:23:00 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 08:17:25 AM
I read it. It sounds like he was great with the residents which was probably the reason he got to keep his job despite that weird shit with that co-worker.
QuoteGilroy, a former Fort Pierce police officer, said Mateen frequently made homophobic and racial comments. Gilroy said he complained to his employer several times but it did nothing because he was Muslim. Gilroy quit after he said Mateen began stalking him via multiple text messages — 20 or 30 a day. He also sent Gilroy 13 to 15 phone messages a day, he said.
I mean WTF man?
I told you. A big fag.
Yeah. The difference is that when you have a Christian self-hating closeted fag, he pickets people's funerals and has down low sex in airport bathrooms. When you have a Muslim self-hating closeted fag, he shoots up a club full of people.
Islam makes everything worse.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 13, 2016, 09:24:46 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 01:44:22 AM
So, some people are changing their profile pics to pink triangles at the moment. I am not sure how it is appropriate or relevant. It's like changing your profile pic to a yellow start with "Jude" on it after some Muslim bombs a Tel-Aviv cafe.
Nice to see that, even in the face of an Islamic-inspired attack on the gay community, there's still room to knock around those nasty, filthy Jews.
What the fuck, dude? I am saying that using a nazi symbol to demonstrate opposition to Muslim terrorism is a bit disconnected.
Quote from: viper37 on June 13, 2016, 09:22:31 AM
Yeah, something like that was written in Mein Kampf.
Except that the Jews of Europe didn't deserve what was done to them, whereas Muslims work at deserving it every day, either by aiding, abetting, or excusing the deeds committed by a tiny minority. A vile culture of murder, terror and destruction. :yucky:
G.
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 09:25:26 AM
Yeah. The difference is that when you have a Christian self-hating closeted fag, he pickets people's funerals and has down low sex in airport bathrooms. When you have a Muslim self-hating closeted fag, he shoots up a club full of people.
John Wayne Gacy. Not a Muslim.
QuoteIslam makes everything worse.
Islam: the MSG of religions.
Quote from: Grallon on June 13, 2016, 09:43:55 AM
Quote from: viper37 on June 13, 2016, 09:22:31 AM
Yeah, something like that was written in Mein Kampf.
Except that the Jews of Europe didn't deserve what was done to them, whereas Muslims work at deserving it every day, either by aiding, abetting, or excusing the deeds committed by a tiny minority. A vile culture of murder, terror and destruction. :yucky:
G.
the exact same argument was made for Jews, that they were responsible for Germany's defeat in WW1, among other things. And lots of people were reasoning that all that hatred against Jews wasn't for nothing, even if what the Nazis said was not entirely true, it was justified.
It seems like there's a much stronger correlation between mental illness for mass killings in the US than religion.
Quote from: frunk on June 13, 2016, 09:58:36 AM
It seems like there's a much stronger correlation between mental illness for mass killings in the US than religion.
Is there really? How many of these guys were actually diagnosed? The assumption seems to be they were mentally ill because they committed a mass shooting and with that kind of circular reasoning of course there will be a correlation.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 13, 2016, 09:49:06 AM
John Wayne Gacy. Not a Muslim.
Wasn't he a Catholic? DEPORT ALL CATHOLICS.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 10:02:04 AM
:rolleyes:
I was trolling Seedy there Marty. Geez.
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 10:02:55 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 10:02:04 AM
:rolleyes:
I was trolling Seedy there Marty. Geez.
Ok. :P
Apparently, the young guy who was texting his mother was confirmed dead. Not that it matters one way or another, but still pretty fucking heartbreaking. <_<
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 10:00:28 AM
Is there really? How many of these guys were actually diagnosed? The assumption seems to be they were mentally ill because they committed a mass shooting and with that kind of circular reasoning of course there will be a correlation.
In some cases it has been, in others it's pretty clear after the fact just from looking at their writings/testimonials.
Ted Cruz has posted this:
QuoteOur nation is at war. From 9/11 to the Boston Marathon, from Fort Hood to Chattanooga, from San Bernardino to last night's horrific attack in Orlando, radical Islamic terrorism has declared jihad on America. Early reports indicate the Orlando terrorist had pledged his allegiance to ISIS, and he had previously been investigated by the FBI. And yet, as with the prior attacks, we were not able to act to stop this act of vicious terrorism that has now murdered 50 and injured more than 50 others.
Our hearts go out to those killed and wounded last night. Our prayers are with their families, and with all their grieving loved ones.
It is a time for action. We need a Commander in Chief who will speak the truth, and who will unleash the full force and fury of the American military to utterly destroy ISIS and its affiliates. We need to pass the Expatriate Terrorist Act, so that known ISIS terrorists cannot use U.S. passports to return to America and wage jihad. We need a President who is serious – who will identify the enemy by name and do everything necessary to defeat it.
The next few days will be sadly predictable. Democrats will try to use this attack to change the subject. As a matter of rigid ideology, far too many Democrats – from Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton – will refuse to utter the words "radical Islamic terrorism." They will claim this attack, like they claimed every previous attack, was isolated and had nothing to do with the vicious Islamist theology that is daily waging war on us across the globe. And they will try to exploit this terror attack to undermine the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms of law-abiding Americans.
Enough is enough. What we need is for every American – Democrat and Republican – to come together, abandon political correctness, and unite in defeating radical Islamic terrorism.
ISIS doesn't just target soldiers. They don't just target Republicans. Or Jews. They also target Christians and fellow Muslims. They target each and every one of us. As we saw this morning, they target the gay and lesbian community. Their objective, which they broadcast worldwide, is to murder or forcibly convert every single American.
For all the Democrats who are loud champions of the gay and lesbian community whenever there is a culture battle waging, now is the opportunity to speak out against an ideology that calls for the murder of gays and lesbians. ISIS and the theocracy in Iran (supported with American taxpayer dollars) regularly murder homosexuals, throwing them from buildings and burying them under rocks. This is wrong, it is evil, and we must all stand against it. Every human being has a right to live according to his or her faith and conscience, and nobody has a right to murder someone who doesn't share their faith or sexual orientation. If you're a Democratic politician and you really want to stand for LGBT, show real courage and stand up against the vicious ideology that has targeted our fellow Americans for murder.
Today, all of America stands in solidarity with the people of Orlando. All of us should lift them up in prayer, demand action, and if you have any information about the Orlando shooter or potential radical Islamic terror plots, please act to keep us safe by using the FBI tips website: https://tips.fbi.gov/
He got some of his facts a bit wrong and he does seem a tad hypocritical but I never thought I'd say this but I agree with Ted Cruz more than I agree with Barrack Obama.
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 10:00:28 AM
Quote from: frunk on June 13, 2016, 09:58:36 AM
It seems like there's a much stronger correlation between mental illness for mass killings in the US than religion.
Is there really? How many of these guys were actually diagnosed?
given the low access to quality healthcare services for a big chunk of the population, the stygma with mental illness that still push people to shelter afflicted family members rather than seek help and the number of educated people willingly supporting Trump, I think it's fair to say there's a problem there.
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 10:14:35 AM
Ted Cruz has posted this:
QuoteOur nation is at war. From 9/11 to the Boston Marathon, from Fort Hood to Chattanooga, from San Bernardino to last night's horrific attack in Orlando, radical Islamic terrorism has declared jihad on America. Early reports indicate the Orlando terrorist had pledged his allegiance to ISIS, and he had previously been investigated by the FBI. And yet, as with the prior attacks, we were not able to act to stop this act of vicious terrorism that has now murdered 50 and injured more than 50 others.
Our hearts go out to those killed and wounded last night. Our prayers are with their families, and with all their grieving loved ones.
It is a time for action. We need a Commander in Chief who will speak the truth, and who will unleash the full force and fury of the American military to utterly destroy ISIS and its affiliates. We need to pass the Expatriate Terrorist Act, so that known ISIS terrorists cannot use U.S. passports to return to America and wage jihad. We need a President who is serious – who will identify the enemy by name and do everything necessary to defeat it.
The next few days will be sadly predictable. Democrats will try to use this attack to change the subject. As a matter of rigid ideology, far too many Democrats – from Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton – will refuse to utter the words "radical Islamic terrorism." They will claim this attack, like they claimed every previous attack, was isolated and had nothing to do with the vicious Islamist theology that is daily waging war on us across the globe. And they will try to exploit this terror attack to undermine the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms of law-abiding Americans.
Enough is enough. What we need is for every American – Democrat and Republican – to come together, abandon political correctness, and unite in defeating radical Islamic terrorism.
ISIS doesn't just target soldiers. They don't just target Republicans. Or Jews. They also target Christians and fellow Muslims. They target each and every one of us. As we saw this morning, they target the gay and lesbian community. Their objective, which they broadcast worldwide, is to murder or forcibly convert every single American.
For all the Democrats who are loud champions of the gay and lesbian community whenever there is a culture battle waging, now is the opportunity to speak out against an ideology that calls for the murder of gays and lesbians. ISIS and the theocracy in Iran (supported with American taxpayer dollars) regularly murder homosexuals, throwing them from buildings and burying them under rocks. This is wrong, it is evil, and we must all stand against it. Every human being has a right to live according to his or her faith and conscience, and nobody has a right to murder someone who doesn't share their faith or sexual orientation. If you're a Democratic politician and you really want to stand for LGBT, show real courage and stand up against the vicious ideology that has targeted our fellow Americans for murder.
Today, all of America stands in solidarity with the people of Orlando. All of us should lift them up in prayer, demand action, and if you have any information about the Orlando shooter or potential radical Islamic terror plots, please act to keep us safe by using the FBI tips website: https://tips.fbi.gov/
He got some of his facts a bit wrong and he does seem a tad hypocritical but I never thought I'd say this but I agree with Ted Cruz more than I agree with Barrack Obama.
You would hope that would be a wake up call to you about your current though process...
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 10:14:35 AM
He got some of his facts a bit wrong and he does seem a tad hypocritical but I never thought I'd say this but I agree with Ted Cruz more than I agree with Barrack Obama.
Barack Obama's drones have been murdering Islamic terrorists by the bushel for years. I do not understand why it is so important for him to spout off shit. He is the President and must make statements that help the US in pursuing its interests. Ted Cruz can go off like a nutter if he wants. Hell Dubya made those 'Axis of Evil' and 'With us or with the terrorists' statements that never specifically condemned Islam yet we paid a big diplomatic price for years.
Obama going off might make some people feel better but the US would pay a big price for them.
Quote from: viper37 on June 13, 2016, 10:14:44 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 10:00:28 AM
Quote from: frunk on June 13, 2016, 09:58:36 AM
It seems like there's a much stronger correlation between mental illness for mass killings in the US than religion.
Is there really? How many of these guys were actually diagnosed?
given the low access to quality healthcare services for a big chunk of the population, the stygma with mental illness that still push people to shelter afflicted family members rather than seek help and the number of educated people willingly supporting Trump, I think it's fair to say there's a problem there.
Yeah well we demolished our mental health program in this country decades ago. It does frustrate me to hear politicians say things like 'the problem is not guns it is MENTAL ILLNESS!!'
And then do nothing about mental illness. I mean if you actually believe that wouldn't you be launching a campaign to help with mental illness? It is much needed and long overdue.
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 10:14:35 AM
Ted Cruz has posted this:
QuoteOur nation is at war. From 9/11 to the Boston Marathon, from Fort Hood to Chattanooga, from San Bernardino to last night's horrific attack in Orlando, radical Islamic terrorism has declared jihad on America. Early reports indicate the Orlando terrorist had pledged his allegiance to ISIS, and he had previously been investigated by the FBI. And yet, as with the prior attacks, we were not able to act to stop this act of vicious terrorism that has now murdered 50 and injured more than 50 others.
Our hearts go out to those killed and wounded last night. Our prayers are with their families, and with all their grieving loved ones.
It is a time for action. We need a Commander in Chief who will speak the truth, and who will unleash the full force and fury of the American military to utterly destroy ISIS and its affiliates. We need to pass the Expatriate Terrorist Act, so that known ISIS terrorists cannot use U.S. passports to return to America and wage jihad. We need a President who is serious – who will identify the enemy by name and do everything necessary to defeat it.
The next few days will be sadly predictable. Democrats will try to use this attack to change the subject. As a matter of rigid ideology, far too many Democrats – from Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton – will refuse to utter the words "radical Islamic terrorism." They will claim this attack, like they claimed every previous attack, was isolated and had nothing to do with the vicious Islamist theology that is daily waging war on us across the globe. And they will try to exploit this terror attack to undermine the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms of law-abiding Americans.
Enough is enough. What we need is for every American – Democrat and Republican – to come together, abandon political correctness, and unite in defeating radical Islamic terrorism.
ISIS doesn't just target soldiers. They don't just target Republicans. Or Jews. They also target Christians and fellow Muslims. They target each and every one of us. As we saw this morning, they target the gay and lesbian community. Their objective, which they broadcast worldwide, is to murder or forcibly convert every single American.
For all the Democrats who are loud champions of the gay and lesbian community whenever there is a culture battle waging, now is the opportunity to speak out against an ideology that calls for the murder of gays and lesbians. ISIS and the theocracy in Iran (supported with American taxpayer dollars) regularly murder homosexuals, throwing them from buildings and burying them under rocks. This is wrong, it is evil, and we must all stand against it. Every human being has a right to live according to his or her faith and conscience, and nobody has a right to murder someone who doesn't share their faith or sexual orientation. If you're a Democratic politician and you really want to stand for LGBT, show real courage and stand up against the vicious ideology that has targeted our fellow Americans for murder.
Today, all of America stands in solidarity with the people of Orlando. All of us should lift them up in prayer, demand action, and if you have any information about the Orlando shooter or potential radical Islamic terror plots, please act to keep us safe by using the FBI tips website: https://tips.fbi.gov/
He got some of his facts a bit wrong and he does seem a tad hypocritical but I never thought I'd say this but I agree with Ted Cruz more than I agree with Barrack Obama.
Oh, sure, now he wants to wage war against ISIS.
You know, when it was time to do something in Iraq that would have prevented the rise of ISIS, where were all these GOP champions?
Nowhere. They declared job done, and they started packing.
When Obama wanted to intervene in Syria, where were these GOP champions of the fight against terrorism? Nowhere. They did not want to send troops anymore than Obama. Once the Russians started bombing shit, then, they started talking about a possible intervention. By then it was too late.
Bush and his GOP friends shifted resources from Afghanistan to Iraq. Only a token force of 20 000 US Airforce soldiers were left there, with no intelligence resources to speak of, everyone went to Iraq, instead. While Ben Laden was able to roam free and consolidate his terror network.
ANd once in Iraq, they expected the people there to welcome them with open arms. They had no plan to rebuild the country, only prayers would be sufficient.
Obama was left to fix the mess the Republicans created in the first place, because they are incompetent morons.
Had I known they were so incompetent, I would have never supported the war.
What is it Cruz aims to achieve, exactly, under a Trump leadership? Bomb Syria and Iraq? Deploy troops over there? For how long? How many troops? What is the plan exactly to fight the ideology?
The truth is the GOPtards have no plan. "Let's take a strong stance!". Yeah, that sounds nice for the morons who believe a couple of bombs will solve the problems. So far, the war in Afghanistan and Iraq under a GOP leadership has been a failure. What will Trump and Cruz do differently? Kill more people? How many? There's 1.7 billion muslims (25% of the world pop). Do you stop at 50%? 70%? 100%?
Cruz does not speak for the GOP Viper, he is very much his own nutty man.
For whatever it's worth, most Muslim guys I have met over the years seemed to be short-tempered Rage Monsters. Dunno if rage is a mental illness, but it does seem to be a cultural trait of sorts.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 12, 2016, 10:40:33 PM
I think Orlando PD will have to answer that question. Maybe they didn't get the memo that it's about confronting threats instead of trying to control threats when it comes to active shooter events these days.
Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case. A lot of the training on active shooter situations has been changed at least Federally in the last 10 years and it wouldn't surprise me if this hasn't trickled down to a lot of local PDs.
Quote from: Barrister on June 12, 2016, 11:56:20 PM
Goddammit. :(
Fifty fucking people are murdered in cold blood (and even more people seriously injured), and everyone treats it like a fucking Rorshach test - they see what they want. The left complains about gun control, the right complains about islam.
Can't we just mourn all these deaths? Can't we agree this was an attack motivated by BOTH radical islam and homophobia?
I replied to something Raz said flippantly, but I think is true. Today we are all gay nightclub partiers. Not because it is literally true - but today we stand with those who didn't deserve to die just because they fancy other men and went to a place to meet people with a similar outlook on life.
You know... I didn't support gay marriage 10 years ago, and even now I'm not convinced that was a good move for our society to take. But even so... I weep for people to be murdered in cold blood because they are attracted to the same sex. What the fuck is wrong with people?
No--we have to respond to attacks as attacks. We cannot allow the left to reclassify terrorist attacks as domestic "issues" that require national soul searching. This is no different from 9/11 or Pearl Harbor, and it's disgusting it isn't being recognized for what it is.
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 10:25:35 AM
Yeah well we demolished our mental health program in this country decades ago. It does frustrate me to hear politicians say things like 'the problem is not guns it is MENTAL ILLNESS!!'
And then do nothing about mental illness. I mean if you actually believe that wouldn't you be launching a campaign to help with mental illness?
Seems to me the problem is a combo, in no particular order:
- Widespread availability of guns capable of killing large numbers of people (I saw one news commentator claiming that the specific type of gun used here was 'the weapon of choice of mass murderers', which sounded almost like a selling point);
- Lack of facilities and processes for tracking or treating mental illness (we in Canada have the exact same problem, as I've seen first hand);
- political and religious extremism, and in particular nowadays, Islamic extremism.
Thing is, for political and social reasons, it seems like every person wants to emphasize one of these problems over the others, when what has to be dealt with is all of them; also, that even dealing with all of them can never be any sort of guarantee of safety: there is no way of preventing lone mass murderers from murdering.
Quote from: derspiess on June 13, 2016, 10:31:12 AM
For whatever it's worth, most Muslim guys I have met over the years seemed to be short-tempered Rage Monsters. Dunno if rage is a mental illness, but it does seem to be a cultural trait of sorts.
Huh. What sort of Muslims are you meeting? The Turks I meet are almost serenely calm. To the point it almost makes me uneasy. Granted all the Muslims I meet are Turks who are Gulen types in exile which is very specific.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 13, 2016, 10:33:58 AM
No--we have to respond to attacks as attacks. We cannot allow the left to reclassify terrorist attacks as domestic "issues" that require national soul searching. This is no different from 9/11 or Pearl Harbor, and it's disgusting it isn't being recognized for what it is.
It is weirdly Puritan-like. Like this is us bearing the history of our sin of Homophobia. Thus we are all responsible and cannot blame the attacker or anything.
Will the US finally finds the line? It wasn't 20 kindergartners, will it be 50+ men?
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 13, 2016, 10:39:06 AM
Will the US finally finds the line? It wasn't 20 kindergartners, will it be 50+ men?
For gun control? Never going to happen. It would require a Constitutional Amendment. Things would have to get to Mexico/Brazil/Venezuela type levels before that kind of thing gets traction.
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 10:23:07 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 10:14:35 AM
He got some of his facts a bit wrong and he does seem a tad hypocritical but I never thought I'd say this but I agree with Ted Cruz more than I agree with Barrack Obama.
Barack Obama's drones have been murdering Islamic terrorists by the bushel for years. I do not understand why it is so important for him to spout off shit. He is the President and must make statements that help the US in pursuing its interests. Ted Cruz can go off like a nutter if he wants. Hell Dubya made those 'Axis of Evil' and 'With us or with the terrorists' statements that never specifically condemned Islam yet we paid a big diplomatic price for years.
Obama going off might make some people feel better but the US would pay a big price for them.
I'm sorry, what's the big price we would pay by acknowledging evil, terrorist Muslims are at war with us?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 13, 2016, 10:33:58 AM
No--we have to respond to attacks as attacks. We cannot allow the left to reclassify terrorist attacks as domestic "issues" that require national soul searching. This is no different from 9/11 or Pearl Harbor, and it's disgusting it isn't being recognized for what it is.
I'd say it is quite a bit different. In the case of Pearl Harbor, the responsibility could rightly be laid at the feet of a particular entity: the Empire of Japan. In the case of 9/11, it could be laid at the feet of a particular organization - and Afghanistan, for sheltering/harboring that organization. In both cases there were chances to retaliate against the organizers of the attacks.
With these "lone wolf" type attacks, who are we to hold responsible? Well, ISIS I guess, and I have no hesitation about putting more resources into crushing them, which would be a good thing for its own sake; but in some cases they had nothing to do with actually organizing the specific attacks.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 13, 2016, 10:40:36 AM
I'm sorry, what's the big price we would pay by acknowledging evil, terrorist Muslims are at war with us?
Things are not that simple and you know it. It would be a very bad thing for us if this ever got turned into a 'USA vs. Islam' type deal. The evil, terrorist Muslims would love that though.
'
You guys got it all wrong - it's everyone's fault:
QuoteI Blame Hate
06/12/2016 07:37 pm ET | Updated 40 minutes ago
The homophobic and transphobic carnage in Orlando was a 'plane crash', with the blood and corpses of LGBTQ people splattered across the headlines. However, LGBTQ people are dying of hate, isolation, exclusion, and violence daily, in 'car crashes' that do not catch the public eye. Gay children are being bullied to death in our schools, trans women beaten to death on our streets, and the public does not bat an eye. After the Pulse nightclub massacre, there will be the customary vigils, speeches, and rainbow processions, vows of solidarity, and then the predictable return to business as usual. My heart is exploding with love and grief for those who have died and are dying, and it is also burning with anger at those who perpetrate, encourage, and enable these atrocities. I am left wondering, amid all the prayers and mourning, wherein lies the responsibility and who is to blame?
I blame Ted Cruz, Pat McCrory, and every single politician in America and around the world who has promoted fear and hatred against the LGBTQ community in attempt to garner more votes.
I blame all those legislators who have devoted countless time and resources to concocting homophobic and transphobic laws, while simultaneously thwarting legislative action aimed at protecting the LGBTQ community.
I blame every religious leader who has encouraged his faithful to be intolerant towards LGBTQ people and urged them to fight against our basic rights and dignities as human beings.
I blame every person who feels that their religion entitles them to be biased against LGBTQ people and to exclude us.
I blame every parent who has victimized and bullied transgender children in schools by attempting to deny transgender students their right to access facilities matching their authentic gender identity.
I blame everyone who has threatened transgender people with violence and murder simply for using facilities that match our authentic gender identity.
I blame all parents who have taught their children to be intolerant and unaccepting of LGBTQ people, and all those parents who have rejected and abused their own LGBTQ children.
I blame all those who seek to erase LGBTQ people because our existence makes them uncomfortable.
I blame all those who bully, intimidate, or harass LGBTQ people, and those adults who turn the other way when LGBTQ children are being mistreated.
I blame all those who think it is acceptable to mock and ridicule LGBTQ people, and those who dismiss attempts to end this bullying as 'political correctness'.
I blame law enforcement in America and around the world that erases LGBTQ people and does not take action to protect us, and in fact is often the worst perpetrator of abuse and violence against us.
I blame every court, judge, and jury that has acquitted or given a token sentence to perpetrators of hate crimes against us, because of the 'gay panic' defense or simply because in their eyes our existence is worthy of violence.
I blame hate groups and terror groups like the American Family Association, the Ku Klux Klan, and ISIS.
I blame all those who have amicable dealings with regimes under which being LGBTQ is considered an offense punishable by death.
I blame all those who stand in silence as LGBTQ people are attacked, abused, murdered, and denied our human rights, because they do not think it is their problem or because they are embarrassed to speak up for us.
All of them have blood on their hands, not just in Orlando now, but everywhere every day. Scores of our people were murdered in cold blood in the worst mass shooting in our nation's history, but this is just the tip of the iceberg. We are assaulted, raped, and murdered around the world with impunity. Our children are thrown out of their homes and disowned by their families simply for being themselves. Surely, our lives matter enough that those who are destroying us should be named and held accountable. Please spare us your speeches, your candles, and your prayers, and give us our right to breathe. And please do not drown out our right to love and exist authentically with hate.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mischa-haider/i-blame-hate_b_10431484.html
Yep. We are paying for our sins.
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2016, 10:41:08 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 13, 2016, 10:33:58 AM
No--we have to respond to attacks as attacks. We cannot allow the left to reclassify terrorist attacks as domestic "issues" that require national soul searching. This is no different from 9/11 or Pearl Harbor, and it's disgusting it isn't being recognized for what it is.
I'd say it is quite a bit different. In the case of Pearl Harbor, the responsibility could rightly be laid at the feet of a particular entity: the Empire of Japan. In the case of 9/11, it could be laid at the feet of a particular organization - and Afghanistan, for sheltering/harboring that organization. In both cases there were chances to retaliate against the organizers of the attacks.
With these "lone wolf" type attacks, who are we to hold responsible? Well, ISIS I guess, and I have no hesitation about putting more resources into crushing them, which would be a good thing for its own sake; but in some cases they had nothing to do with actually organizing the specific attacks.
That's been terrorism since the last 90s, al-Qaeda has been around so long specifically because it's a decentralized non-state entity. ISIS isn't materially any different. There is more of a focus now on encouraging lone wolf attacks than the old approach of very small independent cells. But functionally it's not different. To me it isn't material that there isn't some guy sitting in Mosul who planned the attack, what's important is people are buying into this ideology of militant fanaticism and killing people over it.
For that reason it is weird to me we don't call it out for what it is, and it's weird we have hesitance to acknowledge when we've been attacked.
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 01:34:14 AM
Quote from: Jaron on June 13, 2016, 01:02:55 AM
MASS shootings.
We have established already few days ago that viper, despite being a Canadian, has a really poor grasp of English. If he has not assimilated by now, I hope they deport him to France.
My mother tongue is French and I live in a 98% predominently french speaking area. I speak French everyday at work, my only contacts with english are on the internet and tv shows. I speak English once in a while, and the last time I engaged in a meaningful oral conversation in English, I was enjoying a drink with Garbon during his visit of Quebec city. Come to think of it, the last two times before that, I was meeting Sav and Yi. I don't travel much anymore, and it's usually to meet relatives who speak mostly French.
Yeah Viper there was a reason none of us responded to that hilariously silly comment by Marty. Assimilate into his French speaking community? What does that have to do with speaking English?
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 10:41:13 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 13, 2016, 10:40:36 AM
I'm sorry, what's the big price we would pay by acknowledging evil, terrorist Muslims are at war with us?
Things are not that simple and you know it. It would be a very bad thing for us if this ever got turned into a 'USA vs. Islam' type deal. The evil, terrorist Muslims would love that though.
'
The ship sailed on that ages ago. When we decided to support Israel. For the type of Muslims willing to kill people over religion that has made it us versus Islam all along. More rational Muslims look at the many billions of dollars in aid, the arms sales, and political support we've given to many Muslim countries over the years (Turkey, Egypt, Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc) and understand it isn't that. But the guys willing to do these attacks are so far off the beaten path that it's kind of comical to fear we're making it about us versus Islam. That's
why they are fighting, is because they genuinely believe Islam
is at war and America has to be attacked to protect their faith.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 13, 2016, 10:44:16 AM
For that reason it is weird to me we don't call it out for what it is, and it's weird we have hesitance to acknowledge when we've been attacked.
I am pretty sure we can safely call out ISIS and AQ and have done so.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 13, 2016, 10:40:36 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 10:23:07 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 10:14:35 AM
He got some of his facts a bit wrong and he does seem a tad hypocritical but I never thought I'd say this but I agree with Ted Cruz more than I agree with Barrack Obama.
Barack Obama's drones have been murdering Islamic terrorists by the bushel for years. I do not understand why it is so important for him to spout off shit. He is the President and must make statements that help the US in pursuing its interests. Ted Cruz can go off like a nutter if he wants. Hell Dubya made those 'Axis of Evil' and 'With us or with the terrorists' statements that never specifically condemned Islam yet we paid a big diplomatic price for years.
Obama going off might make some people feel better but the US would pay a big price for them.
I'm sorry, what's the big price we would pay by acknowledging evil, terrorist Muslims are at war with us?
You mean like in 2014?
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/obama-administration-says-u-s-war-isis-n202336
Going more than that would be difficult for a State. A war against what exactly? A War on Terror? How did that go for you? From speech to practical actions?
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 10:41:13 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 13, 2016, 10:40:36 AM
I'm sorry, what's the big price we would pay by acknowledging evil, terrorist Muslims are at war with us?
Things are not that simple and you know it. It would be a very bad thing for us if this ever got turned into a 'USA vs. Islam' type deal. The evil, terrorist Muslims would love that though.
I agree that we shouldn't cave in to terrorists' demands, but I am kinda tired of that bullshit logic that we should not do something because "this is what terrorists want".
By the way, we should also stop talking about this being only about "terrorist Muslims" - it may not be about all Muslims, I will give you that, but our enemies in this war are much broader than just terrorists - it's the people who cheer on when gay people are being hurled to their deaths, it's the people who think it is appropriate to punish apostasy with death, it's the people who support honour killings.
And that's why I think it is important to send a clear message - a message to all Muslims everywhere that you will either disavow and oppose atrocities committed in the name of your religion or you are the enemy. And if you are the enemy you will be destroyed.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 13, 2016, 10:46:26 AM
The ship sailed on that ages ago
No it hasn't. We have diplomatic relations with those countries to consider.
QuoteWhen we decided to support Israel. For the type of Muslims willing to kill people over religion that has made it us versus Islam all along. More rational Muslims look at the many billions of dollars in aid, the arms sales, and political support we've given to many Muslim countries over the years (Turkey, Egypt, Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc) and understand it isn't that. But the guys willing to do these attacks are so far off the beaten path that it's kind of comical to fear we're making it about us versus Islam. That's why they are fighting, is because they genuinely believe Islam is at war and America has to be attacked to protect their faith.
Exactly. So why help those dudes with their political objectives and undermine ours? And no it is not comical, it is the truth. We don't give a damn if people are muslims or not. That is just a fact. We could not care less about Islam much less want to fight a war against it.
I honestly don't know what you're talking about. Those countries are our allies in fights against radical Islamism. I would actually wager guys like Sisi and Erdogan have actually (in the Turkish / Arabic equivalent language) condemned Islamic radicalism.
The idea that Obama almost comedically refuses to do so, and represents broadly the messaging consensus of the left, remains inexplicable to me.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 13, 2016, 10:53:29 AM
I honestly don't know what you're talking about. Those countries are our allies in fights against radical Islamism. I would actually wager guys like Sisi and Erdogan have actually (in the Turkish / Arabic equivalent language) condemned Islamic radicalism.
The idea that Obama almost comedically refuses to do so, and represents broadly the messaging consensus of the left, remains inexplicable to me.
It is quite explicable. He considers it in our best interests to not do so. Frankly when his drones are killing these guys what difference does it make?
He's the President of the United States and sets the tone for a lot of things, there's a reason most of the mainstream left is focusing on idiocies like homophobia and gun control, which are frankly largely irrelevant in this specific instance.
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 10:14:35 AM
Ted Cruz has posted this:
QuoteEvery human being has a right to live according to his or her faith and conscience, and nobody has a right to murder someone who doesn't share their faith or sexual orientation.
Read that statement carefully. Everyone has a right to a faith and a conscience, and no one has the right to murder. But he is very careful not to suggest that everyone has a right to express a particular sexual orientation. Just the right not to be murdered for it.
With friends like these . . .
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 10:45:57 AM
Yeah Viper there was a reason none of us responded to that hilariously silly comment by Marty. Assimilate into his French speaking community? What does that have to do with speaking English?
it's just like it's the 3rd or 4th time I see this comment in 2 weeks from different individuals, and I want to clarify things.
I don't live in a predominently english area, if I lived in Toronto or Montreal's west island, it'd be different.
I'm better than most people in my area at english, most folks are unilingual and those claiming to be bilingual struggle with reading Excel menus, but that doesn't mean I'm as fluent as someone living in the US, UK or Canada outside of Quebec.
Languish is the only place I write in english, except to occasional request to a supplier for information on a product and I haven't been able to read a fucking book longer than a comic for the last 3 years.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 13, 2016, 10:58:12 AM
homophobia . . .irrelevant in this specific instance.
:huh:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 13, 2016, 10:58:12 AM
He's the President of the United States and sets the tone for a lot of things, there's a reason most of the mainstream left is focusing on idiocies like homophobia and gun control, which are frankly largely irrelevant in this specific instance.
I guess actions do not speak louder than words after all.
And yes he does set the tone for a lot of things. So him saying anti-Islamic things is likely to be very disastrous for our interests. Which is exactly what I was saying. As for the Mainstream left it is not like they are ever going to be other than what they are no matter what Obama says.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 13, 2016, 10:58:27 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 10:14:35 AM
Ted Cruz has posted this:
QuoteEvery human being has a right to live according to his or her faith and conscience, and nobody has a right to murder someone who doesn't share their faith or sexual orientation.
Read that statement carefully. Everyone has a right to a faith and a conscience, and no one has the right to murder. But he is very careful not to suggest that everyone has a right to express a particular sexual orientation. Just the right not to be murdered for it.
With friends like these . . .
I know and I read it carefully, noticing his hypocrisy and the way he worded this. He is not a friend, but it's better to have someone try to pray the gay away than someone try to slay the gay away.
And frankly Obama has been a foreign relations disaster, so the fact he judges something to be in our best interests is frankly of little relevance to whether it's a good idea.
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 10:25:35 AM
And then do nothing about mental illness. I mean if you actually believe that wouldn't you be launching a campaign to help with mental illness?
Oh, I agree with you.
Even in Canada, it's pretty hard to see a psy, unless you seek one in the private sector.
Governments of the left and the right like to talk about it, but they really don't do much.
It took a very long time for the Canadian army to adapt to this new reality, of Veterans with mental health issues. It's like losing a leg was all glorious, but losing your mind made you a weakling. I think it's only last year the army finally acknowledged there was a real problem, and then it was mostly suicides, not mass murders.
The rest of society like to talk about it, but the reality is, when you talk with people (I just had this conversation with a friend), it's not a real disease to them. So why should politicians do something when the people don't really care?
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 11:00:29 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 13, 2016, 10:58:12 AM
He's the President of the United States and sets the tone for a lot of things, there's a reason most of the mainstream left is focusing on idiocies like homophobia and gun control, which are frankly largely irrelevant in this specific instance.
I guess actions do not speak louder than words after all.
And yes he does set the tone for a lot of things. So him saying anti-Islamic things is likely to be very disastrous for our interests. Which is exactly what I was saying. As for the Mainstream left it is not like they are ever going to be other than what they are no matter what Obama says.
I think the problem is you and people like you view it as "anti-Islamic" to condemn radical Islam. Yet no one has a problem blasting fundamentalist Christianity's radical beliefs.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 13, 2016, 11:03:54 AM
And frankly Obama has been a foreign relations disaster, so the fact he judges something to be in our best interests is frankly of little relevance to whether it's a good idea.
He won the Nobel Peace Prize.
I fully agree with Otto here. And if Obama thinks what he does is what Americans want - well, Americans will have an opportunity to say if this is really the case by voting for Hillary to continue his policies in November.
And to be frank, I think coddling bad ideas is of questionable strategy at this point. While it would cause some inflamed tensions, I think the West should be more willing to denounce Islam as a religion. By being afraid to condemn ideas we disagree with, we tolerate acceptance of a lot of terrible things.
Now note--the President and other high ranking politicians do have diplomatic concerns, and I wouldn't want them broadly bashing Islam. But I think for ordinary citizens in the West, it shouldn't be seen as bigotry to bash a religion. I'm a Christian--I don't view it as bigotry when someone says I worship an imaginary sky fairy or any of the many other Christian criticisms that are levied against my faith on a daily basis. Christianity isn't a logical, provable belief, it's a faith. It can be criticized and a free society that criticism should be fully accepted and even encouraged.
For some reason we're at a place where criticizing Islam is now equated with racism (which is confusing to me since Islam isn't a race, if you think people hate Arabs or Pakistanis or Turks or whatever--say that.)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 13, 2016, 11:00:24 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 13, 2016, 10:58:12 AM
homophobia . . .irrelevant in this specific instance.
:huh:
To clarify--obviously hatred of gays is relevant here. What I meant when I typed that, is some among the left are blaming "America's intolerance toward gays", specifically from right wing social conservatives, for this shooting. While right wing gay bashing is reprehensible, as is any discrimination against gay people in America, I do not believe that had anything to do with Mateen's homophobia. I believe he simply bought into ISIS teachings on Islam, which clearly state that gays should be killed.
Good thing the Bible doesn't. :)
I actually think for anyone in the West, the extreme intolerance for gays in Islam should be a major point of discussion--which isn't even an aspect of radical Islam; Mauritania, Sudan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Afghanistan all punish being gay with execution. Those countries in aggregate have over 200m people. Many more countries in the MENA region with majority Muslim populations criminalize homosexuality (but go short of executing over it.)
While I do not believe most MENA Muslims are Islamic radicals, or support terrorist attacks against civilians, I think most do absolutely believes gays should be jailed and many view being gay as a crime similar to how we view serious sex crimes here in the United States.
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 09:25:26 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 13, 2016, 09:23:00 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 08:17:25 AM
I read it. It sounds like he was great with the residents which was probably the reason he got to keep his job despite that weird shit with that co-worker.
QuoteGilroy, a former Fort Pierce police officer, said Mateen frequently made homophobic and racial comments. Gilroy said he complained to his employer several times but it did nothing because he was Muslim. Gilroy quit after he said Mateen began stalking him via multiple text messages — 20 or 30 a day. He also sent Gilroy 13 to 15 phone messages a day, he said.
I mean WTF man?
I told you. A big fag.
Yeah. The difference is that when you have a Christian self-hating closeted fag, he pickets people's funerals and has down low sex in airport bathrooms. When you have a Muslim self-hating closeted fag, he shoots up a club full of people.
Islam makes everything worse.
You know, I am generally kinda sorta on your side of the entire Islam as a religion and it being a driving force for radicalism.
But you are making exactly the mistake that people who argue against this perspective accuse everyone making this argument of - and it is really annoying.
People who engage in attacks like this are clearly motivated by their religion, and we are fools to pretend otherwise.
But even more foolish is to ignore the rather clear evidence that your second sentence is just plain wrong. This guy did what he did, at least in part, because of his religious faith. But it is self evident that the vast majority of people who share his faith do not shoot up nightclubs, so repeatedly insisting on making that rather obvious logical error just makes the overall argument about how religion does drive radical behavior that much harder to make.
What amazes me is that you cannot see this, that you are actually hurting - badly - your own position.
Quote from: The Brain on June 13, 2016, 11:12:30 AM
Good thing the Bible doesn't. :)
The bible says a lot of terrible things--and is frequently criticized for it. Remember how I said Christianity is widely criticized in the West, and how a free society should accept and even promote such criticism?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 13, 2016, 11:05:15 AM
I think the problem is you and people like you view it as "anti-Islamic" to condemn radical Islam. Yet no one has a problem blasting fundamentalist Christianity's radical beliefs.
Did Obama ever blast Christianity? Huh.
I don't think it is anti-Islamic to condemn radical Islam. Hell I dislike pretty mainstream Islamic beliefs. If anybody wants to condemn them well go right ahead I am right there with you. But this has nothing to do with me. Obama is not just being listened to by Americans. The same reason why Bush had to twist around claiming that Islam is a religion of peace and so forth.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 13, 2016, 10:44:16 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2016, 10:41:08 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 13, 2016, 10:33:58 AM
No--we have to respond to attacks as attacks. We cannot allow the left to reclassify terrorist attacks as domestic "issues" that require national soul searching. This is no different from 9/11 or Pearl Harbor, and it's disgusting it isn't being recognized for what it is.
I'd say it is quite a bit different. In the case of Pearl Harbor, the responsibility could rightly be laid at the feet of a particular entity: the Empire of Japan. In the case of 9/11, it could be laid at the feet of a particular organization - and Afghanistan, for sheltering/harboring that organization. In both cases there were chances to retaliate against the organizers of the attacks.
With these "lone wolf" type attacks, who are we to hold responsible? Well, ISIS I guess, and I have no hesitation about putting more resources into crushing them, which would be a good thing for its own sake; but in some cases they had nothing to do with actually organizing the specific attacks.
That's been terrorism since the last 90s, al-Qaeda has been around so long specifically because it's a decentralized non-state entity. ISIS isn't materially any different. There is more of a focus now on encouraging lone wolf attacks than the old approach of very small independent cells. But functionally it's not different. To me it isn't material that there isn't some guy sitting in Mosul who planned the attack, what's important is people are buying into this ideology of militant fanaticism and killing people over it.
For that reason it is weird to me we don't call it out for what it is, and it's weird we have hesitance to acknowledge when we've been attacked.
What changes, though? I mean, it isn't as if we failed to hate ISIS
before this attack, or that it would make any difference if it could be definitively proved that ISIS had nothing to do with this attack.
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 11:06:31 AM
I fully agree with Otto here. And if Obama thinks what he does is what Americans want - well, Americans will have an opportunity to say if this is really the case by voting for Hillary to continue his policies in November.
Saying stuff /= a policy. Doing stuff is policy. His actions are pretty clearly anti-Islamic terrorism.
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 11:17:10 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 13, 2016, 11:05:15 AM
I think the problem is you and people like you view it as "anti-Islamic" to condemn radical Islam. Yet no one has a problem blasting fundamentalist Christianity's radical beliefs.
Did Obama ever blast Christianity? Huh.
I don't think it is anti-Islamic to condemn radical Islam. Hell I dislike pretty mainstream Islamic beliefs. But this has nothing to do with me. Obama is not just being listened to by Americans. The same reason why Bush had to twist around claiming that Islam is a religion of peace and so forth.
I think he's been more willing to criticise "wrong-headed" Christian fundamentalism when it's clashed with his political policy goals. Partially because as a Christian himself I think Obama feels more comfort with criticising others in his own faith.
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 11:18:21 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 11:06:31 AM
I fully agree with Otto here. And if Obama thinks what he does is what Americans want - well, Americans will have an opportunity to say if this is really the case by voting for Hillary to continue his policies in November.
Saying stuff /= a policy. Doing stuff is policy. His actions are pretty clearly anti-Islamic terrorism.
I disagree. Words matter. In fact, in modern age of globalisation, that's probably the main thing that differs between different parties and political candidates.
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2016, 11:18:03 AMWhat changes, though? I mean, it isn't as if we failed to hate ISIS before this attack, or that it would make any difference if it could be definitively proved that ISIS had nothing to do with this attack.
Frankly--we need to seriously evaluate how many Muslims we allow to come into our countries. While Muslims already here are a done deal (and I wouldn't want it any other way, they have political rights now that they are here--and I do believe most are not a problem) I am highly skeptical of allowing huge numbers of Muslim immigrants into the country. If I was European, to be honest, this might be a single issue voter kind of thing for me. If I was a gay European I'd see the vast waves of Muslim migration into Europe as a life and death political issue.
Here in America where it's much less of a problem, I for example am still almost certainly voting for Hillary due to Trump's broad incompetence and idiocy, but to be frank the Dem's wrongheadedness on Islam in general is a point of concern for me. I think Europe and America could do a better job of integrating Muslims, but I frankly have no idea how. I also think until we have answers to that we should all be highly skeptical of allowing large scale immigration.
We also need to rethink the refugee issue--I understand hundreds of thousands are crossing borders no matter what, and I think the only answer will be one that isn't politically "nice."
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 11:21:01 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 11:18:21 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 11:06:31 AM
I fully agree with Otto here. And if Obama thinks what he does is what Americans want - well, Americans will have an opportunity to say if this is really the case by voting for Hillary to continue his policies in November.
Saying stuff /= a policy. Doing stuff is policy. His actions are pretty clearly anti-Islamic terrorism.
I disagree. Words matter. In fact, in modern age of globalisation, that's probably the main thing that differs between different parties and political candidates.
I am well aware you consider social media bullshit more important than actual statesmanship. We will just have to agree to disagree here.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 13, 2016, 11:22:04 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2016, 11:18:03 AMWhat changes, though? I mean, it isn't as if we failed to hate ISIS before this attack, or that it would make any difference if it could be definitively proved that ISIS had nothing to do with this attack.
Frankly--we need to seriously evaluate how many Muslims we allow to come into our countries. While Muslims already here are a done deal (and I wouldn't want it any other way, they have political rights now that they are here--and I do believe most are not a problem) I am highly skeptical of allowing huge numbers of Muslim immigrants into the country. If I was European, to be honest, this might be a single issue voter kind of thing for me. If I was a gay European I'd see the vast waves of Muslim migration into Europe as a life and death political issue.
Here in America where it's much less of a problem, I for example am still almost certainly voting for Hillary due to Trump's broad incompetence and idiocy, but to be frank the Dem's wrongheadedness on Islam in general is a point of concern for me. I think Europe and America could do a better job of integrating Muslims, but I frankly have no idea how. I also think until we have answers to that we should all be highly skeptical of allowing large scale immigration.
We also need to rethink the refugee issue--I understand hundreds of thousands are crossing borders no matter what, and I think the only answer will be one that isn't politically "nice."
Hear hear. :cheers:
I agree that, for all my fiery rhetoric, Muslims already here, especially those who are citizens, are a done deal (although so far you guys in the US got off easily compared to Europe - mainly because you do not have a land border with a Muslim country). But future immigration policy requires a serious realignment.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 13, 2016, 10:40:36 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 10:23:07 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 10:14:35 AM
He got some of his facts a bit wrong and he does seem a tad hypocritical but I never thought I'd say this but I agree with Ted Cruz more than I agree with Barrack Obama.
Barack Obama's drones have been murdering Islamic terrorists by the bushel for years. I do not understand why it is so important for him to spout off shit. He is the President and must make statements that help the US in pursuing its interests. Ted Cruz can go off like a nutter if he wants. Hell Dubya made those 'Axis of Evil' and 'With us or with the terrorists' statements that never specifically condemned Islam yet we paid a big diplomatic price for years.
Obama going off might make some people feel better but the US would pay a big price for them.
I'm sorry, what's the big price we would pay by acknowledging evil, terrorist Muslims are at war with us?
I am one who has spoken many times that we should identify the problem clearly, and without political correctness that is demanded.
But I do NOT think the President is necessarily the person to do that - he has a very specific role, and he should be very careful about the language he uses. If he thinks calling an attacking like this radical Islamic terrorism will help, then by all means go for it, but there is a war of ideas going on right now in the world, and frankly the USA is a very tertiary front in that war.
While these attacks obviously directly affect us, we are not the true targets per se - we are a proxy. We are a way for groups like ISIS to make the argument that THEY represent "true islam", the true followers who will fight for their religion against those who seek to destroy it. As such, in that war, it makes sense to understand how the language our leaders use helps or hinders the greater effort of winning that war of ideas.
*We* should be very willing to call a spade a spade when we talk about our own security concerns. Our politicians and diplomats need to keep a bigger picture in mind, and be very careful to make sure that they don't do exactly what ISIS *wants* us to do when they engage in attacks like this, which is to jump in with both feet and feed the narrative of the West against Islam, with only ISIS as the credible defender.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 13, 2016, 11:05:15 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 11:00:29 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 13, 2016, 10:58:12 AM
He's the President of the United States and sets the tone for a lot of things, there's a reason most of the mainstream left is focusing on idiocies like homophobia and gun control, which are frankly largely irrelevant in this specific instance.
I guess actions do not speak louder than words after all.
And yes he does set the tone for a lot of things. So him saying anti-Islamic things is likely to be very disastrous for our interests. Which is exactly what I was saying. As for the Mainstream left it is not like they are ever going to be other than what they are no matter what Obama says.
I think the problem is you and people like you view it as "anti-Islamic" to condemn radical Islam. Yet no one has a problem blasting fundamentalist Christianity's radical beliefs.
There isn't an ongoing war between factions of Christianity that we need to be concerned about.
Apparently it's the NRA who is waging a deadly Jihad here:
(https://scontent-frt3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13445625_10153528395862541_9075006654167576007_n.jpg?oh=97e9b43f278f5f33aeda38cdb60a5443&oe=58093984)
Quote from: Berkut on June 13, 2016, 11:28:07 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 13, 2016, 11:05:15 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 11:00:29 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 13, 2016, 10:58:12 AM
He's the President of the United States and sets the tone for a lot of things, there's a reason most of the mainstream left is focusing on idiocies like homophobia and gun control, which are frankly largely irrelevant in this specific instance.
I guess actions do not speak louder than words after all.
And yes he does set the tone for a lot of things. So him saying anti-Islamic things is likely to be very disastrous for our interests. Which is exactly what I was saying. As for the Mainstream left it is not like they are ever going to be other than what they are no matter what Obama says.
I think the problem is you and people like you view it as "anti-Islamic" to condemn radical Islam. Yet no one has a problem blasting fundamentalist Christianity's radical beliefs.
There isn't an ongoing war between factions of Christianity that we need to be concerned about.
This war between factions seems like a myth to me - or rather, it's not what you think it is. Sure, Saudis may be fighting ISIS and Iran - but all of them murder gays and oppress women. Perhaps we should make sure they all lose.
Preach it, DN. Preach it.
Quote from: Berkut on June 13, 2016, 11:24:48 AMI am one who has spoken many times that we should identify the problem clearly, and without political correctness that is demanded.
But I do NOT think the President is necessarily the person to do that - he has a very specific role, and he should be very careful about the language he uses. If he thinks calling an attacking like this radical Islamic terrorism will help, then by all means go for it, but there is a war of ideas going on right now in the world, and frankly the USA is a very tertiary front in that war.
While these attacks obviously directly affect us, we are not the true targets per se - we are a proxy. We are a way for groups like ISIS to make the argument that THEY represent "true islam", the true followers who will fight for their religion against those who seek to destroy it. As such, in that war, it makes sense to understand how the language our leaders use helps or hinders the greater effort of winning that war of ideas.
*We* should be very willing to call a spade a spade when we talk about our own security concerns. Our politicians and diplomats need to keep a bigger picture in mind, and be very careful to make sure that they don't do exactly what ISIS *wants* us to do when they engage in attacks like this, which is to jump in with both feet and feed the narrative of the West against Islam, with only ISIS as the credible defender.
I actually agree with the sentiment here, the President doesn't need, and shouldn't be, the harshest voice on any topic since he's Diplomat-in-Chief among other things. But I guess where I disagree is, I don't think even in the Muslim world condemning "radical Islamic terrorism" would be that controversial. I think most Muslims are smart enough to recognize that ISIS and al-Qaeda represent a highly radical form of Islam. While some use the language "they are not Islamic", Islam is and always has been a fairly decentralized religion (other than Shia Islam with its Ayatollahs, but even it is more decentralized than say Catholicism or even many Protestant denominations) and no one gets to say who is Muslim and who isn't. There is no neutral, all powerful arbiter of that.
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 11:30:52 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 13, 2016, 11:28:07 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 13, 2016, 11:05:15 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 11:00:29 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 13, 2016, 10:58:12 AM
He's the President of the United States and sets the tone for a lot of things, there's a reason most of the mainstream left is focusing on idiocies like homophobia and gun control, which are frankly largely irrelevant in this specific instance.
I guess actions do not speak louder than words after all.
And yes he does set the tone for a lot of things. So him saying anti-Islamic things is likely to be very disastrous for our interests. Which is exactly what I was saying. As for the Mainstream left it is not like they are ever going to be other than what they are no matter what Obama says.
I think the problem is you and people like you view it as "anti-Islamic" to condemn radical Islam. Yet no one has a problem blasting fundamentalist Christianity's radical beliefs.
There isn't an ongoing war between factions of Christianity that we need to be concerned about.
This war between factions seems like a myth to me - or rather, it's not what you think it is. Sure, Saudis may be fighting ISIS and Iran - but all of them murder gays and oppress women. Perhaps we should make sure they all lose.
That is incredibly ignorant. The war between factions is a myth?
You do realize that ISIS probably kills ten or one hundred times more Muslims than they do non-Muslims, right?
You think that there is a war because some tens or hundreds of westerners, in aggregate, die each year in Islamic violence, but deny that there is a war between groups that see tens of thousands killed each year?
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 11:29:25 AM
Apparently it's the NRA who is waging a deadly Jihad here:
They might have a bit of a longstanding agenda here.
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 10:34:42 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 13, 2016, 10:31:12 AM
For whatever it's worth, most Muslim guys I have met over the years seemed to be short-tempered Rage Monsters. Dunno if rage is a mental illness, but it does seem to be a cultural trait of sorts.
Huh. What sort of Muslims are you meeting? The Turks I meet are almost serenely calm. To the point it almost makes me uneasy. Granted all the Muslims I meet are Turks who are Gulen types in exile which is very specific.
Come to think of it, the Turks that owned the diner I used to go to a lot in Delaware were pretty chill. The ones that seemed a bit edgy were from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan.
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 11:06:31 AM
I fully agree with Otto here. And if Obama thinks what he does is what Americans want - well, Americans will have an opportunity to say if this is really the case by voting for Hillary to continue his policies in November.
I know you are for mass democracy now but be careful what you wish for.
Gay marriage exists in this country because the courts overrode objections to it on constitutional grounds. Most of the ballot initiatives went the other way. Your new right wing buddies are happy to talk nice now about gays if it can be used to put down the Muslims. But they will put the kinds of judges in place that voted with the dissent in Obergefell.
I always have to check the spelling for Obergefell BTW - my brain always thinks of former Cardinal 3B Ken Oberkfell. Figured derpiess would be amused.
Trump: “If you had guns in that room, if you had—even if you had a number of people having them strapped to their ankle or strapped to their waist, where bullets could have flown in the other direction right at him, you wouldn’t have had the same kind of a tragedy.”
Idiot.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 13, 2016, 11:40:31 AM
I always have to check the spelling for Obergefell BTW - my brain always thinks of former Cardinal 3B Ken Oberkfell. Figured derpiess would be amused.
I can still hear his name being announced at Riverfront Stadium when the Cardinals/Braves were in town. "Now at bat-- Ken OBERKFELL. OBERKFELL..."
Quote from: Phillip V on June 13, 2016, 11:46:14 AM
Trump: "If you had guns in that room, if you had—even if you had a number of people having them strapped to their ankle or strapped to their waist, where bullets could have flown in the other direction right at him, you wouldn't have had the same kind of a tragedy."
Idiot.
It was in Florida so I would be surprised if nobody had a gun.
Perhaps, for the mentally unstable, Islam is just a gateway drug to more dangerous behaviour?
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 11:52:44 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on June 13, 2016, 11:46:14 AM
Trump: “If you had guns in that room, if you had—even if you had a number of people having them strapped to their ankle or strapped to their waist, where bullets could have flown in the other direction right at him, you wouldn’t have had the same kind of a tragedy.”
Idiot.
It was in Florida so I would be surprised if nobody had a gun.
Does anybody have an image of what a typical drunk gay bar scene looks like at night.
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 11:52:44 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on June 13, 2016, 11:46:14 AM
Trump: "If you had guns in that room, if you had—even if you had a number of people having them strapped to their ankle or strapped to their waist, where bullets could have flown in the other direction right at him, you wouldn't have had the same kind of a tragedy."
Idiot.
It was in Florida so I would be surprised if nobody had a gun.
Really? They allow firearms in nightclubs?
Wiki suggests that Florida has rather liberal concealed carry laws, but one of the exceptions is:
QuoteAny portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Florida
Don't get me wrong - I think mixing firearms and alcohol is a terrible idea. For every terrorist attack you might stop you'll have untold thousands of drunken yahoos shooting at each other.
Quote from: Phillip V on June 13, 2016, 11:46:14 AM
Trump: "If you had guns in that room, if you had—even if you had a number of people having them strapped to their ankle or strapped to their waist, where bullets could have flown in the other direction right at him, you wouldn't have had the same kind of a tragedy."
Idiot.
I've obviously never been a comparable situation, but I imagine that even if I had a concealed handgun in a dark club at night, I would still flee and not fight back if someone starts shooting with a semi-automatic rifle and people left and right of me drop dead. Having the psychological strength to pull out a handgun and start a firefight with someone who has already started firing seems pretty daunting. I would imagine that's hard to do even for professionals like law enforcement officers or soldiers.
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 10:31:08 AM
Cruz does not speak for the GOP Viper, he is very much his own nutty man.
ok. I thought he was beating the drums of war for Trump, like the other GOPs.
Quote from: Zanza on June 13, 2016, 12:12:29 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on June 13, 2016, 11:46:14 AM
Trump: “If you had guns in that room, if you had—even if you had a number of people having them strapped to their ankle or strapped to their waist, where bullets could have flown in the other direction right at him, you wouldn’t have had the same kind of a tragedy.”
Idiot.
I've obviously never been a comparable situation, but I imagine that even if I had a concealed handgun in a dark club at night, I would still flee and not fight back if someone starts shooting with a semi-automatic rifle and people left and right of me drop dead. Having the psychological strength to pull out a handgun and start a firefight with someone who has already started firing seems pretty daunting. I would imagine that's hard to do even for professionals like law enforcement officers or soldiers.
More to the point is that it just isn't going to work.
A handgun is a pretty shitty weapon for anything but very short range. Compared to an assault rifle, you are pretty fucked unless you can close the range up a bit without being seen.
Quote from: Phillip V on June 13, 2016, 11:58:26 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 11:52:44 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on June 13, 2016, 11:46:14 AM
Trump: "If you had guns in that room, if you had—even if you had a number of people having them strapped to their ankle or strapped to their waist, where bullets could have flown in the other direction right at him, you wouldn't have had the same kind of a tragedy."
Idiot.
It was in Florida so I would be surprised if nobody had a gun.
Does anybody have an image of what a typical drunk gay bar scene looks like at night.
Yes?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 13, 2016, 11:15:28 AM
I actually think for anyone in the West, the extreme intolerance for gays in Islam should be a major point of discussion--which isn't even an aspect of radical Islam; Mauritania, Sudan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Afghanistan all punish being gay with execution. Those countries in aggregate have over 200m people. Many more countries in the MENA region with majority Muslim populations criminalize homosexuality (but go short of executing over it.)
While I do not believe most MENA Muslims are Islamic radicals, or support terrorist attacks against civilians, I think most do absolutely believes gays should be jailed and many view being gay as a crime similar to how we view serious sex crimes here in the United States.
Malawi and Tanzania are not under Islamic law, muslims are not majority, yet they target albinos for witchcraft.
Lots of non muslim countries in Africa discriminate against gays. Russia heavily discriminate against gays. Many Asian countries consider homosexuality a mental illness.
It's like in the 3rd world, occidental values are not yet there... ;)
Quote from: viper37 on June 13, 2016, 12:22:49 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 10:31:08 AM
Cruz does not speak for the GOP Viper, he is very much his own nutty man.
ok. I thought he was beating the drums of war for Trump, like the other GOPs.
No, he has pointedly not endorsed Trump.
Best anecdote about Ted Cruz endorsing Trump...
QuoteJennifer BenderyVerified account
@jbendery
Ted Cruz just stared blankly at us, as elevator doors slowly closed us out, when someone asked if he'll ever endorse Trump.
https://twitter.com/jbendery/status/739939661091635201
Quote from: Berkut on June 13, 2016, 12:26:30 PM
Quote from: Zanza on June 13, 2016, 12:12:29 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on June 13, 2016, 11:46:14 AM
Trump: “If you had guns in that room, if you had—even if you had a number of people having them strapped to their ankle or strapped to their waist, where bullets could have flown in the other direction right at him, you wouldn’t have had the same kind of a tragedy.”
Idiot.
I've obviously never been a comparable situation, but I imagine that even if I had a concealed handgun in a dark club at night, I would still flee and not fight back if someone starts shooting with a semi-automatic rifle and people left and right of me drop dead. Having the psychological strength to pull out a handgun and start a firefight with someone who has already started firing seems pretty daunting. I would imagine that's hard to do even for professionals like law enforcement officers or soldiers.
More to the point is that it just isn't going to work.
A handgun is a pretty shitty weapon for anything but very short range. Compared to an assault rifle, you are pretty fucked unless you can close the range up a bit without being seen.
The solution is simple: have people bring their assault weapons to the clubs they go dancing and partying. Nothings goes better hand in hand than alcohol and guns.
Quote from: derspiess on June 13, 2016, 10:31:12 AM
For whatever it's worth, most Muslim guys I have met over the years seemed to be short-tempered Rage Monsters. Dunno if rage is a mental illness, but it does seem to be a cultural trait of sorts.
some religious people tend to not react well when you tell them they are part of murderous false god worshipping sect.
Quote from: Barrister on June 13, 2016, 12:32:26 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 13, 2016, 12:22:49 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 10:31:08 AM
Cruz does not speak for the GOP Viper, he is very much his own nutty man.
ok. I thought he was beating the drums of war for Trump, like the other GOPs.
No, he has pointedly not endorsed Trump.
Best anecdote about Ted Cruz endorsing Trump...
QuoteJennifer BenderyVerified account
@jbendery
Ted Cruz just stared blankly at us, as elevator doors slowly closed us out, when someone asked if he'll ever endorse Trump.
https://twitter.com/jbendery/status/739939661091635201
I thought he rallied to Trump, like Paul Ryan.
Cruz is inflexible and principled. He would never be politically expedient like that.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 13, 2016, 11:22:04 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2016, 11:18:03 AMWhat changes, though? I mean, it isn't as if we failed to hate ISIS before this attack, or that it would make any difference if it could be definitively proved that ISIS had nothing to do with this attack.
Frankly--we need to seriously evaluate how many Muslims we allow to come into our countries. While Muslims already here are a done deal (and I wouldn't want it any other way, they have political rights now that they are here--and I do believe most are not a problem) I am highly skeptical of allowing huge numbers of Muslim immigrants into the country. If I was European, to be honest, this might be a single issue voter kind of thing for me. If I was a gay European I'd see the vast waves of Muslim migration into Europe as a life and death political issue.
Here in America where it's much less of a problem, I for example am still almost certainly voting for Hillary due to Trump's broad incompetence and idiocy, but to be frank the Dem's wrongheadedness on Islam in general is a point of concern for me. I think Europe and America could do a better job of integrating Muslims, but I frankly have no idea how. I also think until we have answers to that we should all be highly skeptical of allowing large scale immigration.
We also need to rethink the refugee issue--I understand hundreds of thousands are crossing borders no matter what, and I think the only answer will be one that isn't politically "nice."
Immigration is tricky. On the one hand, you need them to occupy jobs, jobs that often your own citizens don't want to do and prefer to live on wellfare instead of doing it.
On the other hand, you must respect the host society's capacity to integrate the immigrants. Teaching them language skills is the obvious and easy part, and probably less difficult in America than non english nations, since lots of educated people around the world have a basic grasp of english.
Howeve, you also need to integrate them to western values. That is trickier. When you're raised one way, used to some things to work in a certain way all your life, you arrive here in your teenage years or adult life with your family, you just don't adapt to things in a couple of days.
And then you have these integrists you fled from home, and they are welcome with open arms in your new country, even if you complain about their behavior, you're not listened to and all you hear is how everyone should be tolerant.
The end result is that the new generation will listen to these radicals and their influence will grow.
The problem is with radical islam and is much easier to fight than Islam in itself. If you have the will. Something most anglo-saxon societies lack.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 13, 2016, 11:35:00 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 11:06:31 AM
I fully agree with Otto here. And if Obama thinks what he does is what Americans want - well, Americans will have an opportunity to say if this is really the case by voting for Hillary to continue his policies in November.
I know you are for mass democracy now but be careful what you wish for.
Gay marriage exists in this country because the courts overrode objections to it on constitutional grounds. Most of the ballot initiatives went the other way. Your new right wing buddies are happy to talk nice now about gays if it can be used to put down the Muslims. But they will put the kinds of judges in place that voted with the dissent in Obergefell.
I think this is rather important. The victory of gay equality was very recent in much of the West. My own country only abolished gay sex as a crime in the 1970s and for minors in the 1990s. We still don't have full equality for gays (e.g. only civil partnership, not gay marriage). You still hear some conservatives mutter about it. Female emancipation is slightly older, but also happened in living memory and is probably not fully concluded yet. And again some conservatives still yearn for the traditional role models of yesteryear.
The people who opposed gay rights or female emancipation seem to be exactly the same people that have now found their new cause in opposing Muslims - supposedly due to their perceived cultural opposition to these topics. The notion that many of them are libertarians seems to be wrong at least in my country. They are typically not at all pluralistic, quite the opposite and they oppose the liberal values of our society.
I think everybody who cares for our liberal values has to oppose them. Why? Because they are an actual threat to our liberal values if they are elected. Unlike terrorists. Terrorists can hurt us, but they will never win. We need to fight terrorists with all means. But we should not do that by throwing out our liberal values by electing anti-liberal parties.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Quote from: viper37 on June 13, 2016, 01:00:59 PM
The problem is with radical islam and is much easier to fight than Islam in itself. If you have the will. Something most anglo-saxon societies lack.
Hey Wessex had the will to fight back against radical Norsism.
Omar Mateen celebrated 9/11 attacks while in high school.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/06/13/on-911-omar-mateens-classmates-mourned-some-say-he-celebrated/
Quote from: Phillip V on June 13, 2016, 01:06:50 PM
Omar Mateen celebrated 9/11 attacks while in high school.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/06/13/on-911-omar-mateens-classmates-mourned-some-say-he-celebrated/
Wow. What a nutcase.
QuoteThe former student said Mateen went on to claim that Osama bin Laden was his uncle. The ex-classmate spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of business clients finding out he attended an alternative school. Mateen's claim of family links to bin Laden was also mentioned by Zirkle.
Yeah....ok
I wonder what happens when a man like this ends up on the FBI watch list. I mean how does he get an automatic rifle and all that shit with the FBI expending resources on monitoring his activities? What does it actually mean to be on some list the FBI has?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 13, 2016, 11:22:04 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2016, 11:18:03 AMWhat changes, though? I mean, it isn't as if we failed to hate ISIS before this attack, or that it would make any difference if it could be definitively proved that ISIS had nothing to do with this attack.
Frankly--we need to seriously evaluate how many Muslims we allow to come into our countries. While Muslims already here are a done deal (and I wouldn't want it any other way, they have political rights now that they are here--and I do believe most are not a problem) I am highly skeptical of allowing huge numbers of Muslim immigrants into the country. If I was European, to be honest, this might be a single issue voter kind of thing for me. If I was a gay European I'd see the vast waves of Muslim migration into Europe as a life and death political issue.
Here in America where it's much less of a problem, I for example am still almost certainly voting for Hillary due to Trump's broad incompetence and idiocy, but to be frank the Dem's wrongheadedness on Islam in general is a point of concern for me. I think Europe and America could do a better job of integrating Muslims, but I frankly have no idea how. I also think until we have answers to that we should all be highly skeptical of allowing large scale immigration.
We also need to rethink the refugee issue--I understand hundreds of thousands are crossing borders no matter what, and I think the only answer will be one that isn't politically "nice."
Thing is, this particular attacker wasn't an immigrant or a refugee. He was a native-born American citizen. Not sure why an attack by an ISIS-inspired American should lead us to reject refugees, who are in large part ISIS-victimized non-Americans, or immigrants. They weren't the problem in this particular case.
Yeah but I guess Otto's point is more about us letting in his rather bizarre father. But letting in Afghans fleeing Soviet aggression was what that was all about. So we could be letting in future problems from any number of currently innocuous regions.
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 01:02:54 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 13, 2016, 01:00:59 PM
The problem is with radical islam and is much easier to fight than Islam in itself. If you have the will. Something most anglo-saxon societies lack.
Hey Wessex had the will to fight back against radical Norsism.
By embracing catholic fanatism?
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2016, 01:13:04 PM
Thing is, this particular attacker wasn't an immigrant or a refugee. He was a native-born American citizen. Not sure why an attack by an ISIS-inspired American should lead us to reject refugees,
Because of the tendency for many second generation immigrants to radicalize. His parents may have been relatively harmless, but they gave birth to him.
Quote from: Berkut on June 13, 2016, 12:26:30 PM
More to the point is that it just isn't going to work.
A handgun is a pretty shitty weapon for anything but very short range. Compared to an assault rifle, you are pretty fucked unless you can close the range up a bit without being seen.
Really depends on the situation. Obviously if you're a good distance away with lots of open space, you aren't likely to successfully enter ninja mode and get the drop on him. But in a chaotic situation with a lone gunner, who knows where you'll be and what situation you'll find yourself in?
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2016, 01:13:04 PM
Thing is, this particular attacker wasn't an immigrant or a refugee. He was a native-born American citizen. Not sure why an attack by an ISIS-inspired American should lead us to reject refugees, who are in large part ISIS-victimized non-Americans, or immigrants. They weren't the problem in this particular case.
That's what I don't get. Most of the immigrants/refugees are people who are leaving precisely because of the wackos killing people and the shitty place they are making it. If the immigrants wanted to kill people and revel in extremism they'd stay. Much more likely they'd get away with it (or be encouraged to) in Syria. Of course there will be some violent people who sneak in to the west because of that, but that is not the intent of the bulk of the population. OTOH people are very upset about western citizens leaving to go to Syria and join groups like ISIS. So not only do we not desire immigrants who don't want to be violent, we also would rather hold onto those who want to be violent and instead potentially commit violent acts here.
It all seems backward.
Quote from: derspiess on June 13, 2016, 01:37:58 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2016, 01:13:04 PM
Thing is, this particular attacker wasn't an immigrant or a refugee. He was a native-born American citizen. Not sure why an attack by an ISIS-inspired American should lead us to reject refugees,
Because of the tendency for many second generation immigrants to radicalize. His parents may have been relatively harmless, but they gave birth to him.
The second generation becoming 'radicalized' is certainly a thing that sometimes happens, but do we have any number on it that would justify the word "many"?
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 01:10:35 PM
I wonder what happens when a man like this ends up on the FBI watch list. I mean how does he get an automatic rifle and all that shit with the FBI expending resources on monitoring his activities? What does it actually mean to be on some list the FBI has?
I don't think the FBI has the power to restrict one's access to guns, unless they can prove some extreme circumstances. I remember reading in the NYT that the FBI was very concerned about these lone wolves getting their hands on assault rifles and there was nothing they could do about it except try to watch it closely. Which is near impossible. You can't put one cop behind every radical lunatic.
Quote from: derspiess on June 13, 2016, 01:37:58 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2016, 01:13:04 PM
Thing is, this particular attacker wasn't an immigrant or a refugee. He was a native-born American citizen. Not sure why an attack by an ISIS-inspired American should lead us to reject refugees,
Because of the tendency for many second generation immigrants to radicalize. His parents may have been relatively harmless, but they gave birth to him.
Even assuming you could demonstrate this was true, this assumes that the challenges we will face in a generation will be the same as they are now. A generation ago, everyone was more worried about the Soviet Union than about radical Islam. In a generation, we may be more worried about the Russians again, or the Chinese.
Quote from: Barrister on June 13, 2016, 01:41:37 PM
The second generation becoming 'radicalized' is certainly a thing that sometimes happens, but do we have any number on it that would justify the word "many"?
And can we judge the parents by the potential worldview of their maybe not even yet living offspring? I think we should judge individuals and not try to make general judgments about groups of people. We have a history of
Sippenhaft, i.e. collective guilt, so I am rather wary of it. If we don't think that the parents warrant asylum or fulfill the criteria for other means of immigration that's fine and we should refuse them. But we should not deny anybody based on how his potential offspring might radicalize.
Quote from: viper37 on June 13, 2016, 01:34:55 PM
By embracing catholic fanatism?
During the time of the Anglo-Saxons that was a considerable upgrade to what they had previously been embracing :P
Quote from: viper37 on June 13, 2016, 01:45:01 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 01:10:35 PM
I wonder what happens when a man like this ends up on the FBI watch list. I mean how does he get an automatic rifle and all that shit with the FBI expending resources on monitoring his activities? What does it actually mean to be on some list the FBI has?
I don't think the FBI has the power to restrict one's access to guns, unless they can prove some extreme circumstances. I remember reading in the NYT that the FBI was very concerned about these lone wolves getting their hands on assault rifles and there was nothing they could do about it except try to watch it closely. Which is near impossible. You can't put one cop behind every radical lunatic.
That will be solved by intelligent drones in a few years. :ph34r:
Quote from: Barrister on June 13, 2016, 01:41:37 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 13, 2016, 01:37:58 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2016, 01:13:04 PM
Thing is, this particular attacker wasn't an immigrant or a refugee. He was a native-born American citizen. Not sure why an attack by an ISIS-inspired American should lead us to reject refugees,
Because of the tendency for many second generation immigrants to radicalize. His parents may have been relatively harmless, but they gave birth to him.
The second generation becoming 'radicalized' is certainly a thing that sometimes happens, but do we have any number on it that would justify the word "many"?
Not aware of any stats, no. Just a trend I've noticed.
I think it is a minority who feel alienated and so our embracing an idealized and radical version of their ancestry.
Definitely people to watch out for.
Quote from: derspiess on June 13, 2016, 01:56:02 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 13, 2016, 01:41:37 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 13, 2016, 01:37:58 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2016, 01:13:04 PM
Thing is, this particular attacker wasn't an immigrant or a refugee. He was a native-born American citizen. Not sure why an attack by an ISIS-inspired American should lead us to reject refugees,
Because of the tendency for many second generation immigrants to radicalize. His parents may have been relatively harmless, but they gave birth to him.
The second generation becoming 'radicalized' is certainly a thing that sometimes happens, but do we have any number on it that would justify the word "many"?
Not aware of any stats, no. Just a trend I've noticed.
Could it be confirmation bias?
Quote from: frunk on June 13, 2016, 01:40:23 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2016, 01:13:04 PM
Thing is, this particular attacker wasn't an immigrant or a refugee. He was a native-born American citizen. Not sure why an attack by an ISIS-inspired American should lead us to reject refugees, who are in large part ISIS-victimized non-Americans, or immigrants. They weren't the problem in this particular case.
That's what I don't get. Most of the immigrants/refugees are people who are leaving precisely because of the wackos killing people and the shitty place they are making it. If the immigrants wanted to kill people and revel in extremism they'd stay. Much more likely they'd get away with it (or be encouraged to) in Syria. Of course there will be some violent people who sneak in to the west because of that, but that is not the intent of the bulk of the population. OTOH people are very upset about western citizens leaving to go to Syria and join groups like ISIS. So not only do we not desire immigrants who don't want to be violent, we also would rather hold onto those who want to be violent and instead potentially commit violent acts here.
It all seems backward.
So your point is that we should be happy about murderous fanatics leaving our own homeland to murder gays and rape women elsewhere? That's the most immoral thing I have heard in months.
We should neither keep them here nor let them leave. We should eliminate them.
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 02:03:48 PM
We should neither keep them here or let them leave. We should eliminate them.
Well that's impossible. We have this thing called the Constitution of the United States.
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 01:14:02 PM
Yeah but I guess Otto's point is more about us letting in his rather bizarre father. But letting in Afghans fleeing Soviet aggression was what that was all about. So we could be letting in future problems from any number of currently innocuous regions.
The problem there though is that there was no way to predict back then that 20+ years later the world would be such that his son would radicalize and go on a shooting spree.
Who should we exclude today in order to protect us from their potential kids in 25 years?
Quote from: Zanza on June 13, 2016, 02:03:25 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 13, 2016, 01:56:02 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 13, 2016, 01:41:37 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 13, 2016, 01:37:58 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2016, 01:13:04 PM
Thing is, this particular attacker wasn't an immigrant or a refugee. He was a native-born American citizen. Not sure why an attack by an ISIS-inspired American should lead us to reject refugees,
Because of the tendency for many second generation immigrants to radicalize. His parents may have been relatively harmless, but they gave birth to him.
The second generation becoming 'radicalized' is certainly a thing that sometimes happens, but do we have any number on it that would justify the word "many"?
Not aware of any stats, no. Just a trend I've noticed.
Could it be confirmation bias?
No.
Quote from: Berkut on June 13, 2016, 02:06:44 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 01:14:02 PM
Yeah but I guess Otto's point is more about us letting in his rather bizarre father. But letting in Afghans fleeing Soviet aggression was what that was all about. So we could be letting in future problems from any number of currently innocuous regions.
The problem there though is that there was no way to predict back then that 20+ years later the world would be such that his son would radicalize and go on a shooting spree.
Who should we exclude today in order to protect us from their potential kids in 25 years?
Well right. How were we supposed to know there would be this problem with radical Islam 30 years ago?
Quote from: derspiess on June 13, 2016, 02:07:31 PM
Quote from: Zanza on June 13, 2016, 02:03:25 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 13, 2016, 01:56:02 PM
Not aware of any stats, no. Just a trend I've noticed.
Could it be confirmation bias?
No.
So you don't have any numbers, but you can exclude confirmation bias? Impressive! :)
Quote from: Berkut on June 13, 2016, 02:06:44 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 01:14:02 PM
Yeah but I guess Otto's point is more about us letting in his rather bizarre father. But letting in Afghans fleeing Soviet aggression was what that was all about. So we could be letting in future problems from any number of currently innocuous regions.
The problem there though is that there was no way to predict back then that 20+ years later the world would be such that his son would radicalize and go on a shooting spree.
Who should we exclude today in order to protect us from their potential kids in 25 years?
I think it's something to factor in when we decide how many visas/immigrants we allow from certain Muslim-majority countries. If that ends up being too cautious because radical Islam is no longer that big of a problem 25 years from now, I could probably live with that.
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 02:06:39 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 02:03:48 PM
We should neither keep them here or let them leave. We should eliminate them.
Well that's impossible. We have this thing called the Constitution of the United States.
You can make it a crime to access and download child pornography. Make it a crime to access and download jihadist content.
Quote from: Zanza on June 13, 2016, 02:09:55 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 13, 2016, 02:07:31 PM
Quote from: Zanza on June 13, 2016, 02:03:25 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 13, 2016, 01:56:02 PM
Not aware of any stats, no. Just a trend I've noticed.
Could it be confirmation bias?
No.
So you don't have any numbers, but you can exclude confirmation bias? Impressive! :)
Thank you.
Quote from: derspiess on June 13, 2016, 02:10:38 PM
I think it's something to factor in when we decide how many visas/immigrants we allow from certain Muslim-majority countries. If that ends up being too cautious because radical Islam is no longer that big of a problem 25 years from now, I could probably live with that.
Is it currently? Who makes this kind of decision? Probably Congress I would think.
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 02:07:41 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 13, 2016, 02:06:44 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 01:14:02 PM
Yeah but I guess Otto's point is more about us letting in his rather bizarre father. But letting in Afghans fleeing Soviet aggression was what that was all about. So we could be letting in future problems from any number of currently innocuous regions.
The problem there though is that there was no way to predict back then that 20+ years later the world would be such that his son would radicalize and go on a shooting spree.
Who should we exclude today in order to protect us from their potential kids in 25 years?
Well right. How were we supposed to know there would be this problem with radical Islam 30 years ago?
We know now. So we can stop further immigration from Muslim countries. Let them stew in their own backward hate.
Quote from: derspiess on June 13, 2016, 01:40:00 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 13, 2016, 12:26:30 PM
More to the point is that it just isn't going to work.
A handgun is a pretty shitty weapon for anything but very short range. Compared to an assault rifle, you are pretty fucked unless you can close the range up a bit without being seen.
Really depends on the situation. Obviously if you're a good distance away with lots of open space, you aren't likely to successfully enter ninja mode and get the drop on him. But in a chaotic situation with a lone gunner, who knows where you'll be and what situation you'll find yourself in?
Of course - certainly having a handgun would be better than nothing. I could imagine all kinds of scenarios where you could make a difference if you were careful and thoughtful about the situation.
I was just pointing out that a handgun is no equalizer to a guy with an assault rifle.
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 02:06:39 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 02:03:48 PM
We should neither keep them here or let them leave. We should eliminate them.
Well that's impossible. We have this thing called the Constitution of the United States.
bah. Death solve all problems. No man, no problem. Trump will fix this.
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 02:10:53 PM
You can make it a crime to access and download child pornography. Make it a crime to access and download jihadist content.
That is fundamentally different. Pornography and obscenity are not protected by the First Amendment. Ideology is. It is the same reason we never outlawed the Communist Party and its propaganda back in the day.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ck2XCtdWkAAq1v9.jpg)
US embassy in Warsaw. :cry:
I'm planning to go tomorrow.
It is appreciated Marty
Christopher Rice (a writer and son of Anne Rice) has been posting pics of the victims all day on his Facebook. It's really heartbreaking. :(
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 02:10:53 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 02:06:39 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 02:03:48 PM
We should neither keep them here or let them leave. We should eliminate them.
Well that's impossible. We have this thing called the Constitution of the United States.
You can make it a crime to access and download child pornography. Make it a crime to access and download jihadist content.
Child pornography is harmful to the actors.
Jihadist content would fall in the realm of free speech, like neo-nazi content, anti-israeli propaganda, anti-american propaganda, claiming that Obama was born abroad, saying someone should kill the nigger in the White House or accusing the President of complicity in a terrorist attack. If all of this has been judged as free speech, I don't see how you could determine that djihadist content is somewhat more harmful than typical neo-nazi propaganda.
Quote from: Berkut on June 13, 2016, 02:12:10 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 13, 2016, 01:40:00 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 13, 2016, 12:26:30 PM
More to the point is that it just isn't going to work.
A handgun is a pretty shitty weapon for anything but very short range. Compared to an assault rifle, you are pretty fucked unless you can close the range up a bit without being seen.
Really depends on the situation. Obviously if you're a good distance away with lots of open space, you aren't likely to successfully enter ninja mode and get the drop on him. But in a chaotic situation with a lone gunner, who knows where you'll be and what situation you'll find yourself in?
Of course - certainly having a handgun would be better than nothing. I could imagine all kinds of scenarios where you could make a difference if you were careful and thoughtful about the situation.
I was just pointing out that a handgun is no equalizer to a guy with an assault rifle.
the likely situation in that Orlando bar would be an untrained civilian firing his gun while drunk in near darkness. What are the odds he will actually hit the intended target instead of another civilian?
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xat1/v/t1.0-9/13428431_10153779760428215_3908584404213142891_n.jpg?oh=443c2d66276d40e9d1751fc15ab16c30&oe=57C8F979&__gda__=1472411835_cd18c42d3b3e8276da05cd544abcb73e)
(https://scontent-waw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/s526x395/13393923_10153779759383215_8491661301805459940_n.jpg?oh=0ee69f772533bceaff52474d924955a9&oe=57FDA346)
(https://scontent-waw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/p235x350/13406834_10153779742828215_6555896167301542881_n.jpg?oh=f3a1e518782ebe335b00523f6ad7d731&oe=57CB6A3A)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpl1/v/t1.0-9/13434784_10153779699973215_5092548159590318477_n.jpg?oh=b89becfe64acf70db5ae64d2daec2c8f&oe=580350D4&__gda__=1476976878_90716e17383dba9163cebec00b32dc6e)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/13435387_10153779685133215_4974540762640718341_n.jpg?oh=87fb36cc8383faccc4b5dac8205d8b6e&oe=58098844&__gda__=1472629488_2ab39739ae5486872e137b6e5cfe16c2)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xal1/v/t1.0-9/13435464_10153779663343215_545263745173865178_n.jpg?oh=6481ff0fdfcde1688c8723ab795771d6&oe=57CDAF47&__gda__=1472343147_44bf38b365a3475ab41d40cceb858cd6)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/13419281_10153779642998215_2554549263765308583_n.jpg?oh=e2f031e63d4ce840731711acd0316a3f&oe=57CE4A2A&__gda__=1476324295_eefcb4099a2fcf463e6dc3b45e3aac10)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/13412894_10153779617183215_3667785839090000139_n.jpg?oh=d82d3eb59bc029cfda6dad28c61126a7&oe=57C1DE84&__gda__=1476746491_42ba7da16276f1df6f8ce668bde6bfc4)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/v/t1.0-9/13442227_10153779604133215_3230703569112046697_n.jpg?oh=dec2737b87b850d8ddbdb7032fd73241&oe=580BF608&__gda__=1472807517_fa983023062ff076b4ef3bf537fa22a5)
(https://scontent-waw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/p280x280/13418933_10153779585258215_4535604504965998251_n.jpg?oh=042ca914a32d086dc26cfec92831fd61&oe=57D2B28D)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/13442256_10153779568388215_7842236962779853299_n.jpg?oh=ae2e9752d3df299f8185c2f4d9630e3f&oe=5804C5F9&__gda__=1473274957_b33d518913f46841c8fd50a79c55d165)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/13413666_10153778378638215_2864945413096123156_n.jpg?oh=2784ebc6c050338312bb665b9d111083&oe=580502AE&__gda__=1473360824_5b717a00399cfbb2c1c67936fd649089)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xft1/v/t1.0-9/13423723_10153778253943215_4205929331795549665_n.jpg?oh=55aec15fda805ea5b9d49ac6002d7fcc&oe=57CFA6C3&__gda__=1477333297_618746d9a8041956eb54106d2dcbe682)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/13394091_10153778096893215_7949274484907952199_n.jpg?oh=1de37d7601f4a3d1e95175e3e60de1b7&oe=580E80C6&__gda__=1476981968_dbde5434ba6f3ddb68d476eb72a54f27)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xtp1/v/t1.0-9/13406975_10153778092943215_2477096421419490871_n.jpg?oh=a7264b5a2d3a0ffc257e723bb8cbc214&oe=57CB9EAA&__gda__=1477379439_9c04c6e002d0af0d1f352941cdd7d82e)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/13445558_10153778055088215_3474441853417142153_n.jpg?oh=35d2d246fe8c117e0a58dbf894c4915b&oe=57C1E37F&__gda__=1473241705_6b9d519f781e7e9e6cfa9286e2770925)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpl1/v/t1.0-9/13419078_10153778050548215_847783033814477037_n.jpg?oh=fd630c03cff562be3fc70b49ff809428&oe=57C62084&__gda__=1472261408_ad83abcb9de5bc7786dc434f01d9d085)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpl1/v/t1.0-9/13417428_10153777841928215_1542994306098446318_n.jpg?oh=01c2d6ff04877e8e932a55d3e2758afb&oe=57D20011&__gda__=1477375787_5d710dea0895a4f97cdab650c94b8311)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xta1/t31.0-8/13418397_10153777808308215_7190191773882129365_o.jpg)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xlf1/v/t1.0-9/13412965_953002493740_2014085921050785812_n.jpg?oh=1af4a79dd89d4c42b7cbe1886e1415d7&oe=580457BD&__gda__=1472380654_bd7ee997749e254513937ad24cb8bb19)
Clinton calls for airstrikes against ISIS in Syria, joint public-private surveillance of lone wolves, ban on assault weapons
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/us/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-speeches.html
Quote from: Phillip V on June 13, 2016, 02:39:17 PM
Clinton calls for airstrikes against ISIS in Syria, joint public-private surveillance of lone wolves, ban on assault weapons
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/us/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-speeches.html
Good speech by both Clinton and Trump. At least in terms of rhetorics, she would be an improvement on Obama.
Is it bad that I still sometimes think Bubba instead of Hil when I see 'Clinton' in headlines? :Embarrass:
Quote from: Caliga on June 13, 2016, 02:43:14 PM
Is it bad that I still sometimes think Bubba instead of Hil when I see 'Clinton' in headlines? :Embarrass:
No (he was and is a pretty larger than life person), but it is kind-of odd.
I like this part from Trump's speech.
QuoteOur nation stands together in solidarity with the members of Orlando's LGBT Community.
This is a very dark moment in America's history.
A radical Islamic terrorist targeted the nightclub not only because he wanted to kill Americans, but in order to execute gay and lesbian citizens because of their sexual orientation.
It is a strike at the heart and soul of who we are as a nation.
It is an assault on the ability of free people to live their lives, love who they want and express their identity.
It is an attack on the right of every single American to live in peace and safety in their own country.
That's more than Obama said.
So the death tool has been revised down from 50 to 49, apparently not to include the shooter. Good.
Quote from: Caliga on June 13, 2016, 02:43:14 PM
Is it bad that I still sometimes think Bubba instead of Hil when I see 'Clinton' in headlines? :Embarrass:
I had that problem until sometime late last year.
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 02:49:32 PM
I like this part from Trump's speech.
QuoteOur nation stands together in solidarity with the members of Orlando's LGBT Community.
This is a very dark moment in America's history.
A radical Islamic terrorist targeted the nightclub not only because he wanted to kill Americans, but in order to execute gay and lesbian citizens because of their sexual orientation.
It is a strike at the heart and soul of who we are as a nation.
It is an assault on the ability of free people to live their lives, love who they want and express their identity.
It is an attack on the right of every single American to live in peace and safety in their own country.
That's more than Obama said.
I fail to see any substantial difference with Obama's speech other than Obama being more cautious about the motivations of the killer as he wants to wait for the conclusion of the official investigations.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/06/12/president-obama-tragic-shooting-orlando
The reported missing boyfriend of one of the victims (whose mother has been looking for him ever since) has been confirmed dead. :(
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xlp1/v/t1.0-9/13445331_10154403785299994_1813422404390391688_n.jpg?oh=604aa975a4c5c8b4d7a9597add08cb54&oe=57CF61DD&__gda__=1476715395_1ab3cb47aac6eda7c83073d9f7904b94)
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 03:06:02 PM
I disagree. Trump, despite running on a conservative platform, mentioned specifically victims being gay and their right to love whom they want and to express themselves how they want.
Trump is not running on a conservative platform. See all the hand-wringing that's been going on in conservative circles. Entering into enormous trade wars with half the world is not a conservative position.
hat being said it is true that I don't think I've ever heard Trump say anything remotely anti-gay.
Quote from: Barrister on June 13, 2016, 03:13:37 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 03:06:02 PM
I disagree. Trump, despite running on a conservative platform, mentioned specifically victims being gay and their right to love whom they want and to express themselves how they want.
Trump is not running on a conservative platform. See all the hand-wringing that's been going on in conservative circles. Entering into enormous trade wars with half the world is not a conservative position.
That being said it is true that I don't think I've ever heard Trump say anything remotely anti-gay.
I know that. You know that. But there were many people here in this very thread (and elsewhere) who are saying that right wingers are now hypocritically expressing their compassion for gay people. So I wanted to set the record straight.
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 03:15:29 PM
I know that. You know that. But there were many people here in this very thread (and elsewhere) who are saying that right wingers are now hypocritically expressing their compassion for gay people. So I wanted to set the record straight.
I don't get how those go together.
Quote from: Berkut on June 13, 2016, 02:12:10 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 13, 2016, 01:40:00 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 13, 2016, 12:26:30 PM
More to the point is that it just isn't going to work.
A handgun is a pretty shitty weapon for anything but very short range. Compared to an assault rifle, you are pretty fucked unless you can close the range up a bit without being seen.
Really depends on the situation. Obviously if you're a good distance away with lots of open space, you aren't likely to successfully enter ninja mode and get the drop on him. But in a chaotic situation with a lone gunner, who knows where you'll be and what situation you'll find yourself in?
Of course - certainly having a handgun would be better than nothing. I could imagine all kinds of scenarios where you could make a difference if you were careful and thoughtful about the situation.
I was just pointing out that a handgun is no equalizer to a guy with an assault rifle.
Indeed. Didn't this very guy have a confrontation with a security guard armed with a handgun, who was an off duty cop to boot? It didn't work.
QuoteMateen was armed with a .223-caliber SIG Sauer AR-15-type rifle and a 9mm Glock handgun and approached the club.[4][5][6] An armed security guard, who was an Orlando Police Department (OPD) officer working extra duty in full uniform,[7] engaged Mateen, returning fire at 2:02 a.m. EDT.[8][9] Mateen was able to enter the building, however, and began shooting patrons just as last call was being announced.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 03:15:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 13, 2016, 03:13:37 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 03:06:02 PM
I disagree. Trump, despite running on a conservative platform, mentioned specifically victims being gay and their right to love whom they want and to express themselves how they want.
Trump is not running on a conservative platform. See all the hand-wringing that's been going on in conservative circles. Entering into enormous trade wars with half the world is not a conservative position.
That being said it is true that I don't think I've ever heard Trump say anything remotely anti-gay.
I know that. You know that. But there were many people here in this very thread (and elsewhere) who are saying that right wingers are now hypocritically expressing their compassion for gay people. So I wanted to set the record straight.
I was one of them. I can't say anything specifically about Trump as I don't know his views on gays. I'll take your word for it. But I do stand by my assertion that at least in my own country (but presumably elsewhere as well), right-wingers are hypocritical about their sudden protection of gay or women rights.
I am not even sure it is hypocritical all of the time. It is more trying to use those values to try to generate support among people who do care about those things for their anti-Muslim views.
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 03:36:40 PM
I am not even sure it is hypocritical all of the time. It is more trying to use those values to try to generate support among people who do care about those things for their anti-Muslim views.
I wouldn't say hypocritical exactly, but yes, certainly deeply cynical.
http://www.hrc.org/2016RepublicanFacts/donald-trump
From HRC looks like he is mostly okay with gay people as long as they don't want marriage.
Quote from: garbon on June 13, 2016, 12:29:53 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on June 13, 2016, 11:58:26 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 11:52:44 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on June 13, 2016, 11:46:14 AM
Trump: "If you had guns in that room, if you had—even if you had a number of people having them strapped to their ankle or strapped to their waist, where bullets could have flown in the other direction right at him, you wouldn't have had the same kind of a tragedy."
Idiot.
It was in Florida so I would be surprised if nobody had a gun.
Does anybody have an image of what a typical drunk gay bar scene looks like at night.
Yes?
I know, what is you point Phil.
Quote from: katmai on June 13, 2016, 03:46:32 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 13, 2016, 12:29:53 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on June 13, 2016, 11:58:26 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 11:52:44 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on June 13, 2016, 11:46:14 AM
Trump: "If you had guns in that room, if you had—even if you had a number of people having them strapped to their ankle or strapped to their waist, where bullets could have flown in the other direction right at him, you wouldn't have had the same kind of a tragedy."
Idiot.
It was in Florida so I would be surprised if nobody had a gun.
Does anybody have an image of what a typical drunk gay bar scene looks like at night.
Yes?
I know, what is you point Phil.
Maybe he wants a photo?
Quote from: Zanza on June 13, 2016, 03:33:39 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 03:15:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 13, 2016, 03:13:37 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 03:06:02 PM
I disagree. Trump, despite running on a conservative platform, mentioned specifically victims being gay and their right to love whom they want and to express themselves how they want.
Trump is not running on a conservative platform. See all the hand-wringing that's been going on in conservative circles. Entering into enormous trade wars with half the world is not a conservative position.
That being said it is true that I don't think I've ever heard Trump say anything remotely anti-gay.
I know that. You know that. But there were many people here in this very thread (and elsewhere) who are saying that right wingers are now hypocritically expressing their compassion for gay people. So I wanted to set the record straight.
I was one of them. I can't say anything specifically about Trump as I don't know his views on gays. I'll take your word for it. But I do stand by my assertion that at least in my own country (but presumably elsewhere as well), right-wingers are hypocritical about their sudden protection of gay or women rights.
In Spain I think they were hypocritical but in the opposite direction. The conservatives needed the religious right, and thus made a huge fuss about gays when they were in the opposition: our now president marched against gay marriage, accused the state telly of pro-gay propaganda (actually I worked in a show that was singled out for it), etc... all the kind of shit you associate with the troglodyte right.
Yet once in power they have let the issue fall to the wayside, to the (very visible) annoyance of the Spanish religious right. Of course in part it was a matter of fait accompli, it's very hard to repeal gay marriage and other equal rights provisions once it's been the law of the land for years, but in the end I think they just don't care. The religious nutters have lost the culture war in this matter and it's not like they won't vote for anybody but the conservatives anyway.
Quote from: garbon on June 13, 2016, 03:43:08 PM
http://www.hrc.org/2016RepublicanFacts/donald-trump
From HRC looks like he is mostly okay with gay people as long as they don't want marriage.
From here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/caitlin-mccarey/trumps-mixed-record-on-ga_b_10343008.html
"The clearest thing about Trump's opinion on gay rights is that no one knows what his opinions are." :lol:
My guess: he, personally, doesn't care for discrimination on this issue - he'd be fine with complete tolerance for gays, but if opposition to same sex marriage is the absolute litmus test for his Republican base - he's fine with that as well.
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 03:15:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 13, 2016, 03:13:37 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 03:06:02 PM
I disagree. Trump, despite running on a conservative platform, mentioned specifically victims being gay and their right to love whom they want and to express themselves how they want.
Trump is not running on a conservative platform. See all the hand-wringing that's been going on in conservative circles. Entering into enormous trade wars with half the world is not a conservative position.
That being said it is true that I don't think I've ever heard Trump say anything remotely anti-gay.
I know that. You know that. But there were many people here in this very thread (and elsewhere) who are saying that right wingers are now hypocritically expressing their compassion for gay people. So I wanted to set the record straight.
"Right wingers" here means people like Cruz who are actually right wing and are being hypocritical.
Trump as BB says does not fall into either category.
Quote from: Zanza on June 13, 2016, 12:12:29 PMI've obviously never been a comparable situation, but I imagine that even if I had a concealed handgun in a dark club at night, I would still flee and not fight back if someone starts shooting with a semi-automatic rifle and people left and right of me drop dead. Having the psychological strength to pull out a handgun and start a firefight with someone who has already started firing seems pretty daunting. I would imagine that's hard to do even for professionals like law enforcement officers or soldiers.
Eh, there's a fight or flight response. A lot of people have no idea which way they'd go until they're in a situation, and while many seem to go toward flight, a sizable number go into fight mode. To varying degrees of efficacy military training has historically been designed at least in part to try and override this natural response and train a more combat-appropriate one. But throughout history (up to the modern day) even some trained soldiers freeze up in combat.
Quote from: celedhring on June 13, 2016, 03:50:01 PM
In Spain I think they were hypocritical but in the opposite direction. The conservatives needed the religious right, and thus made a huge fuss about gays when they were in the opposition: our now president marched against gay marriage, accused the state telly of pro-gay propaganda (actually I worked in a show that was singled out for it), etc... all the kind of shit you associate with the troglodyte right.
Yet once in power they have let the issue fall to the wayside, to the (very visible) annoyance of the Spanish religious right. Of course in part it was a matter of fait accompli, it's very hard to repeal gay marriage and other equal rights provisions once it's been the law of the land for years, but I think they just don't care. The religious nutters have lost the culture war in this matter.
Much the same happened in Canada. Our right wing party took power, cared not a jot about repealing gay marriage etc. The troglodyte conservatives were pissed, but what were they going to do about it?
Quote from: frunk on June 13, 2016, 01:40:23 PMThat's what I don't get. Most of the immigrants/refugees are people who are leaving precisely because of the wackos killing people and the shitty place they are making it. If the immigrants wanted to kill people and revel in extremism they'd stay. Much more likely they'd get away with it (or be encouraged to) in Syria. Of course there will be some violent people who sneak in to the west because of that, but that is not the intent of the bulk of the population. OTOH people are very upset about western citizens leaving to go to Syria and join groups like ISIS. So not only do we not desire immigrants who don't want to be violent, we also would rather hold onto those who want to be violent and instead potentially commit violent acts here.
It all seems backward.
The risk of an actual terrorist coming in as a refugee isn't that high. The reason being there are actually in many cases easier ways to get in for someone connected with a terrorist cell. The issue is, we've had a lot of Muslim immigration into Europe for decades, much of it under refugee programs. When they move in and don't assimilate, they have horrible economic outcomes. Then they have a litter of kids, who grow up often even worse off economically. These kids then start watching all the jihadist videos distributed on social media, and they start buying into this stuff.
I'm afraid of America looking like Europe does today in 20 years, and even more afraid for Europe itself 20 years from now. Like I said, "real" terrorists, those who operate with al-Qaeda or ISIS, generally they have easier ways to get into a Western country than going through the refugee program.
Quote from: Barrister on June 13, 2016, 01:41:37 PMThe second generation becoming 'radicalized' is certainly a thing that sometimes happens, but do we have any number on it that would justify the word "many"?
Quote from: Zanza on June 13, 2016, 01:49:59 PMAnd can we judge the parents by the potential worldview of their maybe not even yet living offspring? I think we should judge individuals and not try to make general judgments about groups of people. We have a history of Sippenhaft, i.e. collective guilt, so I am rather wary of it. If we don't think that the parents warrant asylum or fulfill the criteria for other means of immigration that's fine and we should refuse them. But we should not deny anybody based on how his potential offspring might radicalize.
Let's also not focus exclusively on those that dangerously radicalize. Immigration policy is a valid tool of state, and it's up to a state to decide who should come in and who shouldn't (or at least it should be--if you haven't cede that power to an ill-thought out trans-national entity.) The dangerous radicals are the worst of the worst. But there's negatives to having large Muslim immigration even when they do not radicalize. We live in democracies, and while most Western countries have some "baked in" legal protections, the reality is enough voters in any one direction can cause problems. I frankly think long term, on issues like LGBT rights, gender rights, particularly the role of women, and other important issues having a large and rapidly growing population of people who almost universally
hate gays, and want homosexuality itself to be criminalized, who view women as chattel and get
enraged when women step out of line--is a grave social negative. There are places now where gay men cannot walk down the street without being harassed by gangs of Somali Muslims. There are places now in Britain where Muslim immigrants were caught running a years long child prostitution ring with many of the victims being white Britons. There are places now where women cannot walk alone at night or to metro stations for fear of being gang raped by roving gangs of Muslims.
Every thing I just mentioned is documented on the news. And while America, Britain and Germany didn't first have harassment of gays, child prostitution and rapes start happening with the arrival of Muslim immigrants, I question why immigration policy (which is a tool of the state) should at all let people in who are likely to worsen this situation.
Again--even the nonviolent ones view women as chattel and hate gay people, think it's okay to kill over drawing cartoons and etc. Large numbers of these people have a
deleterious effect on a society, whether they start hurting people physically or not.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 13, 2016, 03:57:43 PM
Quote from: frunk on June 13, 2016, 01:40:23 PMThat's what I don't get. Most of the immigrants/refugees are people who are leaving precisely because of the wackos killing people and the shitty place they are making it. If the immigrants wanted to kill people and revel in extremism they'd stay. Much more likely they'd get away with it (or be encouraged to) in Syria. Of course there will be some violent people who sneak in to the west because of that, but that is not the intent of the bulk of the population. OTOH people are very upset about western citizens leaving to go to Syria and join groups like ISIS. So not only do we not desire immigrants who don't want to be violent, we also would rather hold onto those who want to be violent and instead potentially commit violent acts here.
It all seems backward.
The risk of an actual terrorist coming in as a refugee isn't that high. The reason being there are actually in many cases easier ways to get in for someone connected with a terrorist cell. The issue is, we've had a lot of Muslim immigration into Europe for decades, much of it under refugee programs. When they move in and don't assimilate, they have horrible economic outcomes. Then they have a litter of kids, who grow up often even worse off economically. These kids then start watching all the jihadist videos distributed on social media, and they start buying into this stuff.
You say this like there is some actual evidence that
A) This is happening at some great rate in Europe, and
B) That this is happening at some rate at all in the US.
The impression that I get is that this is something of a problem in Europe, but still represents a tiny fraction of immigrants (much less their kids) and is a statistically insignificant phenomenon in the US.
You might as well argue that we should not let Italians in, because of the mafia problem.
Heck, maybe that argument was actually made at some point...
A list of the victims, including many of the pictures Marty posted earlier, but also with bios of many of them: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/12/481785763/heres-what-we-know-about-the-orlando-shooting-victims
Yeah a friend of mine who lives in Orlando had worked with a victim on tv productions, closest to any personal involvement to this incident.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 13, 2016, 11:35:00 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 11:06:31 AM
I fully agree with Otto here. And if Obama thinks what he does is what Americans want - well, Americans will have an opportunity to say if this is really the case by voting for Hillary to continue his policies in November.
I know you are for mass democracy now but be careful what you wish for.
Gay marriage exists in this country because the courts overrode objections to it on constitutional grounds. Most of the ballot initiatives went the other way. Your new right wing buddies are happy to talk nice now about gays if it can be used to put down the Muslims. But they will put the kinds of judges in place that voted with the dissent in Obergefell.
They would lose most of those votes if they were held today, the county has changed.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 13, 2016, 05:48:23 PM
They would lose most of those votes if they were held today, the county has changed.
Well one would hope so.
QuoteA list of the victims, including many of the pictures Marty posted earlier, but also with bios of many of them: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/12/481785763/heres-what-we-know-about-the-orlando-shooting-victims
So Goddamn senseless.
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2016, 01:14:02 PM
Yeah but I guess Otto's point is more about us letting in his rather bizarre father. But letting in Afghans fleeing Soviet aggression was what that was all about. So we could be letting in future problems from any number of currently innocuous regions.
Beware the wave of radical Hindi terrorism of the 2040s!
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 13, 2016, 03:57:43 PM
Quote from: frunk on June 13, 2016, 01:40:23 PMThat's what I don't get. Most of the immigrants/refugees are people who are leaving precisely because of the wackos killing people and the shitty place they are making it. If the immigrants wanted to kill people and revel in extremism they'd stay. Much more likely they'd get away with it (or be encouraged to) in Syria. Of course there will be some violent people who sneak in to the west because of that, but that is not the intent of the bulk of the population. OTOH people are very upset about western citizens leaving to go to Syria and join groups like ISIS. So not only do we not desire immigrants who don't want to be violent, we also would rather hold onto those who want to be violent and instead potentially commit violent acts here.
It all seems backward.
The risk of an actual terrorist coming in as a refugee isn't that high. The reason being there are actually in many cases easier ways to get in for someone connected with a terrorist cell. The issue is, we've had a lot of Muslim immigration into Europe for decades, much of it under refugee programs. When they move in and don't assimilate, they have horrible economic outcomes. Then they have a litter of kids, who grow up often even worse off economically. These kids then start watching all the jihadist videos distributed on social media, and they start buying into this stuff.
I'm afraid of America looking like Europe does today in 20 years, and even more afraid for Europe itself 20 years from now. Like I said, "real" terrorists, those who operate with al-Qaeda or ISIS, generally they have easier ways to get into a Western country than going through the refugee program.
My impression that a big problem in European countries is lack of Birthright citizenship. The very thing that Trump rails against.
Seedy's "self hating gay" theory may be correct:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/pulse-orlando-nightclub-shooting/os-orlando-nightclub-omar-mateen-profile-20160613-
http://gawker.com/orlando-shooter-was-reportedly-a-regular-at-pulse-and-h-1781920316
Huh, heard this was some kind of Latino night at the club. So it's win/win for Trump.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 13, 2016, 05:56:58 PM
.....
My impression that a big problem in European countries is lack of Birthright citizenship. The very thing that Trump rails against.
Aren't some American Samoans involved in a case about this at the moment?
Quote from: mongers on June 13, 2016, 06:29:26 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 13, 2016, 05:56:58 PM
.....
My impression that a big problem in European countries is lack of Birthright citizenship. The very thing that Trump rails against.
Aren't some American Samoans involved in a case about this at the moment?
I wouldn't be surprised, while they used to share this with several of the other island territories the unincorporated territory of American Samoa, by virtue of being the last "unincorporated" territory, does not confer birthright U.S. citizenship to persons born there. They are the only people now who at birth become U.S. nationals, but not U.S. citizens (I believe they've been unique in this regard since 1950, when Guam was organized.)
The difference is not that meaningful though, as non-state residents citizenship only really changes anything meaningful for them if they move to the United States (where they would be unable to vote in most Federal and State and local elections.) Since U.S. national is a permanent status, they still have permanent rights to live in the U.S. (and any of its territories), get a U.S. passport and work in the U.S. Plus, the citizenship process for nationals is the easiest of any--they only have to live in the U.S. for three months and then take a test and swear an oath. But is a weird situation, and I'm unsure why it's persisted for so long after all the other territories were organized.
Quote from: katmai on June 12, 2016, 06:46:58 PM
Careful Shel, Marti is gonna come after you.
It was clearly an islamic attack and a homophobic attack. Why are these two different things? Muslims have been persecuting gays forever, while trying to achieve all their other goals, like destroying israel, America and the West.
Where muslims are a minority, they are all about minority rights, where muslims are the majority, there no minority rights.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 13, 2016, 06:27:31 PM
Huh, heard this was some kind of Latino night at the club. So it's win/win for Trump.
Make sure you mention this one next time you go to confession.
Quote from: Zanza on June 13, 2016, 03:33:39 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 03:15:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 13, 2016, 03:13:37 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 03:06:02 PM
I disagree. Trump, despite running on a conservative platform, mentioned specifically victims being gay and their right to love whom they want and to express themselves how they want.
Trump is not running on a conservative platform. See all the hand-wringing that's been going on in conservative circles. Entering into enormous trade wars with half the world is not a conservative position.
That being said it is true that I don't think I've ever heard Trump say anything remotely anti-gay.
I know that. You know that. But there were many people here in this very thread (and elsewhere) who are saying that right wingers are now hypocritically expressing their compassion for gay people. So I wanted to set the record straight.
I was one of them. I can't say anything specifically about Trump as I don't know his views on gays. I'll take your word for it. But I do stand by my assertion that at least in my own country (but presumably elsewhere as well), right-wingers are hypocritical about their sudden protection of gay or women rights.
I don't think I've ever really expressed my position on homosexuality and gay rights here. So let me take the opportunity to do so:
1) I think that homosexual behavior is sinful
2) That said, it's God's place to punish sin, not the place of any Earthly government and certainly not the place of any individual. And there are lots of other behaviors that I think are sinful, such as cheating on your spouse, or cheating on your taxes, or just being a liar. I don't go around shooting people who cheat, or who are liars, or who engage in other behavior I consider sinful; nor do I condone others shooting sinners.
3) Some things that I think are sinful, such as theft, are also crimes. The state does punish crimes, which of course it should, but in general, we don't let private individuals do so, and I'm perfectly OK with that--I don't endorse being a vigilante under normal circumstances (and, for the record, I'm uncomfortable with it even under abnormal circumstances, such as a complete lack of rule of law).
4) I don't think that homosexuality should be a crime. In general, I think that what happens between consenting adults in private is no one else's business.
5) I'm not in favor of gay marriage. You want what you do in private to not be anyone else's business, don't make it our business by asking us to put the state's stamp of approval on it. (To be honest, I feel that way about marriage in general--it really should be a private matter, not regulated by the state. In practical terms, though, getting the state out of marriage law would require massive changes to our tax and inheritance laws, and I'm not sure how you would even go about getting the state out of child custody disputes and other divorce issues [though those exist even with couples who have children and/or joint property but aren't legally married, so I guess it's really not a problem].
6) Right to get married or not, everyone has the right to not be murdered in cold blood, and the state has a positive duty to prevent murder and other crimes to the extent possible without trampling on civil rights. Unfortunately, respect for civil rights means that the state doesn't even do that great a job of punishing crimes after the fact, and really can't do too much about preventing crimes before the fact.
If any of that makes me a hypocrite, so be it.
Quote from: stjaba on June 13, 2016, 06:16:08 PM
Seedy's "self hating gay" theory may be correct:
I'm sorry, I can't hear you; my favorite show,
The Streets of Languish, is starting...Tonight's episode:
"A Wahabbist Most Vile"
Quote from: dps on June 13, 2016, 08:28:09 PM
Quote from: Zanza on June 13, 2016, 03:33:39 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 03:15:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 13, 2016, 03:13:37 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 03:06:02 PM
I disagree. Trump, despite running on a conservative platform, mentioned specifically victims being gay and their right to love whom they want and to express themselves how they want.
Trump is not running on a conservative platform. See all the hand-wringing that's been going on in conservative circles. Entering into enormous trade wars with half the world is not a conservative position.
That being said it is true that I don't think I've ever heard Trump say anything remotely anti-gay.
I know that. You know that. But there were many people here in this very thread (and elsewhere) who are saying that right wingers are now hypocritically expressing their compassion for gay people. So I wanted to set the record straight.
I was one of them. I can't say anything specifically about Trump as I don't know his views on gays. I'll take your word for it. But I do stand by my assertion that at least in my own country (but presumably elsewhere as well), right-wingers are hypocritical about their sudden protection of gay or women rights.
I don't think I've ever really expressed my position on homosexuality and gay rights here. So let me take the opportunity to do so:
1) I think that homosexual behavior is sinful
2) That said, it's God's place to punish sin, not the place of any Earthly government and certainly not the place of any individual. And there are lots of other behaviors that I think are sinful, such as cheating on your spouse, or cheating on your taxes, or just being a liar. I don't go around shooting people who cheat, or who are liars, or who engage in other behavior I consider sinful; nor do I condone others shooting sinners.
3) Some things that I think are sinful, such as theft, are also crimes. The state does punish crimes, which of course it should, but in general, we don't let private individuals do so, and I'm perfectly OK with that--I don't endorse being a vigilante under normal circumstances (and, for the record, I'm uncomfortable with it even under abnormal circumstances, such as a complete lack of rule of law).
4) I don't think that homosexuality should be a crime. In general, I think that what happens between consenting adults in private is no one else's business.
5) I'm not in favor of gay marriage. You want what you do in private to not be anyone else's business, don't make it our business by asking us to put the state's stamp of approval on it. (To be honest, I feel that way about marriage in general--it really should be a private matter, not regulated by the state. In practical terms, though, getting the state out of marriage law would require massive changes to our tax and inheritance laws, and I'm not sure how you would even go about getting the state out of child custody disputes and other divorce issues [though those exist even with couples who have children and/or joint property but aren't legally married, so I guess it's really not a problem].
6) Right to get married or not, everyone has the right to not be murdered in cold blood, and the state has a positive duty to prevent murder and other crimes to the extent possible without trampling on civil rights. Unfortunately, respect for civil rights means that the state doesn't even do that great a job of punishing crimes after the fact, and really can't do too much about preventing crimes before the fact.
If any of that makes me a hypocrite, so be it.
Not hypocritical, but selfish.
Quote
1) I think that homosexual behavior is sinful
2) That said, it's God's place to punish sin, not the place of any Earthly government and certainly not the place of any individual. And there are lots of other behaviors that I think are sinful, such as cheating on your spouse, or cheating on your taxes, or just being a liar. I don't go around shooting people who cheat, or who are liars, or who engage in other behavior I consider sinful; nor do I condone others shooting sinners.
3) Some things that I think are sinful, such as theft, are also crimes. The state does punish crimes, which of course it should, but in general, we don't let private individuals do so, and I'm perfectly OK with that--I don't endorse being a vigilante under normal circumstances (and, for the record, I'm uncomfortable with it even under abnormal circumstances, such as a complete lack of rule of law).
4) I don't think that homosexuality should be a crime. In general, I think that what happens between consenting adults in private is no one else's business.
5) I'm not in favor of gay marriage. You want what you do in private to not be anyone else's business, don't make it our business by asking us to put the state's stamp of approval on it. (To be honest, I feel that way about marriage in general--it really should be a private matter, not regulated by the state. In practical terms, though, getting the state out of marriage law would require massive changes to our tax and inheritance laws, and I'm not sure how you would even go about getting the state out of child custody disputes and other divorce issues [though those exist even with couples who have children and/or joint property but aren't legally married, so I guess it's really not a problem].
6) Right to get married or not, everyone has the right to not be murdered in cold blood, and the state has a positive duty to prevent murder and other crimes to the extent possible without trampling on civil rights. Unfortunately, respect for civil rights means that the state doesn't even do that great a job of punishing crimes after the fact, and really can't do too much about preventing crimes before the fact.
1. Religious intolerance. Who are you to pass judgement. You are not more enlightened than anyone else. Less so as a matter of fact
2. Mumbo Jumbo
3. Yes vigilantism is against the law.
4. You already said it's sinful therefore a crime against God. Therefore a crime in your eyes.
5. Selfish
6. I don't understand the non sequitur. What does right to get married have to do with right not to be murdered. One is about living and the other not.
More fuel for the self loathing angle.
QuoteThe man police say killed 49 people at a gay nightclub in Orlando early Sunday morning had visited the club at least a dozen times before carrying out his attack, a witness told the Orlando Sentinel on Monday.
The suspected shooter, 29-year-old Omar Mateen, may have also used several different gay dating apps, according to reports from MSNBC and the Los Angeles Times.
Three additional witnesses confirmed that they had seen Mateen at the gay nightclub more than once before.
"Sometimes he would go over in the corner and sit and drink by himself, and other times he would get so drunk he was loud and belligerent," one witness, Ty Smith, told the Sentinel.
"We didn't really talk to him a lot," he added. "But I remember him saying things about his dad at times. He told us he had a wife and child."
Chris Callen, who performs at Pulse under the name Kristina McLaughlin, told The Canadian Press and CNN's Anderson Cooper that Mateen had been going to the bar one or twice a month "for at least three years."
Smith later told The Canadian Press that Mateen said that he "couldn't drink when he was at home—around his wife, or family. His father was really strict."
Smith and Callen say that they stopped talking to Mateen when he pulled a knife on them after they made a religious comment.
"He said if he ever messed with him again, you know how it'll turn out," Callen said.
Reports of Mateen's flashes of anger and aggression align with what Mateen's ex-wife, Sitora Yusufiy, told CNN on Sunday night.
"In the beginning he was a normal being that cared about family, loved to joke, loved to have fun, but then a few months after we were married I saw his instability," she said. "I saw that he was bipolar and he would get mad out of nowhere. That's when I started worrying about my safety."
She told reporters earlier on Sunday that Mateen had beat her and emotionally abused her while they were married between 2009 and 2011.
'He was very creepy in his messages'
An Orlando man told MSNBC's Chris Hayes on Monday that he had seen photos of Mateen on the gay dating apps Grindr, Adam4Adam, and Jack'd over the last several years. At least two of the man's friends had been contacted by Mateen on the apps.
"He was very creepy in his messages, and I blocked him immediately," the man said.
Kevin West, another regular at Pulse nightclub, told the Los Angeles Times that he chatted with Mateen on and off for a year on the gay dating app Jack'd, but had never met him in person. Incredibly, West said he met him for the first time as he was dropping a friend off at Pulse on Saturday night.
"He walked directly past me," West said. "I said, 'Hey,' and he turned and said, 'Hey,'" and nodded his head, West said. "I could tell by the eyes."
A regular performer at Pulse told CNN's Anderson Cooper that he saw Mateen there a couple times a month, often with another man.
The reports come after Samuel King, a drag queen, told The Daily Beast that he had befriended Mateen while the two worked next door to each other in Fort Pierce. King said that Mateen had seemed generally accepting of the fact that he and his friends were openly gay. King said that he even recalls Mateen going at least once to the nightclub where King performed.
Maybe a recon. Why would you go blindly into a place and shoot it up.
I might agree with you, but for last two to three years twice a month??
Quote from: katmai on June 13, 2016, 09:50:32 PM
I might agree with you, but for last two to three years twice a month??
Yeah, that be true.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/orlando-shooter-reported-pulse-club-regular-patrons-article-1.2672445 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/orlando-shooter-reported-pulse-club-regular-patrons-article-1.2672445)
QuoteA former classmate of Omar Mateen's 2006 police academy class, however, said he believed Mateen was gay.
Speaking to WFTV9 in Orlando, the classmate, who asked not to be named, said he was gay in 2006 but had not yet come out about his sexuality.
Mateen had asked him out, the classmate said.
"We went to a few gay bars with him, and I was not out at the time, so I declined his offer," the former classmate said.
That definitely puts a different spin on things.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 13, 2016, 09:33:31 PM
1. Religious intolerance. Who are you to pass judgement. You are not more enlightened than anyone else. Less so as a matter of fact
2. Mumbo Jumbo
4. You already said it's sinful therefore a crime against God. Therefore a crime in your eyes.
The "mumbo jumbo" is saying that he is not fit to pass judgement, and thus agreeing with you on number one.
Crime in sin is not synonomous, unless you think dps and other religious people also secretly want to outlaw lying, etc.
Being gay is like preferring apples to oranges while the rest of the population prefers oranges to apples. The state has no business interferring with what consenting adults do in private. If heterosexual people can get married, so should gays on the principle of fairness.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 13, 2016, 03:57:43 PM
The risk of an actual terrorist coming in as a refugee isn't that high. The reason being there are actually in many cases easier ways to get in for someone connected with a terrorist cell. The issue is, we've had a lot of Muslim immigration into Europe for decades, much of it under refugee programs. When they move in and don't assimilate, they have horrible economic outcomes. Then they have a litter of kids, who grow up often even worse off economically. These kids then start watching all the jihadist videos distributed on social media, and they start buying into this stuff.
The risk is low, but even a few will make people disproportionately hostile toward immigrants.
Quote
I'm afraid of America looking like Europe does today in 20 years, and even more afraid for Europe itself 20 years from now. Like I said, "real" terrorists, those who operate with al-Qaeda or ISIS, generally they have easier ways to get into a Western country than going through the refugee program.
I think the alternatives of not allowing immigration are much worse. Demographically the Middle East is exploding, and if that population can't go anywhere at best it'll collapse into an Africa like hellhole. At worst it'll end up with increasingly violent wars and conflicts for probably the next couple of decades. OTOH Europe is on the other end of the demographic problem, with aging populations and declining birth rate.
Europe is not an example of worst case immigration, or rather not all of it is. Different policies and different populations have ended up with very different results, some quite positive. Even in the US on the whole Muslim immigration has been quite successful, and it's a mistake to take a few high profile problems as indicative of some sort of deeper issue. I think there are some strains of Islam that are prone to violence and extremism, but the solution isn't to keep Muslims penned up and isolated, it's to expose them to western thought, western government and western culture. Trying to forcibly change governments and social culture in other countries has almost always been a disaster, but immigration properly done has a spectacular success rate of creating converts. A few will have a negative reaction, most others will not.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 13, 2016, 10:52:27 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 13, 2016, 09:33:31 PM
1. Religious intolerance. Who are you to pass judgement. You are not more enlightened than anyone else. Less so as a matter of fact
2. Mumbo Jumbo
4. You already said it's sinful therefore a crime against God. Therefore a crime in your eyes.
The "mumbo jumbo" is saying that he is not fit to pass judgement, and thus agreeing with you on number one.
Crime in sin is not synonomous, unless you think dps and other religious people also secretly want to outlaw lying, etc.
sin
noun
1.
an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.
"a sin in the eyes of God"
synonyms: immoral act, wrong, wrongdoing, act of evil/wickedness, transgression, crime, offense, misdeed, misdemeanor;
Quote
A synonym is a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language. Words that are synonyms are said to be synonymous, and the state of being a synonym is called synonymy.
Quote
Full Definition of synonymous
1
: having the character of a synonym; also : alike in meaning or significance
2
: having the same connotations, implications, or reference
Quote
That said, it's God's place to punish sin, not the place of any Earthly government
Well if we waited on God to punish sin i.e. though shalt not kill/steal, we'd have a whole lot of criminals running around. But I guess we would have the solace to know they will be punished after they go to "judgement".
Mumbo Jumbo.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 13, 2016, 06:27:31 PM
Huh, heard this was some kind of Latino night at the club. So it's win/win for Trump.
Fuck off you miserable git.
Quote from: Siege on June 13, 2016, 07:36:06 PM
Quote from: katmai on June 12, 2016, 06:46:58 PM
Careful Shel, Marti is gonna come after you.
It was clearly an islamic attack and a homophobic attack. Why are these two different things? Muslims have been persecuting gays forever, while trying to achieve all their other goals, like destroying israel, America and the West.
Where muslims are a minority, they are all about minority rights, where muslims are the majority, there no minority rights.
Pretty much.
Quote from: katmai on June 13, 2016, 09:50:32 PM
I might agree with you, but for last two to three years twice a month??
That was a very in-depth recon. Plus he had to suck a few dicks to truly understand Allah's wrath against homosexuality.
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 11:58:15 PM
Quote from: katmai on June 13, 2016, 09:50:32 PM
I might agree with you, but for last two to three years twice a month??
That was a very in-depth recon. Plus he had to suck a few dicks to truly understand Allah's wrath against homosexuality.
When in Rome
Quote from: frunk on June 13, 2016, 11:06:05 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 13, 2016, 03:57:43 PM
The risk of an actual terrorist coming in as a refugee isn't that high. The reason being there are actually in many cases easier ways to get in for someone connected with a terrorist cell. The issue is, we've had a lot of Muslim immigration into Europe for decades, much of it under refugee programs. When they move in and don't assimilate, they have horrible economic outcomes. Then they have a litter of kids, who grow up often even worse off economically. These kids then start watching all the jihadist videos distributed on social media, and they start buying into this stuff.
The risk is low, but even a few will make people disproportionately hostile toward immigrants.
Quote
I'm afraid of America looking like Europe does today in 20 years, and even more afraid for Europe itself 20 years from now. Like I said, "real" terrorists, those who operate with al-Qaeda or ISIS, generally they have easier ways to get into a Western country than going through the refugee program.
I think the alternatives of not allowing immigration are much worse. Demographically the Middle East is exploding, and if that population can't go anywhere at best it'll collapse into an Africa like hellhole. At worst it'll end up with increasingly violent wars and conflicts for probably the next couple of decades. OTOH Europe is on the other end of the demographic problem, with aging populations and declining birth rate.
Europe is not an example of worst case immigration, or rather not all of it is. Different policies and different populations have ended up with very different results, some quite positive. Even in the US on the whole Muslim immigration has been quite successful, and it's a mistake to take a few high profile problems as indicative of some sort of deeper issue. I think there are some strains of Islam that are prone to violence and extremism, but the solution isn't to keep Muslims penned up and isolated, it's to expose them to western thought, western government and western culture. Trying to forcibly change governments and social culture in other countries has almost always been a disaster, but immigration properly done has a spectacular success rate of creating converts. A few will have a negative reaction, most others will not.
You are missing the point that Otto and others have made - we have had this discussing so many times before that I almost feel like I should put it in my signature - from perspective of, for example, gay people, it's not just violent or extremist Muslims are a problem. Most Muslims, for example, believe that homosexuality should be criminalised - they do not seem to soften their views that much after years of living here. So allowing people who think that, and also happen to breed at a much higher rate than the Western average, is a time bomb.
For a slightly lighter touch, Glenn Beck's message to the gay community:
QuoteWe are not gay or straight, not black, white or brown, Christian or atheist.
We are all human. Hatred, bigotry, murder is a HUMAN disease.
It is experienced by the wealthiest 1% and the poorest 1%. In the all white neighborhood and the black or immigrant neighborhood. East and west, farm or city, north and south, left and right.
We must find our way to one another.
I will fight for HUMAN RIGHTS, because I do not have anymore rights than you and you must have all of mine and I, yours. Why narrow rights down?
"Equal rights!" should be our rallying cry!
The only race that I will both defend and condemn is the human race.
The color of your skin doesn't matter nor does mine.
I think Penn Jillette is more honorable than some Who claim to be people of faith.
I will argue that my daughter should not have to share a bathroom with a man who claims to "feel" like a woman, but I will defend his right to live his/her life as he chooses and I will stand in front of him if someone chooses to persecute him.
I am Mormon, but should they come for the Catholic, then "I am Catholic."
Come for the Jew and I am a Jew."
Slaughter the peaceful Palestinian and "I am Palestinian."
The Muslims who are crying out to us and our government for help in their own American communities are being silenced by those who wish to control them both Muslim and American. Both left and right.
I will not condemn all Muslims as I would not condemn all Germans in WW2. Nor as we did with the Japanese Americans and put them in concentration camps.
However, I will always speak the truth.
Islam as practiced by the majority of Muslims in the Arab world, who embrace Shariah law is evil and a plague on mankind, woman, children, gay, Muslim and not.
These things will take greater courage to say out loud as each day passes with the majority of Americans remaining silent and our political parties and media so "misguided."
Lies, fear, manipulation, thirst for power do not belong to one political
Party over another. Nor one race, class or creed over another.
Totalitarian tendencies, corruption, and a twisting of God is not in one religion and not others.
All of these things are part of the human race.
With honor, courage, love, honesty, humility, character, faith in something bigger than oneself and a lot of hard choices and work we can overcome what we suffer from.
But only if we unite and help one another. If we look for the best in others and expect it from ourselves.
If we turn the other cheek while standing firm in the truth; if we dismiss easy answers and make the difficult choices, we will make it.
It will not be easy or popular, but the cure is simple.
I will stand in your defense.
I will comfort you in the storm.
I will make your plight mine as we are all human and an injustice toward you is an injustice to me.
Taking a stand really only matters when you link arms with those who don't share your own viewpoints or lifestyle.
That is when it is hard and when it makes a real difference.
I cannot unite, however, with those who do not share the same principles and values.
I value Truth, Liberty, Life and the right of each of us to be sovereign in our own lives.
Those who wish to destroy those values I will stand against you and be immovable even if I stand alone.
But if you share the same values even if our ideas, lifestyles, faith or policies are radically different, I will proudly stand with and for you.
Will you join me?
#iwill
#Orlando
#isis
#gaypride
I think he means well, but he is sooooooooo nuts.
Trump calls shooter "an Afghan", blames American Muslims for failing to "turn in the people who they know are bad", warns against "tremendous flow" of Syrian refugees, suggests President Obama sympathetic to Islamic terrorists
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/us/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-speeches.html
"They're trying to take over our children and convince them how wonderful ISIS is and how wonderful Islam is. And we don't know what's happening."
And to make sure not just right wing nutters are called out, here's a statement from the Planned Parenthood Black Community:
QuoteIslam doesn't foment the violence alleged gunman Omar Mateen enacted, toxic masculinity & a global culture of imperialist homophobia does.
Toxic masculinity enables rapists & rape culture, violent heterosexism & attacks on reproductive freedom.
:bleeding:
Admittedly, the difference is that Glenn Beck, as far as I understand, is not currently funded with US taxpayers' money.
Quote from: Phillip V on June 14, 2016, 12:12:24 AM
Trump calls shooter "an Afghan", blames American Muslims for failing to "turn in the people who they know are bad", warns against "tremendous flow" of Syrian refugees, suggests President Obama sympathetic to Islamic terrorists
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/us/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-speeches.html
"They're trying to take over our children and convince them how wonderful ISIS is and how wonderful Islam is. And we don't know what's happening."
I think he is right, especially on the point of there being not sufficient self policing among Muslims. Unlike your typical mass shooter situation (where the usual community feedback is "oh he was such a quiet guy"), you are getting feedback from all quarters here saying "oh, I guess we all knew he would do something like this". That's inexcusable. And I agree with Trump that it should be made a crime not to report reasonable suspicion like that to the police.
I still want to know why it took three hours to end this by OPD.
I don't get it. Was he gay or homophobic or muslim?
Quote from: frunk on June 13, 2016, 11:06:05 PM
I think the alternatives of not allowing immigration are much worse. Demographically the Middle East is exploding, and if that population can't go anywhere at best it'll collapse into an Africa like hellhole. At worst it'll end up with increasingly violent wars and conflicts for probably the next couple of decades. OTOH Europe is on the other end of the demographic problem, with aging populations and declining birth rate.
Europe is not an example of worst case immigration, or rather not all of it is. Different policies and different populations have ended up with very different results, some quite positive. Even in the US on the whole Muslim immigration has been quite successful, and it's a mistake to take a few high profile problems as indicative of some sort of deeper issue. I think there are some strains of Islam that are prone to violence and extremism, but the solution isn't to keep Muslims penned up and isolated, it's to expose them to western thought, western government and western culture. Trying to forcibly change governments and social culture in other countries has almost always been a disaster, but immigration properly done has a spectacular success rate of creating converts. A few will have a negative reaction, most others will not.
I think immigration policy should be about benefiting the nation that receives the immigrants, not trying to transform Islam or even making the world at large a better place. The US should, for example, select the immigrants that have a reasonable chance of bettering the US, based on their age, skills, education, background etc.
Quote from: The Brain on June 14, 2016, 01:08:02 AM
I don't get it. Was he gay or homophobic or muslim?
d. All the above
Quote from: Monoriu on June 14, 2016, 01:08:25 AM
Quote from: frunk on June 13, 2016, 11:06:05 PM
I think the alternatives of not allowing immigration are much worse. Demographically the Middle East is exploding, and if that population can't go anywhere at best it'll collapse into an Africa like hellhole. At worst it'll end up with increasingly violent wars and conflicts for probably the next couple of decades. OTOH Europe is on the other end of the demographic problem, with aging populations and declining birth rate.
Europe is not an example of worst case immigration, or rather not all of it is. Different policies and different populations have ended up with very different results, some quite positive. Even in the US on the whole Muslim immigration has been quite successful, and it's a mistake to take a few high profile problems as indicative of some sort of deeper issue. I think there are some strains of Islam that are prone to violence and extremism, but the solution isn't to keep Muslims penned up and isolated, it's to expose them to western thought, western government and western culture. Trying to forcibly change governments and social culture in other countries has almost always been a disaster, but immigration properly done has a spectacular success rate of creating converts. A few will have a negative reaction, most others will not.
I think immigration policy should be about benefiting the nation that receives the immigrants, not trying to transform Islam or even making the world at large a better place. The US should, for example, select the immigrants that have a reasonable chance of bettering the US, based on their age, skills, education, background etc.
Rather insidious
Quote from: Martinus on June 14, 2016, 12:15:13 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on June 14, 2016, 12:12:24 AM
Trump calls shooter "an Afghan", blames American Muslims for failing to "turn in the people who they know are bad", warns against "tremendous flow" of Syrian refugees, suggests President Obama sympathetic to Islamic terrorists
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/us/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-speeches.html
"They're trying to take over our children and convince them how wonderful ISIS is and how wonderful Islam is. And we don't know what's happening."
I think he is right, especially on the point of there being not sufficient self policing among Muslims. Unlike your typical mass shooter situation (where the usual community feedback is "oh he was such a quiet guy"), you are getting feedback from all quarters here saying "oh, I guess we all knew he would do something like this". That's inexcusable. And I agree with Trump that it should be made a crime not to report reasonable suspicion like that to the police.
There has been a lot of self policing and reporting by American muslims Marty. This isn't Belgium.
Powerful stuff
https://twitter.com/jahimes
Quote from: Connecticut Congressman Jim Himes (who represents a district adjacent to Newtown)
I will not attend one more "Moment of Silence" on the Floor. Our silence does not honor the victims, it mocks them.
The Moments of Silence in the House have become an abomination. God will ask you, "How did you keep my children safe"? Silence.
God will ask you why you did not defer to the will of the people as children poured out their blood. And we will answer with silence.
If whatever God you worship is in fact a God of love and peace you had better use the Moment of Silence to pray for our souls.
If God is an angry God, prepare to know a hell well beyond that lived day to day by the families of the butchered. I will not be silent.
Here on earth, God's work must truly be our own....
James Agee had it right: "The deadliest blow the enemy of the human soul can strike is to do fury honor."
Quote from: Jennifer BenderyMaybe Congress will sense the urgency and vote this week to ban people on terrorist watch lists from buying guns. Right? *crickets*
Nope. We'll have a moment of silence. Perfectly emblematic of Congressional gross negligence.
Quote from: stjaba on June 13, 2016, 06:16:08 PM
Seedy's "self hating gay" theory may be correct:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/pulse-orlando-nightclub-shooting/os-orlando-nightclub-omar-mateen-profile-20160613-
http://gawker.com/orlando-shooter-was-reportedly-a-regular-at-pulse-and-h-1781920316
Clearly, gays are the problem. We should eliminate Marty just in case he radicalizes too much.
Quote from: Martinus on June 13, 2016, 11:53:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 13, 2016, 06:27:31 PM
Huh, heard this was some kind of Latino night at the club. So it's win/win for Trump.
Fuck off you miserable git.
I think some of them may have supported BLM people so it's a win for you as well.
QuoteHaving seen movies of Black Lives Matter activists in action, I can't really blame the police for being a bit trigger happy with those people. I mean, I can see even a trained policeman to be concerned for his or her life when around them.
It must be confusing to have so many people you hate and want dead. What happens a member of one group kills another.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 13, 2016, 11:13:11 PM
sin
noun
1.
an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.
"a sin in the eyes of God"
synonyms: immoral act, wrong, wrongdoing, act of evil/wickedness, transgression, crime, offense, misdeed, misdemeanor;
Yes, Grumbler we all know what words mean, so please stop being stupid.
Quote from: derspiess on June 13, 2016, 07:37:50 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 13, 2016, 06:27:31 PM
Huh, heard this was some kind of Latino night at the club. So it's win/win for Trump.
Make sure you mention this one next time you go to confession.
Why? It's not a sin to make the extreme right feel bad.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 14, 2016, 04:54:23 AM
Maybe Congress will sense the urgency and vote this week to ban people on terrorist watch lists from buying guns. Right? *crickets*
Wouldn't that be unconstitutional?
My views about Islam would probably be a lot of different, if more Muslims were like Maajid Nawaz:
QuoteAdmit It: These Terrorists Are Muslims
There's a lot of special pleading about Orlando from Muslims and liberals. It's time to do away with that. If not, we give the issue away to Trump.
LONDON — The atrocious attack in Orlando, Florida, was an act of ISIS-inspired jihadist terrorism that targeted gays. It must concern us all.
Before any of our assumed multiple identities, we are human beings first and foremost. You don't have to be black to condemn racism, nor Jewish to condemn anti-Semitism, nor Muslim to condemn anti-Muslim bigotry, and you certainly don't have to be gay to condemn the evil that just descended upon Orlando.
A puerile response by some of my fellow Muslims is to ask "why should we apologize for something that has nothing to do with us." But this entirely misses the point.
Just as we Muslims expect solidarity from wider society against anti-Muslim bigotry and racism, likewise we must reciprocate solidarity towards victims of Islamist extremism. Just as we encourage others to actively denounce racism wherever they see it, so too must we actively denounce Islamist theocratic views wherever we find them.
Enough with the special pleading. Enough with the denial. Enough with the obfuscation.
The killer of Orlando was a homophobic Muslim extremist, inspired by an ideological take on my own religion, Islam. In just the first seven days of this holy month of Ramadan, various jihadists have carried out attacks in Tel Aviv, Baghdad, Damascus, Idlib, Beirut Orlando and now Paris.
This global jihadist insurgency threatens every corner of the world and has killed more Muslims than members any other faith. So why pretend it does not exist? Why shy away from calling it by name?
So far do many of us liberals go in denying the problem, that we're happy to stigmatize other vulnerable minorities in the process. "He was not a Muslim, he was nothing but a mad lunatic," we cry in exasperation. As if those with mental health issues are somehow automatically predisposed to murder, or immune to manipulation and exploitation by cynical Islamists and jihadists.
Then there's that other old tactic to try and avoid discussing the Islamist ideology. "He wasn't from the Muslim community," we proclaim. "He was acting in isolation, a lone wolf."
Apart from the fact that research highlights how incredibly rare it is for jihadists to act in a vacuum, we need look no further than the Orlando attacker Omar Mateen's father, who praised the Taliban as "warriors" to realize this avoidance tactic for what it is. Clearly Omar Mateen had moved in an atmosphere that glorified jihadist ideology.
But it must be foreign policy in Afghanistan," we naively protest. Albeit better than China's, Russia's, Saudi Arabia's, Iran's and most other undemocratic countries in the world, yes our foreign and domestic policies have their flaws. But what did gays in the Pulse nightclub have to do with any of that? Or the gays that ISIS regularly throws off the tallest buildings in Syria, for that matter?
It is time that we liberals took the fabled red pill and accepted reality. Just as this clearly has something to do with outdated gun laws, and just as those laws need reform, this also has something to do with Islam, which also needs reform today. No other stance makes any sense.
Poll after poll of British Muslims has revealed statistically significant levels of homophobic opinion. A 2009 poll by Gallup found that 0 percent of Britain's Muslims believed homosexual acts to be morally acceptable. Despite polling methodology, what previous polls have shown us time and again is more of the same. In a 2013 Pew poll Muslims overwhelmingly say that homosexual behavior is morally wrong, including three-quarters or more in 33 of the 36 countries where the question was asked.
The latest ICM poll from April 2016 asked a slightly different question about whether being gay should be legal. Over half of British Muslims surveyed said they supported making homosexual acts illegal. It did not used to be like this, so what happened?
Liberals who claim that this has nothing to do with Islam today are being as unhelpful and as ignorant as conservatives who claim that this represents all of Islam. The problem so obviously has something to do with Islam. That something is Islamism, or the desire to impose any version of Islam over any society. Jihadism is the attempt to do so by force. This ideology of Islamism has been rising almost unchecked among Muslims for decades. It is a theocratic ideology, and theocracy should no longer have any place in the world today.
But it is as if we liberals will stoop to anything to avoid discussing ideology. We will initiate state sanctioned presidential kill lists and launch unaccountable targeted assassinations. Yet, no amount of drone strikes under Obama—at a rate that far exceeds Bush—will ever solve the problem. We cannot shoot our way out of an ideology. We cannot arrest our way out of an insurgency. Yes, law and war have their own place, but they will never solve the problem.
In the long run, only reducing the local appeal of this ideology will solve the problem. Whereas Islam today requires reform, the Islamist ideology must be intellectually terminated. To do so requires first acknowledging it exists, isolating it from Muslims, devising a strategy to challenge it, and then backing the voices that do.
As I argued in a TV debate with Fareed Zakaria, the danger of not doing so is twofold. Within the Muslim context, it is a betrayal of those liberal reforming Muslims who risk everything daily. These are feminist Muslims, gay Muslims, ex-Muslims, dissenting liberal and secular Muslim voices, persecuted minority sects among Muslims, the Ismailis, the Ahmedis and the Shia—all these different minorities within the minority of the Muslim community—they are immediately betrayed by our silence.
By shutting down the conversation about Islamist extremism we deprive them of the lexicon to deploy against those who are attempting to silence their progressive efforts within their own communities. We surrender their identity of Islam to the extremists.
The second danger is in the non-Muslim context. What happens if we don't name the Islamist ideology and distinguish it from Islam? We leave a void for the vast majority of Americans—who are unaware of the nuances in this debate—to be filled by Donald Trump and the Populist Right. They will go on to blame all versions of Islam and every Muslim, and their frustration at not being able to talk about the problem will give in to rage, as it has done. By refusing to discuss it, we only increase the hysteria. Like "he who must not be named"—the Voldemort Effect, I call it—we increase the fear.
So this is my appeal to President Obama, Hillary Clinton and to all liberals and Muslims, for humanity's sake let's stop playing politics with evil. Just as this so obviously has something to do with lax gun laws, it so clearly has something to do with Islam. Hillary Clinton nearly conceded as much after these recent attacks. But liberals must own this debate, not merely appear to be defensively reacting to Trump's agenda.
This September will mark 15 years since the 9/11 attacks, and we still haven't devised a strategy to address Islamist extremism, let alone identified voices who can do so globally. Not al-Qaeda, not ISIS, nor any other theocratic jihadist group that may emerge in the future, but a strategy that recognizes we are in the middle of a Cold War against theocracy. If we refuse to isolate, name and shame Islamist extremism, from fear of increasing anti-Muslim bigotry, we only increase anti-Muslim bigotry. If the rise of Trump has not convinced us of this yet, then nothing will.
Have you seen this already, Mart?
QuoteGuardian columnist Owen Jones walks out of a live interview on Sky News on Sunday. Presenter Mark Longhurst says the Orlando gunman targeted 'human beings' in general. Fellow panelist Julia Hartley-Brewer says the LGBT community has 'no ownership of horror'. But Jones says the shooting was 'an intentional attack on LGBT people'
https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2016/jun/13/owen-jones-walks-out-sky-news-orlando-lgbt-video (https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2016/jun/13/owen-jones-walks-out-sky-news-orlando-lgbt-video)
Full version and transcript on NS here:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2016/06/watch-owen-jones-walks-sky-news-debate-whether-orlando-was-homophobic-attack (http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2016/06/watch-owen-jones-walks-sky-news-debate-whether-orlando-was-homophobic-attack)
Quote from: Brazen on June 14, 2016, 06:11:21 AM
Have you seen this already, Mart?
QuoteGuardian columnist Owen Jones walks out of a live interview on Sky News on Sunday. Presenter Mark Longhurst says the Orlando gunman targeted 'human beings' in general. Fellow panelist Julia Hartley-Brewer says the LGBT community has 'no ownership of horror'. But Jones says the shooting was 'an intentional attack on LGBT people'
https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2016/jun/13/owen-jones-walks-out-sky-news-orlando-lgbt-video (https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2016/jun/13/owen-jones-walks-out-sky-news-orlando-lgbt-video)
Full version and transcript on NS here:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2016/06/watch-owen-jones-walks-sky-news-debate-whether-orlando-was-homophobic-attack (http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2016/06/watch-owen-jones-walks-sky-news-debate-whether-orlando-was-homophobic-attack)
Yeah, Sheilbh mentioned that earlier in the thread. It's a bit of a quagmire, as he is also apparently being attacked from the right as well, because he refused to acknowledge that the attack was also islamic.
If you ignore the tragedy, it is actually quite ironic how this attack has left almost every political side wrong footed - I guess only classic liberals have no problem responding to it properly.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 14, 2016, 01:08:55 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 14, 2016, 01:08:02 AM
I don't get it. Was he gay or homophobic or muslim?
d. All the above
Yeah, and I fail to see why him being gay actually changes anything about the analysis.
Surely if you are gay and then you are raised in a murderous homophobic backward ideology/cult and told that being gay is wrong and deserve death, then your murderous homophobic backward behaviour is a direct result of your ideology/cult, not your sexuality.
It reminds me of the argument used by some anti-semites claiming that Hitler was, allegedly, half-Jewish. Even if it is true, so what?
Incidentally, I have been reading comments under Maajid Nawaz's post with this article on Facebook. Admittedly it's anecdotal, but they seem to be divided into four broad groups:
- people thanking him
- people saying the attack had nothing to do with Islam
- people calling him Uncle Tom
- people saying that the attack was a conspiracy of US government to make Muslims look bad
Interestingly, if you look at commenters' names, those belonging to the first group seem to have Western names, largely, while those belong to the last two groups have Arabic or Persian sounding names. The second group is mixed.
That is not very promising, to be honest.
Quote from: Martinus on June 14, 2016, 06:20:50 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 14, 2016, 01:08:55 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 14, 2016, 01:08:02 AM
I don't get it. Was he gay or homophobic or muslim?
d. All the above
Yeah, and I fail to see why him being gay actually changes anything about the analysis.
Nor do I. I'm seeing news reports that he had scouted Disney World as a possible target. If so, pretty clearly being an Islamic extremist had more to do with him carrying out a terrorist attack than any gay angle. Being a self-loathing gay man may or may not have been a factor in his ultimate choice of target, but I'd guess that he was likely going to carry out an attack of some sort anyway.
Quote
That something is Islamism, or the desire to impose any version of Islam over any society. Jihadism is the attempt to do so by force. This ideology of Islamism has been rising almost unchecked among Muslims for decades. It is a theocratic ideology, and theocracy should no longer have any place in the world today.
given that this has been part of islam since mohammed did his thing she's basically proposing to take the islam out of islam. Good idea but higly unlikely to happen.
Quote
the Islamist ideology must be intellectually terminated. To do so requires first acknowledging it exists, isolating it from Muslims
to get rid of islamism is to get rid of islam. for by her definition islamism is what her prophet did.
Quote from: Martinus on June 14, 2016, 12:12:41 AM
And to make sure not just right wing nutters are called out, here's a statement from the Planned Parenthood Black Community:
QuoteIslam doesn't foment the violence alleged gunman Omar Mateen enacted, toxic masculinity & a global culture of imperialist homophobia does.
Toxic masculinity enables rapists & rape culture, violent heterosexism & attacks on reproductive freedom.
:bleeding:
Admittedly, the difference is that Glenn Beck, as far as I understand, is not currently funded with US taxpayers' money.
Well to be fair PP is not being funded for its keen analysis of current events. That is a rather disheartening angle. I guess if you murder gay people it is not about you and you being a monster. You are just a victim and pawn of insidious forces. And somehow this has something to do with reproductive rights.
QuoteIncidentally, I have been reading comments under Maajid Nawaz's post with this article on Facebook. Admittedly it's anecdotal, but they seem to be divided into four broad groups:
- people thanking him
- people saying the attack had nothing to do with Islam
- people calling him Uncle Tom
- people saying that the attack was a conspiracy of US government to make Muslims look bad
Interestingly, if you look at commenters' names, those belonging to the first group seem to have Western names, largely, while those belong to the last two groups have Arabic or Persian sounding names. The second group is mixed.
That is not very promising, to be honest.
Well you can see why I am so happy about social media and twitter being a powerful force in my nation's politics.
Quote from: dps on June 14, 2016, 06:40:40 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 14, 2016, 06:20:50 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 14, 2016, 01:08:55 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 14, 2016, 01:08:02 AM
I don't get it. Was he gay or homophobic or muslim?
d. All the above
Yeah, and I fail to see why him being gay actually changes anything about the analysis.
Nor do I. I'm seeing news reports that he had scouted Disney World as a possible target. If so, pretty clearly being an Islamic extremist had more to do with him carrying out a terrorist attack than any gay angle. Being a self-loathing gay man may or may not have been a factor in his ultimate choice of target, but I'd guess that he was likely going to carry out an attack of some sort anyway.
I'm confused. So his wife knew that he was scouting out locations?
Also, interesting analysis there. Being a self loathing gay man may or may not have been a factor in choice of target, so we are free to ignore that?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 14, 2016, 05:05:16 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 13, 2016, 11:13:11 PM
sin
noun
1.
an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.
"a sin in the eyes of God"
synonyms: immoral act, wrong, wrongdoing, act of evil/wickedness, transgression, crime, offense, misdeed, misdemeanor;
Yes, Grumbler we all know what words mean, so please stop being stupid.
Apparently not, so fuck off
Quote from: Martinus on June 14, 2016, 12:01:56 AM
You are missing the point that Otto and others have made - we have had this discussing so many times before that I almost feel like I should put it in my signature - from perspective of, for example, gay people, it's not just violent or extremist Muslims are a problem. Most Muslims, for example, believe that homosexuality should be criminalised - they do not seem to soften their views that much after years of living here. So allowing people who think that, and also happen to breed at a much higher rate than the Western average, is a time bomb.
In large swaths of the third world - Muslim or not - homophobia, often violent, is the norm: take for example Jamaica (I'm more familiar with that situation, as Jamaicans are a significant community in Toronto). It's alleged to be the "most homophobic country in the world" culturally and legally; not sure about that, but its culture is plenty homophobic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Jamaica
Very few Muslims in Jamaica, though: it is majority protestant Christian.
I'm not convinced that homophobia is inherent in Protestant Christianity or Jamaicans though, or that people from that religion or those places cannot be assimilated into Western attitudes associated with modernity and progress. Nor am I convinced that all Protestant Christians, or all Jamaicans, are the same.
Ditto with Muslims. Muslims come from a variety of social classes and places. I know tons of middle class Iranians, and homophobia simply isn't a part of that particular culture, particularly in the second generation (as a generality, they have their faults, but those faults are those of their class generally: narcissism, materialism, etc.). If I was gay, I'd certainly rather have middle class Iranian Muslims around, than lower class Jamaican Protestants.
Tolerance of difference seems to be strongly correlated with financial ease and comfort. It thus becomes important that all muslim states are either poor or run by kleptocratic elites (even worse than our ones).
Russians are virulently homophobic as well in my experience, and largely stay that way in US. I think pretty much any non-Western nation is filled with majority of people who would quietly not mind such an attack. Though I guess the rates of acceptance of host culture may differ depending on the country of origin.
Quote from: Martinus on June 14, 2016, 12:15:13 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on June 14, 2016, 12:12:24 AM
Trump calls shooter "an Afghan", blames American Muslims for failing to “turn in the people who they know are bad", warns against “tremendous flow” of Syrian refugees, suggests President Obama sympathetic to Islamic terrorists
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/us/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-speeches.html
“They’re trying to take over our children and convince them how wonderful ISIS is and how wonderful Islam is. And we don’t know what’s happening.”
I think he is right, especially on the point of there being not sufficient self policing among Muslims. Unlike your typical mass shooter situation (where the usual community feedback is "oh he was such a quiet guy"), you are getting feedback from all quarters here saying "oh, I guess we all knew he would do something like this". That's inexcusable. And I agree with Trump that it should be made a crime not to report reasonable suspicion like that to the police.
So Trump says several things that are *factually* lies, and your response is "I think he is right".
Gotcha.
Vis-a-vis comparing Jamaica to say, a Muslim country. The fact is we've had years of significant Muslim immigration into Europe. There was a famous poll last year in which over 50% of British Muslims believed the laws of Britain should be changed to make homosexuality illegal. Much of Britain's Muslim population has been there for years, and many are second and sometimes third generation.
On the other hand, gay marriage is largely unaccepted in Mexico and much of Latin America. However, Hispanic immigrants in the United States, after being significant opponents of gay marriage in the early 2000s, actually majority support gay marriage now.
The reason being they over time adopt the social values of the country to which they have emgirated. Muslims do not do that.
The simple fact is--if you are not willing to accept our liberal Western values, you should not be allowed to move into this country, period. We to this day have laws on the books prohibiting people who were members of the Nazi party from moving here (albeit we of course made exceptions for guys like von Braun, and the language on immigration forms is pretty silly these days since anyone who was a practicing Nazi is now ancient, but it was there.) That's because we were taking a stand that we didn't want people like that in our country, because their values were incompatible with ours.
Islam is no different.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 14, 2016, 09:12:45 AM
On the other hand, gay marriage is largely unaccepted in Mexico and much of Latin America.
Huh. I thought most states in Mexico did recognize Gay marriage.
Quote from: Martinus on June 14, 2016, 05:14:57 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 14, 2016, 04:54:23 AM
Maybe Congress will sense the urgency and vote this week to ban people on terrorist watch lists from buying guns. Right? *crickets*
Wouldn't that be unconstitutional?
Yeah, it would probably be held to be removing a constitutional right without due process.
Yeah, I think the issue was that people on the list haven't been convicted of anything yet. But yanks can probably correct me on that. I always find it funny that they can bar you from boarding a plane but not from buying a gun but heh, America.
Quote from: Martinus on June 14, 2016, 06:18:29 AM
If you ignore the tragedy, it is actually quite ironic how this attack has left almost every political side wrong footed - I guess only classic liberals have no problem responding to it properly.
If you think that way though why not respond like a classical liberal?
As opposed of praising the response of Trump who is about as far from a classical liberal as you can get.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 14, 2016, 09:12:45 AM
Vis-a-vis comparing Jamaica to say, a Muslim country. The fact is we've had years of significant Muslim immigration into Europe. There was a famous poll last year in which over 50% of British Muslims believed the laws of Britain should be changed to make homosexuality illegal. Much of Britain's Muslim population has been there for years, and many are second and sometimes third generation.
On the other hand, gay marriage is largely unaccepted in Mexico and much of Latin America. However, Hispanic immigrants in the United States, after being significant opponents of gay marriage in the early 2000s, actually majority support gay marriage now.
The reason being they over time adopt the social values of the country to which they have emgirated. Muslims do not do that.
The simple fact is--if you are not willing to accept our liberal Western values, you should not be allowed to move into this country, period. We to this day have laws on the books prohibiting people who were members of the Nazi party from moving here (albeit we of course made exceptions for guys like von Braun, and the language on immigration forms is pretty silly these days since anyone who was a practicing Nazi is now ancient, but it was there.) That's because we were taking a stand that we didn't want people like that in our country, because their values were incompatible with ours.
Islam is no different.
You mention Hispanic immigrants to the US, and compare them with Muslim immigrants to the UK. Isn't the better comparison with Muslim immigrants to the US?
Actual polls concerning Muslims in America:
http://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/chapter-4-social-and-political-attitudes/
The poll numbers are telling. Muslims "score" almost exactly the same as Protestants generally on the question "homosexuality should be accepted by society": 45% of Muslims agree in 2014 (up from 38% in 2007 - so much for "unchanging Muslim attitudes"). Compare with Protestants generally: 48% in 2014, up from 38% in 2007. They do better than several other categories (Jehovah's Witnesses in 2014: 16%; Mormon: 36% Evangelical Christian: 36%).
Similar results from the question about same-sex marriage, though in that case Muslims do better: 42% of Muslims favour it, as opposed to 39% of Protestants generally.
I'm afraid your position is not fact based.
Quote from: celedhring on June 14, 2016, 09:29:05 AM
Yeah, I think the issue was that people on the list haven't been convicted of anything yet. But yanks can probably correct me on that. I always find it funny that they can't bar you from boarding a plane but not from buying a gun but heh, America.
The Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, chose not to include air travel in the Bill of Rights.
Quote from: Berkut on June 14, 2016, 08:56:41 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 14, 2016, 12:15:13 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on June 14, 2016, 12:12:24 AM
Trump calls shooter "an Afghan", blames American Muslims for failing to "turn in the people who they know are bad", warns against "tremendous flow" of Syrian refugees, suggests President Obama sympathetic to Islamic terrorists
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/us/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-speeches.html
"They're trying to take over our children and convince them how wonderful ISIS is and how wonderful Islam is. And we don't know what's happening."
So Trump says several things that are *factually* lies, and your response is "I think he is right".
Not just several things. EVERY thing he said in that sentence is factually wrong. It's almost impressive in a dysfunctional sort of way.
Quote from: Valmy on June 14, 2016, 09:18:22 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 14, 2016, 09:12:45 AM
On the other hand, gay marriage is largely unaccepted in Mexico and much of Latin America.
Huh. I thought most states in Mexico did recognize Gay marriage.
Most recognize it but do not perform it, and that's a pretty recent trend. There was a Mexican Supreme Court ruling in 2015 requiring it nationwide but due to various complexities in the legal system actual implementation of that ruling will take years.
Mexico's trend of gay rights has historically been maybe one step behind the U.S. in terms of cultural acceptance, although due to a more streamlined political system they have at this point eclipsed us in some legislative areas. But back when the gay marriage debate started in 2000 and 2004, a few places in America performed them, but no places in Mexico did, and support for it among the majority-Catholic Mexican immigrant population wasn't high. That isn't the case in 2016--or in 2014 when this poll was conducted showing over 50% of Latinos supported gay marriage link (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/pew-majority-latinos-favor-same-sex-marriage-approval-rises-n371816).
Quote from: celedhring on June 14, 2016, 09:29:05 AM
Yeah, I think the issue was that people on the list haven't been convicted of anything yet. But yanks can probably correct me on that. I always find it funny that they can bar you from boarding a plane but not from buying a gun but heh, America.
There is no right to fly a plane :hmm:
I have to admit that would have been farsighted of 18th century politicians to enshrine.
Quote from: Malthus on June 14, 2016, 09:31:39 AM
You mention Hispanic immigrants to the US, and compare them with Muslim immigrants to the UK. Isn't the better comparison with Muslim immigrants to the US?
Actual polls concerning Muslims in America:
http://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/chapter-4-social-and-political-attitudes/
The poll numbers are telling. Muslims "score" almost exactly the same as Protestants generally on the question "homosexuality should be accepted by society": 45% of Muslims agree in 2014 (up from 38% in 2007 - so much for "unchanging Muslim attitudes"). Compare with Protestants generally: 48% in 2014, up from 38% in 2007. They do better than several other categories (Jehovah's Witnesses in 2014: 16%; Mormon: 36% Evangelical Christian: 36%).
Similar results from the question about same-sex marriage, though in that case Muslims do better: 42% of Muslims favour it, as opposed to 39% of Protestants generally.
I'm afraid your position is not fact based.
Except it is: link (http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/11/europe/britain-muslims-survey/).
Polls concerning our actual Muslim population are irrelevant--because they ignore the history of Muslim immigration to the United States. Only about 26% of American Muslims are Arab, we have a large population of converted Muslims in the African American community (many started out as Nation members in the 50s/60s/70s when it was a major political movement, and most eventually converted to Sunni Islam if they didn't abandon the religion--as membership in the actual NoI is much lower now), and we also have a large portion of Muslims who are from India and other places where Islam tends to be practiced in a much less virulent way.
Britain's issue is a huge portion of its Muslims are from Pakistan, where we know Muslims can barely go a day without committing various atrocities, and all evidence suggests they take that behavior with them wherever they go. Only about 300,000 people of Pakistani heritage live in the United States.
So, since the Muslim populations of America and Britain (and Europe) are very different, your claims just aren't credible. All evidence we have from Britain suggests that Muslims are a serious problem in large numbers and fail to integrate appropriately.
Quote from: Martinus on June 14, 2016, 05:14:57 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 14, 2016, 04:54:23 AM
Maybe Congress will sense the urgency and vote this week to ban people on terrorist watch lists from buying guns. Right? *crickets*
Wouldn't that be unconstitutional?
Hard to say but I would guess probably. Per the SCT it is an individual right. My understanding is that a person can get on a terror watch list if someone from one of intel agency sticks you on it. There isn't any real due process or review involved. Which is OK for the purpose it's used for but not if it would be used as a basis to remove a constitutional right. Harder question is whether the legislation could be crafted in way that a ban would be based on the watch list but with added procedural safeguards. That might pass muster, especially with no Scalia.
FWIW then I'd be fine banning immigration from any Arab majority-country, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and letting in Muslims from Southeast Asia, India, and possibly parts of sub-Saharan Africa.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 14, 2016, 09:12:45 AMThe simple fact is--if you are not willing to accept our liberal Western values, you should not be allowed to move into this country, period. We to this day have laws on the books prohibiting people who were members of the Nazi party from moving here (albeit we of course made exceptions for guys like von Braun, and the language on immigration forms is pretty silly these days since anyone who was a practicing Nazi is now ancient, but it was there.) That's because we were taking a stand that we didn't want people like that in our country, because their values were incompatible with ours.
Islam is no different.
Yes. You either enforce the border, install a police state or endure endemic terrorism because of Muslims acting on the precepts of their faith.
Immigration isn't a civil rights issue. We need to accept that there is nothing immoral or even wrong about not wanting Muslims in America. Islam isn't something innate, it's a belief system. The United States should be able to decide who gets in and who doesn't get in. Anything that gets in the way of that--including the Constitution, must be pushed out of the way.
Quote from: Valmy on June 14, 2016, 09:39:46 AM
Quote from: celedhring on June 14, 2016, 09:29:05 AM
Yeah, I think the issue was that people on the list haven't been convicted of anything yet. But yanks can probably correct me on that. I always find it funny that they can bar you from boarding a plane but not from buying a gun but heh, America.
There is no right to fly a plane :hmm:
I have to admit that would have been farsighted of 18th century politicians to enshrine.
I know that, but it's still funny. Like how in several places it's illegal to own realistic looking toy guns, but it's legal to own the guns themselves (and yeah, I know the reason is so the police don't mistake a toy gun from a real gun).
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 14, 2016, 09:49:29 AM
The right to bear arms isn't a civil rights issue. We need to accept that there is nothing immoral or even wrong about not wanting guns in America. Guns aren't something innate, it's a lifestyle choice. The United States should be able to decide who gets them and who doesn't. Anything that gets in the way of that--including the Constitution, must be pushed out of the way.
Alternate version.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 14, 2016, 09:44:39 AM
Except it is: link (http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/11/europe/britain-muslims-survey/).
Polls concerning our actual Muslim population are irrelevant--because they ignore the history of Muslim immigration to the United States. Only about 26% of American Muslims are Arab, we have a large population of converted Muslims in the African American community (many started out as Nation members in the 50s/60s/70s when it was a major political movement, and most eventually converted to Sunni Islam if they didn't abandon the religion--as membership in the actual NoI is much lower now), and we also have a large portion of Muslims who are from India and other places where Islam tends to be practiced in a much less virulent way.
Britain's issue is a huge portion of its Muslims are from Pakistan, where we know Muslims can barely go a day without committing various atrocities, and all evidence suggests they take that behavior with them wherever they go. Only about 300,000 people of Pakistani heritage live in the United States.
So, since the Muslim populations of America and Britain (and Europe) are very different, your claims just aren't credible. All evidence we have from Britain suggests that Muslims are a serious problem in large numbers and fail to integrate appropriately.
I thought you were making blanket statements that all Muslims resisted integration. Are you saying instead that it isn't the religion that's the problem but the culture that the individuals come from?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 14, 2016, 09:44:39 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 14, 2016, 09:31:39 AM
You mention Hispanic immigrants to the US, and compare them with Muslim immigrants to the UK. Isn't the better comparison with Muslim immigrants to the US?
Actual polls concerning Muslims in America:
http://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/chapter-4-social-and-political-attitudes/
The poll numbers are telling. Muslims "score" almost exactly the same as Protestants generally on the question "homosexuality should be accepted by society": 45% of Muslims agree in 2014 (up from 38% in 2007 - so much for "unchanging Muslim attitudes"). Compare with Protestants generally: 48% in 2014, up from 38% in 2007. They do better than several other categories (Jehovah's Witnesses in 2014: 16%; Mormon: 36% Evangelical Christian: 36%).
Similar results from the question about same-sex marriage, though in that case Muslims do better: 42% of Muslims favour it, as opposed to 39% of Protestants generally.
I'm afraid your position is not fact based.
Except it is: link (http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/11/europe/britain-muslims-survey/).
Polls concerning our actual Muslim population are irrelevant--because they ignore the history of Muslim immigration to the United States. Only about 26% of American Muslims are Arab, we have a large population of converted Muslims in the African American community (many started out as Nation members in the 50s/60s/70s when it was a major political movement, and most eventually converted to Sunni Islam if they didn't abandon the religion--as membership in the actual NoI is much lower now), and we also have a large portion of Muslims who are from India and other places where Islam tends to be practiced in a much less virulent way.
Britain's issue is a huge portion of its Muslims are from Pakistan, where we know Muslims can barely go a day without committing various atrocities, and all evidence suggests they take that behavior with them wherever they go. Only about 300,000 people of Pakistani heritage live in the United States.
So, since the Muslim populations of America and Britain (and Europe) are very different, your claims just aren't credible. All evidence we have from Britain suggests that Muslims are a serious problem in large numbers and fail to integrate appropriately.
What has that to do with anything, though? People are arguing about "Muslims" generally, not about Pakistanis specifically. Is the claim now that we should bar Pakistanis? Why should Americans care particularly about a problem that you now allege is specific to Pakistanis living in the UK? You can't generalize from that, to Muslims generally in the US, let alone Muslims wanting to immigrate to the US.
According to the Pew Poll, the majority of Muslims in America are themselves immigrants:
QuoteAbout half of U.S. Muslims (51%) and 61% of Hindus say more immigrants is a change for the better; majorities of both groups are immigrants themselves.
The poll cites a link which I will not bore you with.
Therefore, actual evidence, as demonstrated by the Pew polls (whose legitimacy I have not seen seriously questioned), demonstrates that:
1. The "majority" of American Muslims are immigrants;
2. American Muslims are, as a group, no more homophobic than American Protestants; and so
3. All evidence we have
from America suggests that Muslims are not a serious problem in large numbers and do not fail to integrate appropriately.
Certainly, there are countries where homophobia is a virulent part of the culture - as I've already noted, Jamaica is allegedly one; no doubt several majority-Muslim countries fit the bill as well. However, be that as it may, the evidence demonstrates that actual immigrants
to America apparently integrate just fine on this issue (and on others - the poll covers a wide range of attitudes). I see no particular reason to suggest that the UK experience is more significant to what is likely to happen in America than the American experience.
I don't think Pewdiepie polls are universally accepted.
Quote from: dps on June 14, 2016, 06:40:40 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 14, 2016, 06:20:50 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 14, 2016, 01:08:55 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 14, 2016, 01:08:02 AM
I don't get it. Was he gay or homophobic or muslim?
d. All the above
Yeah, and I fail to see why him being gay actually changes anything about the analysis.
Nor do I. I'm seeing news reports that he had scouted Disney World as a possible target. If so, pretty clearly being an Islamic extremist had more to do with him carrying out a terrorist attack than any gay angle. Being a self-loathing gay man may or may not have been a factor in his ultimate choice of target, but I'd guess that he was likely going to carry out an attack of some sort anyway.
Yeah, definitely agree.
It is hard to peel the onion of crazy of course.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on June 14, 2016, 07:32:52 AM
Quote
That something is Islamism, or the desire to impose any version of Islam over any society. Jihadism is the attempt to do so by force. This ideology of Islamism has been rising almost unchecked among Muslims for decades. It is a theocratic ideology, and theocracy should no longer have any place in the world today.
given that this has been part of islam since mohammed did his thing she's basically proposing to take the islam out of islam. Good idea but higly unlikely to happen.
Quote
the Islamist ideology must be intellectually terminated. To do so requires first acknowledging it exists, isolating it from Muslims
to get rid of islamism is to get rid of islam. for by her definition islamism is what her prophet did.
No, you need to read what he is saying.
Islam is a religion.
Islamism is a political ideology that is founded on the idea that political power, organization, etc., etc. ought to come from Islam. IE, that the ideal society is a theocratic one (Iran, basically, or some version thereof).
Jihadism is the idea that one should move toward Islamism through force, rather than (or in addition to) a political process.
It is ridiculous to claim you can't have Islam without Islamism. We have that in many places today already, indeed, the vast majority of Muslims live in secular countries.
Quote3. All evidence we have from America suggests that Muslims are not a serious problem in large numbers and do not fail to integrate appropriately.
Generally our Muslims are fine but bear in mind that most of ours tend to be middle class educated types here for the jobs our moronic natives cannot do. They do not tend to be boat people types.
But I could be wrong about that.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 14, 2016, 09:49:29 AM
Immigration isn't a civil rights issue. We need to accept that there is nothing immoral or even wrong about not wanting Muslims in America. Islam isn't something innate, it's a belief system. The United States should be able to decide who gets in and who doesn't get in. Anything that gets in the way of that--including the Constitution, must be pushed out of the way.
Freedom of movement, and freedom from discrimination based on race or religion very much are civil rights issues.
Quote from: Valmy on June 14, 2016, 10:40:08 AM
Quote3. All evidence we have from America suggests that Muslims are not a serious problem in large numbers and do not fail to integrate appropriately.
Generally our Muslims are fine but bear in mind that most of ours tend to be middle class educated types here for the jobs our moronic natives cannot do. They do not tend to be boat people types.
But I could be wrong about that.
Seems the problem is not the older Muslims immigrants living here, but the second generation. IOW you don't see a 50 year old muslim blowing and shooting shit up. Recent incidents in Boston, San Bernardino, Oralando, Paris, Hebdo, London, etc. are the younger generation. Their version of millennials.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 14, 2016, 11:06:34 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 14, 2016, 10:40:08 AM
Quote3. All evidence we have from America suggests that Muslims are not a serious problem in large numbers and do not fail to integrate appropriately.
Generally our Muslims are fine but bear in mind that most of ours tend to be middle class educated types here for the jobs our moronic natives cannot do. They do not tend to be boat people types.
But I could be wrong about that.
Seems the problem is not the older Muslims immigrants living here, but the second generation. IOW you don't see a 50 year old muslim blowing and shooting shit up. Recent incidents in Boston, San Bernardino, Oralando, Paris, Hebdo, London, etc. are the younger generation. Their version of millennials.
Let's be careful here - we don't see a problem in the second generation either. We have such a tiny sample size that it is basically impossible to draw any kind of generalizations about them in particular. Reality is that there are literally millions of first and "n" generation Muslims living in the USA who have integrated just fine and are no threat to anyone.
There is no "Muslim problem" in the USA. There is a radicalized crazies problem, and the couple instances we have seen in the last few years have happened to be first generation. It would not be reasonable to presume that their status as that generation has any real bearing on the actual issue.
Quote from: Valmy on June 14, 2016, 10:40:08 AM
Quote3. All evidence we have from America suggests that Muslims are not a serious problem in large numbers and do not fail to integrate appropriately.
Generally our Muslims are fine but bear in mind that most of ours tend to be middle class educated types here for the jobs our moronic natives cannot do. They do not tend to be boat people types.
But I could be wrong about that.
No, you are right. Muslims in the US tend, on average, to be well-educated (and reasonably well off), better than the local norm. Demographics here:
http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/chapter-3-demographic-profiles-of-religious-groups/#religion-and-immigration
Part of my point being: questions such as homophobia and other backwards social attitudes are tied as much to such matters as class (and to a degree, country of origin) as to religion: it makes as much sense, or more, to say 'no immigration of poor and uneducated people' as it does to say 'no immigration of Muslims', if what you want is to prevent immigrants from worsening the body politic in terms of social attitudes. If you were gay and worried about your neighbors having homophobic attitudes, better to have a reasonably well off, well educated and Muslim Iranian, than a poorly educated, poor Jamaican Protestant - on average.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 14, 2016, 09:12:45 AM
Vis-a-vis comparing Jamaica to say, a Muslim country. The fact is we've had years of significant Muslim immigration into Europe. There was a famous poll last year in which over 50% of British Muslims believed the laws of Britain should be changed to make homosexuality illegal. Much of Britain's Muslim population has been there for years, and many are second and sometimes third generation.
On the other hand, gay marriage is largely unaccepted in Mexico and much of Latin America. However, Hispanic immigrants in the United States, after being significant opponents of gay marriage in the early 2000s, actually majority support gay marriage now.
The reason being they over time adopt the social values of the country to which they have emgirated. Muslims do not do that.
The simple fact is--if you are not willing to accept our liberal Western values, you should not be allowed to move into this country, period. We to this day have laws on the books prohibiting people who were members of the Nazi party from moving here (albeit we of course made exceptions for guys like von Braun, and the language on immigration forms is pretty silly these days since anyone who was a practicing Nazi is now ancient, but it was there.) That's because we were taking a stand that we didn't want people like that in our country, because their values were incompatible with ours.
Islam is no different.
Yeah but it seems Islam is actually different - as I said before, rationally there is no reason why it should be the case. I mean, I can get why people coming from Christian cultures assimilate better in the US and Europe - but there seems to be no simple rational explanation why Muslim immigrants would have it harder to assimilate than Hindu immigrants from India or non-Muslim immigrants from East Asia. Yet, it is the case.
The difference between a rationalist and an empiricist is that the former concludes that, because there is no apparent rational explanation, the data that suggests otherwise is ignored or seen as inaccurate; an empiricist takes the data and concludes there must be some currently inexplicable difference.
I am much more inclined to take an empirical approach to Islam than a rationalist one - and take special care when dealing with it.
Quote from: celedhring on June 14, 2016, 09:29:05 AM
I always find it funny that they can bar you from boarding a plane but not from buying a gun but heh, America.
I think it is pretty easy when you know two things about US constitution. :P
Saw a woman coming into work this morning, wearing her jilbab. As she was walking, I could see flashes of color at the hem by her feet: hot pink laces on Chuck Taylor All-Star high tops.
I found that interesting.
Quote from: Berkut on June 14, 2016, 11:09:49 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 14, 2016, 11:06:34 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 14, 2016, 10:40:08 AM
Quote3. All evidence we have from America suggests that Muslims are not a serious problem in large numbers and do not fail to integrate appropriately.
Generally our Muslims are fine but bear in mind that most of ours tend to be middle class educated types here for the jobs our moronic natives cannot do. They do not tend to be boat people types.
But I could be wrong about that.
Seems the problem is not the older Muslims immigrants living here, but the second generation. IOW you don't see a 50 year old muslim blowing and shooting shit up. Recent incidents in Boston, San Bernardino, Oralando, Paris, Hebdo, London, etc. are the younger generation. Their version of millennials.
Let's be careful here - we don't see a problem in the second generation either. We have such a tiny sample size that it is basically impossible to draw any kind of generalizations about them in particular. Reality is that there are literally millions of first and "n" generation Muslims living in the USA who have integrated just fine and are no threat to anyone.
There is no "Muslim problem" in the USA. There is a radicalized crazies problem, and the couple instances we have seen in the last few years have happened to be first generation. It would not be reasonable to presume that their status as that generation has any real bearing on the actual issue.
Yes, I suppose the starting point is what causing some Muslims to radicalize and what can we reasonably do to prevent/mitigate that, while not comprising our values...overly much (if at all)?
Quote from: Malthus on June 14, 2016, 09:31:39 AM
You mention Hispanic immigrants to the US, and compare them with Muslim immigrants to the UK. Isn't the better comparison with Muslim immigrants to the US?
Actual polls concerning Muslims in America:
http://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/chapter-4-social-and-political-attitudes/
The poll numbers are telling. Muslims "score" almost exactly the same as Protestants generally on the question "homosexuality should be accepted by society": 45% of Muslims agree in 2014 (up from 38% in 2007 - so much for "unchanging Muslim attitudes"). Compare with Protestants generally: 48% in 2014, up from 38% in 2007. They do better than several other categories (Jehovah's Witnesses in 2014: 16%; Mormon: 36% Evangelical Christian: 36%).
Similar results from the question about same-sex marriage, though in that case Muslims do better: 42% of Muslims favour it, as opposed to 39% of Protestants generally.
I'm afraid your position is not fact based.
That's interesting. I wasn't aware of this. Maybe US Muslims actually are different - and hence comes the vast gulf in attitudes between US and Europe.
I have seen some people saying that, generally, US Muslims come in only two kinds - either pretty much middle class Westernised type or crazy extremist types. Europe is different as we have a huge group of uneducated working class Muslims who are quite backward without necessarily being violently radical.
The reason for this is simple - the US is on a continent which has no Muslim country from which poor uneducated Muslims can come on foot or by boat - and buying a plane ticket to the US is beyond the means of all but the most succesful (and, by extension, educated and Westernised).
So a decision to bring in Syrian refugees may actually be more devastating in terms of effects in the US and Canada than it is in Europe - because in Europe we have already learned how to police such people (even though the effects are rather meagre).
Thing is, we don't keep them in ghettos or bar them from gainful employment. But that's just a variation on a theme when it comes to Europeans and ethnic minorities.
Quote from: Berkut on June 14, 2016, 10:37:26 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on June 14, 2016, 07:32:52 AM
Quote
That something is Islamism, or the desire to impose any version of Islam over any society. Jihadism is the attempt to do so by force. This ideology of Islamism has been rising almost unchecked among Muslims for decades. It is a theocratic ideology, and theocracy should no longer have any place in the world today.
given that this has been part of islam since mohammed did his thing she's basically proposing to take the islam out of islam. Good idea but higly unlikely to happen.
Quote
the Islamist ideology must be intellectually terminated. To do so requires first acknowledging it exists, isolating it from Muslims
to get rid of islamism is to get rid of islam. for by her definition islamism is what her prophet did.
No, you need to read what he is saying.
Islam is a religion.
Islamism is a political ideology that is founded on the idea that political power, organization, etc., etc. ought to come from Islam. IE, that the ideal society is a theocratic one (Iran, basically, or some version thereof).
Jihadism is the idea that one should move toward Islamism through force, rather than (or in addition to) a political process.
It is ridiculous to claim you can't have Islam without Islamism. We have that in many places today already, indeed, the vast majority of Muslims live in secular countries.
Yup. I think the point he is making is a very useful and valid distinction, imho.
You have three "levels": Islam, Islamism and Jihadism.
The sin of the left is that it just wants to oppose Jihadism but fails to oppose Islamism. The sin of the right is that it fails to make a distinction between Islam and Islamism. Now, out of those two, I think what the right is doing is less lethal and dangerous, at least for people like me. But I am willing to nuance that position if the left concedes theirs as well.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 14, 2016, 11:35:37 AM
Thing is, we don't keep them in ghettos or bar them from gainful employment. But that's just a variation on a theme when it comes to Europeans and ethnic minorities.
:jaron:
Quote from: Valmy on June 14, 2016, 10:40:08 AM
Quote3. All evidence we have from America suggests that Muslims are not a serious problem in large numbers and do not fail to integrate appropriately.
Generally our Muslims are fine but bear in mind that most of ours tend to be middle class educated types here for the jobs our moronic natives cannot do. They do not tend to be boat people types.
But I could be wrong about that.
:thumbsup:
Quote from: Malthus on June 14, 2016, 11:23:12 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 14, 2016, 10:40:08 AM
Quote3. All evidence we have from America suggests that Muslims are not a serious problem in large numbers and do not fail to integrate appropriately.
Generally our Muslims are fine but bear in mind that most of ours tend to be middle class educated types here for the jobs our moronic natives cannot do. They do not tend to be boat people types.
But I could be wrong about that.
No, you are right. Muslims in the US tend, on average, to be well-educated (and reasonably well off), better than the local norm. Demographics here:
http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/chapter-3-demographic-profiles-of-religious-groups/#religion-and-immigration
Part of my point being: questions such as homophobia and other backwards social attitudes are tied as much to such matters as class (and to a degree, country of origin) as to religion: it makes as much sense, or more, to say 'no immigration of poor and uneducated people' as it does to say 'no immigration of Muslims', if what you want is to prevent immigrants from worsening the body politic in terms of social attitudes. If you were gay and worried about your neighbors having homophobic attitudes, better to have a reasonably well off, well educated and Muslim Iranian, than a poorly educated, poor Jamaican Protestant - on average.
Yeah but then how do you explain rich Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia that punish homosexuality with death and relatively average or poor Latino countries like Uruguay which have gay marriage?
Quote from: Berkut on June 14, 2016, 10:37:26 AM
Islam is a religion.
Islamism is a political ideology that is founded on the idea that political power, organization, etc., etc. ought to come from Islam.
in that case there's no difference between the two as Islam has that same property.
But then Islam is not purely a religion, but also an ideology.
Quote from: Martinus on June 14, 2016, 11:47:18 AM
Yeah but then how do you explain rich Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia that punish homosexuality with death and relatively average or poor Latino countries like Uruguay which have gay marriage?
One is an authoritarian monarchy and the other is a republic.
Quote from: Malthus on June 14, 2016, 11:23:12 AM
it makes as much sense, or more, to say 'no immigration of poor and uneducated people' as it does to say 'no immigration of Muslims'
Well to be fair that is kind of what our immigration laws attempt to achieve. Or at least limit.
What is commonly identified as "Islamism" is a modern phenomenon, predominantly late 20 century and later in fact. Highly literalist and decontextualized readings of the Quran and Hadith emerge with Wahhab and take root in late 18th century Arabia and get intellectual footholds in the 19th and 20th centuries in India, the ME and parts of Africa.. But it isn't until the huge waves of Saudi petrodollars sweep through the Sunni world beginning in the 1970s that this tendency really spreads more widely. There are a few historical precursors like iby Taymiyya - but that's an exception that proves the rule - ibn Taymiyya spent most his life in prison for doctrinal deviancy and being a general pain in everyone's ass. By way of comparison, there is only one documented case of stoning in the entire history of the Ottoman Empire.
This explains why you see many Muslims resisting references to AQ and IS types as "Islamic terrorists." Because they see it as a key concession of principle to allow what they see as a deviant heresy to claim the mantle of Islam. You don't have to agree with that view to understand it.
Which is actually a view that should be very encouraged. And actually that kind of explains why second generation westernized kids are more prone to be seduced by it.
Heretical terrorism we could brand it :P
Quote from: Valmy on June 14, 2016, 12:24:02 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 14, 2016, 11:23:12 AM
it makes as much sense, or more, to say 'no immigration of poor and uneducated people' as it does to say 'no immigration of Muslims'
Well to be fair that is kind of what our immigration laws attempt to achieve. Or at least limit.
Certainly - but it is a far different thing than Trump's proposed blanket ban on Muslims entering the US. My point is that the first makes a certain amount of sense, while the last doesn't.
Quote from: Martinus on June 14, 2016, 11:47:18 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 14, 2016, 11:23:12 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 14, 2016, 10:40:08 AM
Quote3. All evidence we have from America suggests that Muslims are not a serious problem in large numbers and do not fail to integrate appropriately.
Generally our Muslims are fine but bear in mind that most of ours tend to be middle class educated types here for the jobs our moronic natives cannot do. They do not tend to be boat people types.
But I could be wrong about that.
No, you are right. Muslims in the US tend, on average, to be well-educated (and reasonably well off), better than the local norm. Demographics here:
http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/chapter-3-demographic-profiles-of-religious-groups/#religion-and-immigration
Part of my point being: questions such as homophobia and other backwards social attitudes are tied as much to such matters as class (and to a degree, country of origin) as to religion: it makes as much sense, or more, to say 'no immigration of poor and uneducated people' as it does to say 'no immigration of Muslims', if what you want is to prevent immigrants from worsening the body politic in terms of social attitudes. If you were gay and worried about your neighbors having homophobic attitudes, better to have a reasonably well off, well educated and Muslim Iranian, than a poorly educated, poor Jamaican Protestant - on average.
Yeah but then how do you explain rich Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia that punish homosexuality with death and relatively average or poor Latino countries like Uruguay which have gay marriage?
The discussion is about individuals and not countries. Country of origin is another variable.
So, to use the example I've been using, Jamaica as a country of origin adds a degree of risk (of homophobia for individuals coming from it) greater than (say) Sweden, even though both are majority Protestant countries.
Another risk, particularly acute in the case of third world countries, is lack of education and poverty (often, but not always, they go hand-in-hand). Of the two, lack of education appears to be the most accurate predictor of virulent homophobia.
A traditional religious upbringing adds yet another level.
So take someone who immigrated from Saudi Arabia: he (assume its a man) has a strike against him, because of his country of origin: the country is notoriously homophobic. But then, you look at more factors. Is he highly educated? Is he from a "traditional" or religious background? If the answer is "he's very highly educated, and not from a particularly traditional religious background", you may get someone like a senior partner at my firm for whom I've done quite a bit of work: he's a Saudi Muslim, not in the least homophobic, and the first to declare that the Wahabbi Saudi religious authorities are a bunch of backwards, evil nutters. In short, he's fully "assimilated" to North American values on the specific matter of gay rights (and on many others), though unsurprisingly he also thinks Trump is a dangerous blowhard. ;)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 14, 2016, 09:54:25 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 14, 2016, 09:49:29 AM
The right to bear arms isn't a civil rights issue. We need to accept that there is nothing immoral or even wrong about not wanting guns in America. Guns aren't something innate, it's a lifestyle choice. The United States should be able to decide who gets them and who doesn't. Anything that gets in the way of that--including the Constitution, must be pushed out of the way.
Alternate version.
I'm fine with that as long as police/ex police and military/ex-military can own private firearms. I have no affinity for mass firearm ownership.
However from a legal perspective I am not sure immigration, which has always been a political question decided by Congress, is the same as firearms ownership which there is an accepted (by the Supreme Court) individual right to own firearms.
As much as I question the wisdom of widespread firearms ownership, I don't believe regulation of it under our current constitution is as straightforward as immigration. But just like I advocate changing the constitution if necessary to prohibit Muslim immigration I'd be fine with changing the constitution to reduce firearms ownership.
These words were once sung by an American prophet. Was he insane? Maybe, but what prophet isn't? Hell, what American isn't?
QuoteImmigrants and faggots
They make no sense to me
They come to our country
And think they'll do as they please
Like start some mini Iran,
Or spread some fuckin' disease
They talk so many goddamn ways
It's all Greek to me
Radicals and racists
Don't point your finger at me
I'm a small town white boy
Just tryin' to make ends meet
Don't need your religion
Don't watch that much T.V.
Just makin' my livin', baby
Well that's enough for me
Quote from: frunk on June 14, 2016, 09:55:07 AMI thought you were making blanket statements that all Muslims resisted integration. Are you saying instead that it isn't the religion that's the problem but the culture that the individuals come from?
Not really, no. I had hoped to not have to wade into this too much, but just like Christianity Islam has sects. Some are much more injurious than others. Unfortunately for us, the worst of Islam tends to be concentrated in the Gulf States and the Levant, where Wahhabism/Salafism is practiced widely. That is where most of our immigration into Europe is coming from right now. The school of Sharia law Pakistanis follow (Hanafi) is also extremely bad.
I'd mostly be cool with immigrants who followed the tenets of Sufism, but the reality is there is no easy way to determine who follows which of these ideologies upon immigration. That's why a more aggressive ban is required.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on June 14, 2016, 11:54:58 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 14, 2016, 10:37:26 AM
Islam is a religion.
Islamism is a political ideology that is founded on the idea that political power, organization, etc., etc. ought to come from Islam.
in that case there's no difference between the two as Islam has that same property.
But then Islam is not purely a religion, but also an ideology.
I love the way you cut out the part of my post that addresses *exactly* your "conclusion", and clearly refutes it.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 14, 2016, 09:12:45 AM
The simple fact is--if you are not willing to accept our liberal Western values, you should not be allowed to move into this country, period. We to this day have laws on the books prohibiting people who were members of the Nazi party from moving here (albeit we of course made exceptions for guys like von Braun, and the language on immigration forms is pretty silly these days since anyone who was a practicing Nazi is now ancient, but it was there.) That's because we were taking a stand that we didn't want people like that in our country, because their values were incompatible with ours.
I got a kick out of my wife having to swear she wasn't a member of the SS when she signed her naturalization papers.
Quote from: Barrister on June 14, 2016, 10:41:49 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 14, 2016, 09:49:29 AM
Immigration isn't a civil rights issue. We need to accept that there is nothing immoral or even wrong about not wanting Muslims in America. Islam isn't something innate, it's a belief system. The United States should be able to decide who gets in and who doesn't get in. Anything that gets in the way of that--including the Constitution, must be pushed out of the way.
Freedom of movement, and freedom from discrimination based on race or religion very much are civil rights issues.
Disagreed.
Quote from: derspiess on June 14, 2016, 01:12:56 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 14, 2016, 09:12:45 AM
The simple fact is--if you are not willing to accept our liberal Western values, you should not be allowed to move into this country, period. We to this day have laws on the books prohibiting people who were members of the Nazi party from moving here (albeit we of course made exceptions for guys like von Braun, and the language on immigration forms is pretty silly these days since anyone who was a practicing Nazi is now ancient, but it was there.) That's because we were taking a stand that we didn't want people like that in our country, because their values were incompatible with ours.
I got a kick out of my wife having to swear she wasn't a member of the SS when she signed her naturalization papers.
If she's from Argentina, it's a reasonable question to ask. :P
Quote from: Malthus on June 14, 2016, 11:23:12 AMNo, you are right. Muslims in the US tend, on average, to be well-educated (and reasonably well off), better than the local norm. Demographics here:
http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/chapter-3-demographic-profiles-of-religious-groups/#religion-and-immigration
Part of my point being: questions such as homophobia and other backwards social attitudes are tied as much to such matters as class (and to a degree, country of origin) as to religion: it makes as much sense, or more, to say 'no immigration of poor and uneducated people' as it does to say 'no immigration of Muslims', if what you want is to prevent immigrants from worsening the body politic in terms of social attitudes. If you were gay and worried about your neighbors having homophobic attitudes, better to have a reasonably well off, well educated and Muslim Iranian, than a poorly educated, poor Jamaican Protestant - on average.
The 9/11 hijackers were all middle class or upper class in Saudi Arabia. Further, I fully agree we shouldn't have poor uneducated immigrants. I don't want those either. It's weird you'd consider that some odd position to hold, there is no benefit to uneducated immigrants in the 21st century. It isn't the 20th/19th century where we had a need for tons of low skilled labor.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 14, 2016, 01:17:03 PM
The 9/11 hijackers were all middle class or upper class in Saudi Arabia.
I'm describing homophobic attitudes on average. Specific terrorist acts have nothing to do with that discussion.
Quote
Further, I fully agree we shouldn't have poor uneducated immigrants. I don't want those either. It's weird you'd consider that some odd position to hold, there is no benefit to uneducated immigrants in the 21st century. It isn't the 20th/19th century where we had a need for tons of low skilled labor.
Where did I say that was an odd position to hold? I thought I said that position "makes a certain amount of sense", in contrast to Trump's proposed blanket exclusion of Muslims, which doesn't.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 14, 2016, 01:00:39 PM
However from a legal perspective I am not sure immigration, which has always been a political question decided by Congress, is the same as firearms ownership which there is an accepted (by the Supreme Court) individual right to own firearms.
As much as I question the wisdom of widespread firearms ownership, I don't believe regulation of it under our current constitution is as straightforward as immigration. But just like I advocate changing the constitution if necessary to prohibit Muslim immigration I'd be fine with changing the constitution to reduce firearms ownership.
There's no right for foreigners to immigrate to the US. If you wanted to legally you could stop all immigration. Whether that would be a good idea economically, and given the problems with illegal immigration whether it could practically be done, are questions for another day.
But once you do allow immigration it has to be done in compliance with the Bill of Rights. And allowing/rejecting immigrants based on their religion would clearly violate the 1st amendment.
Amending the constitution means amending the separation of church and state. I'm not sure you really want to go down that road...
Well, to be fair Trump is not proposing a blanket ban on Muslim immigrants - he is proposing to ban immigration from Muslim countries *until we figure out what's going on*. Assuming he is not expecting this ban to last indefinitely, this may be a prelude for a sound policy. Or not. But you are mischaracterising it.
Quote from: Barrister on June 14, 2016, 01:23:06 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 14, 2016, 01:00:39 PM
However from a legal perspective I am not sure immigration, which has always been a political question decided by Congress, is the same as firearms ownership which there is an accepted (by the Supreme Court) individual right to own firearms.
As much as I question the wisdom of widespread firearms ownership, I don't believe regulation of it under our current constitution is as straightforward as immigration. But just like I advocate changing the constitution if necessary to prohibit Muslim immigration I'd be fine with changing the constitution to reduce firearms ownership.
There's no right for foreigners to immigrate to the US. If you wanted to legally you could stop all immigration. Whether that would be a good idea economically, and given the problems with illegal immigration whether it could practically be done, are questions for another day.
But once you do allow immigration it has to be done in compliance with the Bill of Rights. And allowing/rejecting immigrants based on their religion would clearly violate the 1st amendment.
Amending the constitution means amending the separation of church and state. I'm not sure you really want to go down that road...
You are wrong. The 1st amendment bans imposing a state church. It does not mean members of certain religions cannot be banned from entering the US.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 14, 2016, 01:09:19 PM
Not really, no. I had hoped to not have to wade into this too much, but just like Christianity Islam has sects. Some are much more injurious than others. Unfortunately for us, the worst of Islam tends to be concentrated in the Gulf States and the Levant, where Wahhabism/Salafism is practiced widely. That is where most of our immigration into Europe is coming from right now. The school of Sharia law Pakistanis follow (Hanafi) is also extremely bad.
I'd mostly be cool with immigrants who followed the tenets of Sufism, but the reality is there is no easy way to determine who follows which of these ideologies upon immigration. That's why a more aggressive ban is required.
You do recognize distinctions based on differences within Islam and don't think that Muslims by their very nature are unable to integrate, you just choose to ignore those because of the risks from the more extreme elements. That's completely different from saying that Muslims can't integrate.
The US clearly can limit immigration from current or former members of certain organizations without dumping the Constitution.
Quote from: frunk on June 14, 2016, 01:25:30 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 14, 2016, 01:09:19 PM
Not really, no. I had hoped to not have to wade into this too much, but just like Christianity Islam has sects. Some are much more injurious than others. Unfortunately for us, the worst of Islam tends to be concentrated in the Gulf States and the Levant, where Wahhabism/Salafism is practiced widely. That is where most of our immigration into Europe is coming from right now. The school of Sharia law Pakistanis follow (Hanafi) is also extremely bad.
I'd mostly be cool with immigrants who followed the tenets of Sufism, but the reality is there is no easy way to determine who follows which of these ideologies upon immigration. That's why a more aggressive ban is required.
You do recognize distinctions based on differences within Islam and don't think that Muslims by their very nature are unable to integrate, you just choose to ignore those because of the risks from the more extreme elements. That's completely different from saying that Muslims can't integrate.
Yes. It's not an unreasonable position to take.
It is also not that different from Trump's position. He is not saying ban all Muslims in eternity. He is saying that we need to come up with a way of telling "good Muslims" from "bad Muslims" apart. And until we do, we should have a moratorium on more Muslims entering the US. It's really not as crazy as some people here paint it if you assume his position is genuine and he actually wants to figure it out and eventually allow "good Muslims" to enter.
Quote from: Martinus on June 14, 2016, 01:24:20 PM
Well, to be fair Trump is not proposing a blanket ban on Muslim immigrants - he is proposing to ban immigration from Muslim countries *until we figure out what's going on*. Assuming he is not expecting this ban to last indefinitely, this may be a prelude for a sound policy. Or not. But you are mischaracterising it.
It is essentially impossible to determine exactly what Trump proposes, because it lacks any sort of specifics and he keeps changing what he says. This has been his pattern on almost every issue.
However, his original proposal was exactly that: ban all Muslims. I mean, here it is on his own website:
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration
QuoteNew York, NY) December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.
I can't believe anyone takes seriously the notion that this is just a brief pause until a sound policy is worked out.
Quote from: Malthus on June 14, 2016, 01:35:24 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 14, 2016, 01:24:20 PM
Well, to be fair Trump is not proposing a blanket ban on Muslim immigrants - he is proposing to ban immigration from Muslim countries *until we figure out what's going on*. Assuming he is not expecting this ban to last indefinitely, this may be a prelude for a sound policy. Or not. But you are mischaracterising it.
It is essentially impossible to determine exactly what Trump proposes, because it lacks any sort of specifics and he keeps changing what he says. This has been his pattern on almost every issue.
However, his original proposal was exactly that: ban all Muslims. I mean, here it is on his own website:
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration
QuoteNew York, NY) December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.
Err, the bolded part is exactly saying what I said and contradicts what you said.
But the part BEFORE the bolded parts is exactly what he said and contradicts what you said :hmm:
Quote from: Martinus on June 14, 2016, 01:37:51 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 14, 2016, 01:35:24 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 14, 2016, 01:24:20 PM
Well, to be fair Trump is not proposing a blanket ban on Muslim immigrants - he is proposing to ban immigration from Muslim countries *until we figure out what's going on*. Assuming he is not expecting this ban to last indefinitely, this may be a prelude for a sound policy. Or not. But you are mischaracterising it.
It is essentially impossible to determine exactly what Trump proposes, because it lacks any sort of specifics and he keeps changing what he says. This has been his pattern on almost every issue.
However, his original proposal was exactly that: ban all Muslims. I mean, here it is on his own website:
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration
QuoteNew York, NY) December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.
Err, the bolded part is exactly saying what I said and contradicts what you said.
Sounds pretty permanent to me.
Quote from: Martinus on June 14, 2016, 01:37:51 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 14, 2016, 01:35:24 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 14, 2016, 01:24:20 PM
Well, to be fair Trump is not proposing a blanket ban on Muslim immigrants - he is proposing to ban immigration from Muslim countries *until we figure out what's going on*. Assuming he is not expecting this ban to last indefinitely, this may be a prelude for a sound policy. Or not. But you are mischaracterising it.
It is essentially impossible to determine exactly what Trump proposes, because it lacks any sort of specifics and he keeps changing what he says. This has been his pattern on almost every issue.
However, his original proposal was exactly that: ban all Muslims. I mean, here it is on his own website:
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration
QuoteNew York, NY) December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.
Err, the bolded part is exactly saying what I said and contradicts what you said.
I thought that might be what you meant, but dismissed it as being too absurd for anyone to hang their argument on. :D
Yes, he does claim the ban is limited "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on". That's an idiomatic phrase understood to be like "until the cows come home" or "when the work's all done". It means, and is clearly intended to mean, "never". :lol:
What I thought was your [more reasonable] argument was that the ban wasn't on "Muslims" per se but on people from "Muslim countries".
Quote from: Martinus on June 14, 2016, 01:25:03 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 14, 2016, 01:23:06 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 14, 2016, 01:00:39 PM
However from a legal perspective I am not sure immigration, which has always been a political question decided by Congress, is the same as firearms ownership which there is an accepted (by the Supreme Court) individual right to own firearms.
As much as I question the wisdom of widespread firearms ownership, I don't believe regulation of it under our current constitution is as straightforward as immigration. But just like I advocate changing the constitution if necessary to prohibit Muslim immigration I'd be fine with changing the constitution to reduce firearms ownership.
There's no right for foreigners to immigrate to the US. If you wanted to legally you could stop all immigration. Whether that would be a good idea economically, and given the problems with illegal immigration whether it could practically be done, are questions for another day.
But once you do allow immigration it has to be done in compliance with the Bill of Rights. And allowing/rejecting immigrants based on their religion would clearly violate the 1st amendment.
Amending the constitution means amending the separation of church and state. I'm not sure you really want to go down that road...
You are wrong. The 1st amendment bans imposing a state church. It does not mean members of certain religions cannot be banned from entering the US.
Interesting given that a quick search says that whether or not this would pass judicial review is up in the air.
See, your problem, guys, is that you are reading Trump's shit like he was a politician. I don't think it's that.
I spoke with Jaron about it recently and he made a very interesting observation - Trump talks like someone who is not used to getting stuff he says challenged. He doesn't carefully consider his words. He talks like a boss, like a CEO (Malthus, I am sure, as a lawyer, you had clients like that). He rambles, he makes long soliloquys, he says stuff that, when taken out of context may sound stupid, but when you take it all together, it makes sense and you get what he is saying. So when he says he wants to ban Muslims entering the country "until we figure it out", I think he means it and it is not just a way to say he will never lift the ban.
The United States doesn't have "representatives"
There is a "House of Representatives" but I doubt that is what Trump meant.
Although trying to parse through the fetid pieces of verbal diarrhea that spew forth from his mouth is a fool's errand.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 14, 2016, 01:48:03 PM
The United States doesn't have "representatives"
There is a "House of Representatives" but I doubt that is what Trump meant.
Oh please. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Martinus on June 14, 2016, 01:46:33 PM
See, your problem, guys, is that you are reading Trump's shit like he was a politician. I don't think it's that.
I spoke with Jaron about it recently and he made a very interesting observation - Trump talks like someone who is not used to getting stuff he says challenged. He doesn't carefully consider his words. He talks like a boss, like a CEO (Malthus, I am sure, as a lawyer, you had clients like that). He rambles, he makes long soliloquys, he says stuff that, when taken out of context may sound stupid, but when you take it all together, it makes sense and you get what he is saying. So when he says he wants to ban Muslims entering the country "until we figure it out", I think he means it and it is not just a way to say he will never lift the ban.
CEOs have boards, shareholders, employees, and customers they have to be able to communicate with. Trump sounds like an independent businessman who has been surrounded by yes men his entire life.
Quote from: Martinus on June 14, 2016, 01:46:33 PM
See, your problem, guys, is that you are reading Trump's shit like he was a politician. I don't think it's that.
I spoke with Jaron about it recently and he made a very interesting observation - Trump talks like someone who is not used to getting stuff he says challenged. He doesn't carefully consider his words. He talks like a boss, like a CEO (Malthus, I am sure, as a lawyer, you had clients like that). He rambles, he makes long soliloquys, he says stuff that, when taken out of context may sound stupid, but when you take it all together, it makes sense and you get what he is saying. So when he says he wants to ban Muslims entering the country "until we figure it out", I think he means it and it is not just a way to say he will never lift the ban.
The proposal creates severe problems even assuming he sincerely meant it to be temporary.
Banning travel from certain countries is easy, countries have done that frequently for various reasons; it is easy to discriminate based on country of origin, or to demand vicious visa requirements from country A but not from country B. All you have to do is look at a passport.
Banning travel by "Muslims" is hard (and seriously stupid). There is no way of knowing who is a Muslim and who isn't, aside from a prohibitively invasive level of scrutiny. Many Muslims live in other First World countries, who are likely to take significant offence if their citizens are subject to religious discrimination at the border.
Quote from: Martinus on June 14, 2016, 01:46:33 PM
Trump talks like someone who is not used to getting stuff he says challenged. He doesn't carefully consider his words. He talks like a boss, like a CEO (Malthus, I am sure, as a lawyer, you had clients like that). He rambles, he makes long soliloquys, he says stuff that, when taken out of context may sound stupid, but when you take it all together, it makes sense and you get what he is saying. So when he says he wants to ban Muslims entering the country "until we figure it out", I think he means it and it is not just a way to say he will never lift the ban.
You almost had me until the last part.
What he says doesn't make sense and I don't get what he is saying. Who are these representatives? - DHS? FBI/CIA? the President? The justice department? the executive branch writ large? the Congress? The Courts?
What are these people supposed to be figuring out? How to predict behavior? Make windows into men's souls? What is the unknown factor here that requires additional data to sort through?
See there is a much more simple view here. One is what Malthus says - he is just giving a verbal placeholder for the indefinite. Another is that he is doing what CEO types often do - cover their ass with vague hand waving while preserving maximum flexibility to act as he or she pleases.
Well if the leader making incomprehensible rants and the underlings scrambling to try to somehow figure out what the wise policy behind those rants was is his management style then damn. Maybe he really is Hitler :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on June 14, 2016, 01:25:03 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 14, 2016, 01:23:06 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 14, 2016, 01:00:39 PM
However from a legal perspective I am not sure immigration, which has always been a political question decided by Congress, is the same as firearms ownership which there is an accepted (by the Supreme Court) individual right to own firearms.
As much as I question the wisdom of widespread firearms ownership, I don't believe regulation of it under our current constitution is as straightforward as immigration. But just like I advocate changing the constitution if necessary to prohibit Muslim immigration I'd be fine with changing the constitution to reduce firearms ownership.
There's no right for foreigners to immigrate to the US. If you wanted to legally you could stop all immigration. Whether that would be a good idea economically, and given the problems with illegal immigration whether it could practically be done, are questions for another day.
But once you do allow immigration it has to be done in compliance with the Bill of Rights. And allowing/rejecting immigrants based on their religion would clearly violate the 1st amendment.
Amending the constitution means amending the separation of church and state. I'm not sure you really want to go down that road...
You are wrong. The 1st amendment bans imposing a state church. It does not mean members of certain religions cannot be banned from entering the US.
Oh come on. Now I know we're both non-American lawyers, but surely you have some passing familiarity with the past 200+ years of caselaw on the 1st amendment? It's been held to go a hell of a lot further than not establishing a state church. The courts have held that it means there must be a complete separation between church and state, which includes not giving preference to members of one religion over another.
I'm surprised by the intensity of the fighting for ownership of this slaughter.
Quote from: Martinus on June 14, 2016, 01:46:33 PM
See, your problem, guys, is that you are reading Trump's shit like he was a politician. I don't think it's that.
I spoke with Jaron about it recently and he made a very interesting observation - Trump talks like someone who is not used to getting stuff he says challenged. He doesn't carefully consider his words. He talks like a boss, like a CEO (Malthus, I am sure, as a lawyer, you had clients like that). He rambles, he makes long soliloquys, he says stuff that, when taken out of context may sound stupid, but when you take it all together, it makes sense and you get what he is saying. So when he says he wants to ban Muslims entering the country "until we figure it out", I think he means it and it is not just a way to say he will never lift the ban.
Perhaps instead of judging Trump by the standards of elected officials, the standard of facts and logic, we should interpret his behavior as a form of performance art. Instead of viewing this as a speech about banning Muslims and hinting that the President is master-minding massacres against the American people it really should be seen as acting out all the parts of "
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest", simultaneously.
A collage of Muslim people commenting on the attack:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xtp1/v/t1.0-9/13394154_10154224572609076_344580944804471067_n.jpg?oh=d24d6f95ca6f6cf20981974009924685&oe=58046A95&__gda__=1472653747_f892632921b8e03570ac947aa74cd0fc)
A collage of Alt-Right people going on about some guy I never heard of.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FVP6KGFv.jpg&hash=b8cab01da85b470bc51e028ac56529ab43dd0ef8)
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/orlando-nightclub-massacre/omar-mateen-s-wife-tried-talk-him-out-orlando-attack-n592051
Should she be charged?
I am just glad they are not saying this was a US government plot to make Islam look bad.
LOL at an Arab calling our politics corrupt. Though that guy is probably Swedish or something.
Quote from: Martinus on June 14, 2016, 02:33:02 PM
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/orlando-nightclub-massacre/omar-mateen-s-wife-tried-talk-him-out-orlando-attack-n592051
Should she be charged?
I she drove him to the place to scope it out and she knew what his intentions were? Sounds like it to me. That is called being an accessory. Feel bad for the kid though.
She drove him to the club "to scope it out" = overt act.
Quote from: Valmy on June 14, 2016, 02:36:05 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 14, 2016, 02:33:02 PM
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/orlando-nightclub-massacre/omar-mateen-s-wife-tried-talk-him-out-orlando-attack-n592051
Should she be charged?
I she drove him to the place to scope it out and she knew what his intentions were? Sounds like it to me.
Agreed.
Quote from: Valmy on June 14, 2016, 02:34:14 PM
I am just glad they are not saying this was a US government plot to make Islam look bad.
I saw comments in English from people who had Arabic squiggles in their name that said just that. :P
Quote from: Valmy on June 14, 2016, 02:36:05 PMFeel bad for the kid though.
Keep him away from crazy Afghan grandpa. :wacko:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fscallywagandvagabond.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F06%2FSeddique-Mateen11.jpg&hash=9f74dbb6cf33c502ede7bb055b96f1b1d5711e7c)
Quote from: Martinus on June 14, 2016, 02:26:21 PM
A collage of Muslim people commenting on the attack:
Apparently there is a running joke in the ISIS online community about "what filter are the kuffar gonna use next" after each massacre they commit.
Quote from: Berkut on June 14, 2016, 01:09:34 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on June 14, 2016, 11:54:58 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 14, 2016, 10:37:26 AM
Islam is a religion.
Islamism is a political ideology that is founded on the idea that political power, organization, etc., etc. ought to come from Islam.
in that case there's no difference between the two as Islam has that same property.
But then Islam is not purely a religion, but also an ideology.
I love the way you cut out the part of my post that addresses *exactly* your "conclusion", and clearly refutes it.
that's because nothing was refuted. the list of signatories of the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam shows how seriously we can take these 'secular' muslim majority states.
Quote from: Martinus on June 14, 2016, 02:26:21 PM
A collage of Muslim people commenting on the attack:
You are such a dishonest asshole.
Quote from: Valmy on June 14, 2016, 02:36:05 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 14, 2016, 02:33:02 PM
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/orlando-nightclub-massacre/omar-mateen-s-wife-tried-talk-him-out-orlando-attack-n592051
Should she be charged?
I she drove him to the place to scope it out and she knew what his intentions were? Sounds like it to me. That is called being an accessory. Feel bad for the kid though.
Oh man WTF
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 14, 2016, 02:40:13 PM
She drove him to the club "to scope it out" = overt act.
"she tried to talk her husband out of carrying out the attack" could constitute abandonment. It's going to depend on the specific timing of when everything went down.
So, this couple I posted about earlier, they were going to get married. Their families are now going to host a joint funeral for them. :(
(https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/juan.jpeg?quality=75&strip=color&w=750)
http://time.com/4366957/orlando-shooting-juan-guerrero-christopher-drew-leinonen/?xid=time_socialflow_facebook
The pictures of them with their families show they were loving and accepting. It's so heartbreaking. :(
I hope we can get a photo of them posted in this thread at least one more time.
Quote from: garbon on June 14, 2016, 03:07:18 PM
I hope we can get a photo of them posted in this thread at least one more time.
Fourth times the charm?
I guess those men struck a chord with Marty.
Quote from: garbon on June 14, 2016, 03:07:18 PM
I hope we can get a photo of them posted in this thread at least one more time.
I am sorry a brutal heartless massacre of good, loving people is not providing you with an opportunity for a "pleasant discussion".
Quote from: Martinus on June 14, 2016, 03:08:53 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 14, 2016, 03:07:18 PM
I hope we can get a photo of them posted in this thread at least one more time.
I am sorry a brutal heartless massacre of good, loving people is not providing you with an opportunity for a "pleasant discussion".
I know it might not be everyone's take, but I've never seen much of the point in the constant plastering of what the victims were like and delving into their aborted dreams, plans and hopes. The tragedy is all too real and heartbreaking without an endless cycle of viewing who they were and who they will never be.
Quote from: Martinus on June 14, 2016, 03:08:53 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 14, 2016, 03:07:18 PM
I hope we can get a photo of them posted in this thread at least one more time.
I am sorry a brutal heartless massacre of good, loving people is not providing you with an opportunity for a "pleasant discussion".
You need to know when to throttle back and pull up. You just go into a steep dive and firewall the throttle.
I am still wondering what Marti is doing here if he doesn't find it a pleasant diversion.
Quote from: garbon on June 14, 2016, 03:25:16 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 14, 2016, 03:08:53 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 14, 2016, 03:07:18 PM
I hope we can get a photo of them posted in this thread at least one more time.
I am sorry a brutal heartless massacre of good, loving people is not providing you with an opportunity for a "pleasant discussion".
I know it might not be everyone's take, but I've never seen much of the point in the constant plastering of what the victim's were like and delving into their aborted dreams, plans and hopes. The tragedy is all to real and heartbreaking with and endless cycle of viewing who they were and who they will never be.
We all cope differently.
Quote from: garbon on June 14, 2016, 03:29:18 PM
I am still wondering what Marti is doing here if he doesn't find it a pleasant diversion.
I do find it a fun diversion - but my concept of fun doesn't involve "pleasant".
Quote from: Martinus on June 14, 2016, 03:33:58 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 14, 2016, 03:29:18 PM
I am still wondering what Marti is doing here if he doesn't find it a pleasant diversion.
I do find it a fun diversion - but my concept of fun doesn't involve "pleasant".
Clearly. ;)
Martinus: Having no intention to crawl through a 40-page rant I was wondering what your thoughts are on the fact that the shooter might be gay.
Quote from: barkdreg on June 14, 2016, 04:44:21 PM
Martinus: Having no intention to crawl through a 40-page rant I was wondering what your thoughts are on the fact that the shooter might be gay.
I think at the least we need to take a hard look at letting more gay men into the country, given their habit of shooting people.
Until we can figure it all out, we should probably just ban all gay immigrants, just to be sure.
Quote from: Barrister on June 12, 2016, 11:56:20 PM
Can't we just mourn all these deaths? Can't we agree this was an attack motivated by BOTH radical islam and homophobia?
I will read the rest of this thread, where no doubt most of this has already been said - but that's never stopped me before.
I got riled about this because Jones said that it was both. The host basically started objecting when he was talking about it as a homophobic attack. The host said something along the lines of it was 'an attack on all people' and an 'attack on all people who want to go out and part on a Saturday'. That was my, and Jones' issue. It's not true. It's no more right than saying that the killings in the Kosher supermarket was an attack on us all or an attack on anyone doing their shopping. Maybe that's part of it, but it was also an attack on specific gay or Jewish people.
So I think it's part of our language when we deal with a terrorist attack now to universalise it. So we are all France, we are all America, je suis Charlie - but it does come at the danger of erasing the particular differences and nuances (which often are actually the target - that diversity, that liberal co-existence of difference). I think there is a risk in a case like this of mourning the gay away when, in my opinion that should be front and centre in our coverage of this. Regardless of this man's motivations the reason these 50 individuals died is because they were gay/comfortable with the gays. Obviously there were straight victims too, Jones aptly mentioned the Admiral Duncan which was a pub in Soho a neo-Nazi pipe bombed about 20 years ago (still a decent pub), one of the victims was a pregnant woman there with her husband meeting their gay friends, but they'd gone to a gay place.
It also seems striking to me that we all rightly laugh at the whole 'safe space' thing. But part of the shock at this attack is that in many ways gay bars are one of the proto-typical safe spaces. They exist because the people in them couldn't hold hands or kiss elsewhere. I remember reading that it was apparently a very big deal in the gay press the first time a gay bar, in Manchester I think, got plate glass windows because before then they'd always judged the risk of some sort of attack as too high. It is, I think, useful to remember that that is also what's been attacked. It is a cliche but I think there is something to the idea that bars are gay community centres.
And finally I do think it wouldn't hurt straight people to think and maybe talk quietly among themselves about that aspect - and also, especially, the ones on my Facebook sharing that Harvey Milk quote maybe look up its context and the lines around it. Because the sympathy and the empathy people have is great and something I always find moving, but it would be even better if it could lead to deeper reflection and understanding and solidarity between people.
I suppose part of my reaction against it is that I always get fucked off by the, admittedly always interesting, focus on the killer, over the victims. But I think we in doing that we do end up making fucked up losers into anti-heroes. I always think this especially with the mass shootings in the US.
On the whole Islamic radicalism v homophobia I think we could do a lot worse than focusing on the need to end homophobia in the Muslim community. It is something, like anti-semitism in the Muslim community or any other form of bigotry anywhere else that needs to be called out and confronted. I haven't had time to read loads lately but the impression I get is that actually in this case it seems far more like that was his issue rather than takfiri radicalism, you know.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/06/12/omar-mateens-hidden-wife-who-is-she/
Dudes' first wife is pretty cute.
They'll keep pulling the string.
Quote from: Martinus on June 14, 2016, 11:44:40 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 14, 2016, 11:35:37 AM
Thing is, we don't keep them in ghettos or bar them from gainful employment. But that's just a variation on a theme when it comes to Europeans and ethnic minorities.
:jaron:
Don't give me that bullshit. American Muslims start businesses and assimilate themselves into an economic asset that punches far above its weight as a percentage of the total US population.
On the other hand, Europe attempts to exterminate them in Yugoslavia, keep them concentrated in ghettos throughout the continent, and let them languish in unemployment at obscene rates.
Berkut is right: America does not have a "Muslim problem"--and neither would Europe, if it didn't have a problem with Muslims. But you ignorant racist fucks never fucking learn, whether it's the Jews, Africans, Middle Easterners or Miscellaneous.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 14, 2016, 06:35:28 PM
Berkut is right: America does not have a "Muslim problem"--and neither would Europe, if it didn't have a problem with Muslims. But you ignorant racist fucks never fucking learn, whether it's the Jews, Africans, Middle Easterners or Miscellaneous.
I agree with this.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 14, 2016, 06:35:28 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 14, 2016, 11:44:40 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 14, 2016, 11:35:37 AM
Thing is, we don't keep them in ghettos or bar them from gainful employment. But that's just a variation on a theme when it comes to Europeans and ethnic minorities.
:jaron:
Don't give me that bullshit. American Muslims start businesses and assimilate themselves into an economic asset that punches far above its weight as a percentage of the total US population.
On the other hand, Europe attempts to exterminate them in Yugoslavia, keep them concentrated in ghettos throughout the continent, and let them languish in unemployment at obscene rates.
Berkut is right: America does not have a "Muslim problem"--and neither would Europe, if it didn't have a problem with Muslims. But you ignorant racist fucks never fucking learn, whether it's the Jews, Africans, Middle Easterners or Miscellaneous.
Fap fap fap
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on June 14, 2016, 07:32:52 AM
Quote
That something is Islamism, or the desire to impose any version of Islam over any society. Jihadism is the attempt to do so by force. This ideology of Islamism has been rising almost unchecked among Muslims for decades. It is a theocratic ideology, and theocracy should no longer have any place in the world today.
given that this has been part of islam since mohammed did his thing she's basically proposing to take the islam out of islam. Good idea but higly unlikely to happen.
Quote
the Islamist ideology must be intellectually terminated. To do so requires first acknowledging it exists, isolating it from Muslims
to get rid of islamism is to get rid of islam. for by her definition islamism is what her prophet did.
Oh come on. If we really wanted we could create a westernized version of islam and call it, what else, islam. Then we could decry jihadists as false prophets and heretics. Maybe even redefine the meaning of jihad.
But we ain't gonna do that, because is not politically correct and because the left, who controls the entertainment industry and the educational system, believes in multiculturalism instead of believing in the melting pot, in which the receiving culture takes the best of the culture brought by the immigrant, while discarding the rest.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 14, 2016, 11:35:37 AM
Thing is, we don't keep them in ghettos or bar them from gainful employment. But that's just a variation on a theme when it comes to Europeans and ethnic minorities.
Yeah, God knows you guys have a stellar record when it comes to ethnic minorities.
Quote from: Zoupa on June 14, 2016, 07:23:08 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 14, 2016, 11:35:37 AM
Thing is, we don't keep them in ghettos or bar them from gainful employment. But that's just a variation on a theme when it comes to Europeans and ethnic minorities.
Yeah, God knows you guys have a stellar record when it comes to ethnic minorities.
It is of great concern of Europe's genocidal treatment of minorities over the last 75 years.
Plus we had to bail you out a couple of times too.
Quote from: Zoupa on June 14, 2016, 07:23:08 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 14, 2016, 11:35:37 AM
Thing is, we don't keep them in ghettos or bar them from gainful employment. But that's just a variation on a theme when it comes to Europeans and ethnic minorities.
Yeah, God knows you guys have a stellar record when it comes to ethnic minorities.
Leave it to the Jew hating Frenchie to open his Jew hating mouth.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 14, 2016, 07:30:22 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 14, 2016, 07:23:08 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 14, 2016, 11:35:37 AM
Thing is, we don't keep them in ghettos or bar them from gainful employment. But that's just a variation on a theme when it comes to Europeans and ethnic minorities.
Yeah, God knows you guys have a stellar record when it comes to ethnic minorities.
It is of great concern of Europe's genocidal treatment of minorities over the last 75 years.
Plus we had to bail you out a couple of times too.
Whatever. You yanks think your shit don't stink when it comes to immigration and immigrants. Fact is white americans are some of the dumbest motherfuckers on the planet, clutching their guns and religion just like your Kenyan in chief said.
Melting pot my ass. Your country is a shit collage of segregated communities that more or less detest each other. Nobody in their right mind wants to emulate that.
As for "bailing us out", try to at least do it on time if you're going to brag about it for a fucking century afterwards.
Bitch.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 14, 2016, 07:32:59 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 14, 2016, 07:23:08 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 14, 2016, 11:35:37 AM
Thing is, we don't keep them in ghettos or bar them from gainful employment. But that's just a variation on a theme when it comes to Europeans and ethnic minorities.
Yeah, God knows you guys have a stellar record when it comes to ethnic minorities.
Leave it to the Jew hating Frenchie to open his Jew hating mouth.
Don't you have a 12 year old black kid to go shoot in the back somewhere? Gotta meet the quota!
Quote from: Zoupa on June 14, 2016, 07:40:53 PM
Don't you have a 12 year old black kid to go shoot in the back somewhere? Gotta meet the quota!
Looks like your memory is as burned out as a camp oven.
Sorry, but Berkut, Shelf and Seedy are right. The US does not have a Muslim problem. The last two Jihadi mass shootings had a strong person aspect. One guy killed his co-workers and attacked gays at a night club he frequented. While religion flavored their actions, it's not clear if the actions ultimately rest their religion. The sad truth is we have spree killings all the time here, and most of them aren't Muslim. The guy from Health and Safety probably still would have hated his coworkers if he was a Methodist or an Atheist or a Wiccan. There seems to be some evidence that this recent attack was a self-hating closet case, and the guy may very well have had the same hang-ups if he was not Muslim.
Quote
Whatever. You yanks think your shit don't stink when it comes to immigration and immigrants. Fact is white americans are some of the dumbest motherfuckers on the planet, clutching their guns and religion just like your Kenyan in chief said.
Birther
Quote
Melting pot my ass. Your country is a shit collage of segregated communities that more or less detest each other. Nobody in their right mind wants to emulate that.
No you just killed yours on a grand scale.
Quote
As for "bailing us out", try to at least do it on time if you're going to brag about it for a fucking century afterwards.
Not likely, because we'll have to do it again for you
Quote
Bitch.
Dependent
Quote from: Zoupa on June 14, 2016, 07:39:16 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 14, 2016, 07:30:22 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 14, 2016, 07:23:08 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 14, 2016, 11:35:37 AM
Thing is, we don't keep them in ghettos or bar them from gainful employment. But that's just a variation on a theme when it comes to Europeans and ethnic minorities.
Yeah, God knows you guys have a stellar record when it comes to ethnic minorities.
It is of great concern of Europe's genocidal treatment of minorities over the last 75 years.
Plus we had to bail you out a couple of times too.
Whatever. You yanks think your shit don't stink when it comes to immigration and immigrants. Fact is white americans are some of the dumbest motherfuckers on the planet, clutching their guns and religion just like your Kenyan in chief said.
Melting pot my ass. Your country is a shit collage of segregated communities that more or less detest each other. Nobody in their right mind wants to emulate that.
As for "bailing us out", try to at least do it on time if you're going to brag about it for a fucking century afterwards.
Bitch.
:lol: Oh that's rich. Yeah, the Vietnamese Americans are noted for their intense hatred of the Irish Americans. You can talk down to us about racism when you elect your first Arab President.
Quote from: Zoupa on June 14, 2016, 07:40:53 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 14, 2016, 07:32:59 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 14, 2016, 07:23:08 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 14, 2016, 11:35:37 AM
Thing is, we don't keep them in ghettos or bar them from gainful employment. But that's just a variation on a theme when it comes to Europeans and ethnic minorities.
Yeah, God knows you guys have a stellar record when it comes to ethnic minorities.
Leave it to the Jew hating Frenchie to open his Jew hating mouth.
Don't you have a 12 year old black kid to go shoot in the back somewhere? Gotta meet the quota!
(https://media.giphy.com/media/tLql6mMHC6wvK/giphy.gif)
No shit, right? That's more of a derskittles thing.
No, I think I'll talk down to you whities all day everyday when it comes to racism. Make America Great Again!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa.fod4.com%2Fimages%2FGifGuide%2Fmichael_scott%2F1233009630_38e882e.gif&hash=82af06527cd646ec611fffd1024f3a1c98655b0c)
Quote from: Zoupa on June 14, 2016, 08:00:26 PM
No, I think I'll talk down to you whities all day everyday when it comes to racism. Make America Great Again!
Pitiful, but what you can expect from a country where one of the major parties was founded by a racist war criminal. But maybe we should go soft on you, you haven't an ethnic cleansing in like six years.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 14, 2016, 08:13:44 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 14, 2016, 08:00:26 PM
No, I think I'll talk down to you whities all day everyday when it comes to racism. Make America Great Again!
Pitiful, but what you can expect from a country where one of the major parties was founded by a racist war criminal. But maybe we should go soft on you, you haven't an ethnic cleansing in like six years.
I am deeply hurt by those words. Deeply!
Quote from: Zoupa on June 14, 2016, 08:15:28 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 14, 2016, 08:13:44 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 14, 2016, 08:00:26 PM
No, I think I'll talk down to you whities all day everyday when it comes to racism. Make America Great Again!
Pitiful, but what you can expect from a country where one of the major parties was founded by a racist war criminal. But maybe we should go soft on you, you haven't an ethnic cleansing in like six years.
I am deeply hurt by those words. Deeply!
Yes, yes, to you we must seem like race traitors.
Quote from: Barrister on June 14, 2016, 02:00:10 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 14, 2016, 01:25:03 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 14, 2016, 01:23:06 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 14, 2016, 01:00:39 PM
However from a legal perspective I am not sure immigration, which has always been a political question decided by Congress, is the same as firearms ownership which there is an accepted (by the Supreme Court) individual right to own firearms.
As much as I question the wisdom of widespread firearms ownership, I don't believe regulation of it under our current constitution is as straightforward as immigration. But just like I advocate changing the constitution if necessary to prohibit Muslim immigration I'd be fine with changing the constitution to reduce firearms ownership.
There's no right for foreigners to immigrate to the US. If you wanted to legally you could stop all immigration. Whether that would be a good idea economically, and given the problems with illegal immigration whether it could practically be done, are questions for another day.
But once you do allow immigration it has to be done in compliance with the Bill of Rights. And allowing/rejecting immigrants based on their religion would clearly violate the 1st amendment.
Amending the constitution means amending the separation of church and state. I'm not sure you really want to go down that road...
You are wrong. The 1st amendment bans imposing a state church. It does not mean members of certain religions cannot be banned from entering the US.
Oh come on. Now I know we're both non-American lawyers, but surely you have some passing familiarity with the past 200+ years of caselaw on the 1st amendment? It's been held to go a hell of a lot further than not establishing a state church. The courts have held that it means there must be a complete separation between church and state, which includes not giving preference to members of one religion over another.
Beyond that, the First Amendment isn't just the Establishment of Religion clause, there's also the Free Exercise of Religion Clause in there, among other things. "We're not going to infringe on your right to freedom of religion, we're just not going to let you into the country if the religion you choose to exercise is one we don't like" isn't going to pass Constitutional muster.
It's funny how so many of the things being said about Muslims nowadays are so similar to things said about the Irish in the first half of the 19th Century, or the Slavs and Italians in the 2nd half of the 19th, or the Hispanics more recently. "They don't hold to the same values we do", "They can't/won't assimilate", etc. It was bigoted, nativist bullshit then, and it's bigoted, nativist bullshit now. The evidence is pretty overwhelming that most immigrants will assimilate as quickly as we let them.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 14, 2016, 08:13:44 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 14, 2016, 08:00:26 PM
No, I think I'll talk down to you whities all day everyday when it comes to racism. Make America Great Again!
Pitiful, but what you can expect from a country where one of the major parties was founded by a racist war criminal. But maybe we should go soft on you, you haven't an ethnic cleansing in like six years.
So...how is Ferguson doing these days Missouri? All those blacks all nice and integrated by your magical integration powers? Since it seems it is our enlightenment that has made our Muslims so very happy. Not at all that we limit their immigration to educated middle class professionals. Hey how many of those Syrian immigrants did we let in to enjoy our enlightened toleration?
Quote from: Valmy on June 14, 2016, 08:27:02 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 14, 2016, 08:13:44 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 14, 2016, 08:00:26 PM
No, I think I'll talk down to you whities all day everyday when it comes to racism. Make America Great Again!
Pitiful, but what you can expect from a country where one of the major parties was founded by a racist war criminal. But maybe we should go soft on you, you haven't an ethnic cleansing in like six years.
So...how is Ferguson doing these days Missouri? All those blacks all nice and integrated by your magical integration powers?
QuoteThe evidence is pretty overwhelming that most immigrants will assimilate as quickly as we let them.
Quote from: dps on June 14, 2016, 08:28:58 PM
QuoteThe evidence is pretty overwhelming that most immigrants will assimilate as quickly as we let them.
Oh for fuck sake. Yeah and France has not had a non-Nazi aided ethnic cleansing in a few centuries. We are talking shit here.
I am the guy who wanted to bring all those Syrians here. I know they would be overweight suburbanite slobs in no time.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 14, 2016, 06:35:28 PM
Berkut is right: America does not have a "Muslim problem"--and neither would Europe, if it didn't have a problem with Muslims. But you ignorant racist fucks never fucking learn, whether it's the Jews, Africans, Middle Easterners or Miscellaneous.
global unemployment rate is nearly 3 times higher in France than in the US.
US Muslims make less than 1% of the pop. In Belgium, it's over 5%. In France close to 10% And they're mostly concentrated in areas around Brussels, the capital.
Combine these facts with the low education (even those with university degrees, their qualifications are not always on par with those of Western universities) of the European muslims who are often refugees rather than immigrant (per capita, the US admits less Syrian refugees than Canada, and that's under Obama. I'd be surprised if it was higher than Europe), and you begin to understand that it's a little more complicated than simple racism. After all, just for France, we're talking about 4-5% gap in unemployment rate between those of French origins and those of muslim/arabic origins.
Raz pulled a fast one. :lol:
Bravo
Quote from: Valmy on June 14, 2016, 08:27:02 PM
So...how is Ferguson doing these days Missouri? All those blacks all nice and integrated by your magical integration powers? Since it seems it is our enlightenment that has made our Muslims so very happy. Not at all that we limit their immigration to educated middle class professionals. Hey how many of those Syrian immigrants did we let in to enjoy our enlightened toleration?
I dunno, man...let's review, with those textbooks used in Texas schools...
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/10/06/us/06texas-web/06textbook-web-blog427.jpg)(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slate.com%2Fcontent%2Fdam%2Fslate%2Fblogs%2Fschooled%2F2015%2F10%2F151006_SCHOOLED_Workers-From-Africa.jpg.CROP.original-original.jpg&hash=4e0b820a0feeae9618c6d3cbaa939903843e7039)
Quote from: Razgovory on June 14, 2016, 08:21:18 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 14, 2016, 08:15:28 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 14, 2016, 08:13:44 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 14, 2016, 08:00:26 PM
No, I think I'll talk down to you whities all day everyday when it comes to racism. Make America Great Again!
Pitiful, but what you can expect from a country where one of the major parties was founded by a racist war criminal. But maybe we should go soft on you, you haven't an ethnic cleansing in like six years.
I am deeply hurt by those words. Deeply!
Yes, yes, to you we must seem like race traitors.
Who's this "we"? You're hard to follow.
Anyways. There is no race in France, we moved past the 18th century. :frog:
Quote from: Zoupa on June 14, 2016, 08:34:32 PM
Anyways. There is no race in France, we moved past the 18th century. :frog:
Yeah, by train. Courtesy of SNCF.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.yadvashem.org%2Fyv%2Fen%2Fholocaust%2Ffrance%2Fimages%2Fdeportation%2F05.jpg&hash=4ebec42ef84b25db3befbcb77ad17f105b28eb67)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 14, 2016, 08:34:21 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 14, 2016, 08:27:02 PM
So...how is Ferguson doing these days Missouri? All those blacks all nice and integrated by your magical integration powers? Since it seems it is our enlightenment that has made our Muslims so very happy. Not at all that we limit their immigration to educated middle class professionals. Hey how many of those Syrian immigrants did we let in to enjoy our enlightened toleration?
I dunno, man...let's review, with those textbooks used in Texas schools...
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/10/06/us/06texas-web/06textbook-web-blog427.jpg)(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slate.com%2Fcontent%2Fdam%2Fslate%2Fblogs%2Fschooled%2F2015%2F10%2F151006_SCHOOLED_Workers-From-Africa.jpg.CROP.original-original.jpg&hash=4e0b820a0feeae9618c6d3cbaa939903843e7039)
Das ist gut
(https://67.media.tumblr.com/92b00f1a6b47a3cde8271a46eb6d887a/tumblr_n4cojslgCQ1rjssvvo1_250.gif)
Quote from: Valmy on June 14, 2016, 08:27:02 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 14, 2016, 08:13:44 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 14, 2016, 08:00:26 PM
No, I think I'll talk down to you whities all day everyday when it comes to racism. Make America Great Again!
Pitiful, but what you can expect from a country where one of the major parties was founded by a racist war criminal. But maybe we should go soft on you, you haven't an ethnic cleansing in like six years.
So...how is Ferguson doing these days Missouri? All those blacks all nice and integrated by your magical integration powers? Since it seems it is our enlightenment that has made our Muslims so very happy. Not at all that we limit their immigration to educated middle class professionals. Hey how many of those Syrian immigrants did we let in to enjoy our enlightened toleration?
Ferguson is quite now. The problem there was not integration it was policing. The local elected a new government are in the process of reforming the police department. Thank you for asking.
I know you are soft on France, but France does have Muslim problem, just like it has a black problem, a Chinese problem, a Roma problem and a Jewish problem.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 14, 2016, 08:39:03 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 14, 2016, 08:34:32 PM
Anyways. There is no race in France, we moved past the 18th century. :frog:
Yeah, by train. Courtesy of SNCF.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.yadvashem.org%2Fyv%2Fen%2Fholocaust%2Ffrance%2Fimages%2Fdeportation%2F05.jpg&hash=4ebec42ef84b25db3befbcb77ad17f105b28eb67)
France might need that now, with all the strikes. An effiecent master race running the trains, not the Jew shit.
Quote from: Zoupa on June 14, 2016, 08:34:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 14, 2016, 08:21:18 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 14, 2016, 08:15:28 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 14, 2016, 08:13:44 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 14, 2016, 08:00:26 PM
No, I think I'll talk down to you whities all day everyday when it comes to racism. Make America Great Again!
Pitiful, but what you can expect from a country where one of the major parties was founded by a racist war criminal. But maybe we should go soft on you, you haven't an ethnic cleansing in like six years.
I am deeply hurt by those words. Deeply!
Yes, yes, to you we must seem like race traitors.
Who's this "we"? You're hard to follow.
Anyways. There is no race in France, we moved past the 18th century. :frog:
:lol: I don't suppose you'd know this, but that sounds like racists in the US say. "I don't see race".
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 14, 2016, 08:39:03 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 14, 2016, 08:34:32 PM
Anyways. There is no race in France, we moved past the 18th century. :frog:
Yeah, by train. Courtesy of SNCF.
Hahaha, good one. Oh lord, stop, I'm laughing so much ,I can't breathe!
I can't breathe.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 14, 2016, 08:43:44 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 14, 2016, 08:34:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 14, 2016, 08:21:18 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 14, 2016, 08:15:28 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 14, 2016, 08:13:44 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 14, 2016, 08:00:26 PM
No, I think I'll talk down to you whities all day everyday when it comes to racism. Make America Great Again!
Pitiful, but what you can expect from a country where one of the major parties was founded by a racist war criminal. But maybe we should go soft on you, you haven't an ethnic cleansing in like six years.
I am deeply hurt by those words. Deeply!
Yes, yes, to you we must seem like race traitors.
Who's this "we"? You're hard to follow.
Anyways. There is no race in France, we moved past the 18th century. :frog:
:lol: I don't suppose you'd know this, but that sounds like racists in the US say. "I don't see race".
You keep trying to have me identify with your tribe. I do not.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 14, 2016, 08:43:44 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 14, 2016, 08:34:32 PM
Anyways. There is no race in France, we moved past the 18th century. :frog:
:lol: I don't suppose you'd know this, but that sounds like racists in the US say. "I don't see race".
Zoupa, hoisted by his own Pétain.
Quote from: Zoupa on June 14, 2016, 08:45:26 PM
You keep trying to have me identify with your tribe. I do not.
Yes, Westerners.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 14, 2016, 08:43:44 PM
:lol: I don't suppose you'd know this, but that sounds like racists in the US say. "I don't see race".
How is that racist?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 14, 2016, 08:46:55 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 14, 2016, 08:43:44 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 14, 2016, 08:34:32 PM
Anyways. There is no race in France, we moved past the 18th century. :frog:
:lol: I don't suppose you'd know this, but that sounds like racists in the US say. "I don't see race".
Zoupa, hoisted by his own Pétain.
There literally is no legal definition of race in France. You know, since it doesn't exist?
Keep being hypocritical though guys. The communal circle jerk seems to keep y'all happy.
Quote from: derspiess on June 14, 2016, 09:37:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 14, 2016, 08:43:44 PM
:lol: I don't suppose you'd know this, but that sounds like racists in the US say. "I don't see race".
How is that racist?
It says you're not paying attention. Turning a blind eye.
Ghad-dam :mellow:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/latest-police-suspect-shot-apparently-dead-39850955
Quote from: 11B4V on June 14, 2016, 09:49:56 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 14, 2016, 09:37:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 14, 2016, 08:43:44 PM
:lol: I don't suppose you'd know this, but that sounds like racists in the US say. "I don't see race".
How is that racist?
It says you're not paying attention. Turning a blind eye.
Go on.
Quote from: Zoupa on June 14, 2016, 09:41:50 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 14, 2016, 08:46:55 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 14, 2016, 08:43:44 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 14, 2016, 08:34:32 PM
Anyways. There is no race in France, we moved past the 18th century. :frog:
:lol: I don't suppose you'd know this, but that sounds like racists in the US say. "I don't see race".
Zoupa, hoisted by his own Pétain.
There literally is no legal definition of race in France. You know, since it doesn't exist?
Keep being hypocritical though guys. The communal circle jerk seems to keep y'all happy.
When those Charlie hebdo guys said they were against racism, what were they talking about?
http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-05-14/charlie-hebdo-has-always-been-anti-racist-magazine-its-editor-says (http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-05-14/charlie-hebdo-has-always-been-anti-racist-magazine-its-editor-says)
QuoteBiard denies the charges of racism, arguing that the magazine has been a staunch opponent of right-wing, anti-immigrant groups. "Charlie Hebdo has always been an anti-racist magazine," he says. "We fight against all discriminations — to women, to gay people, to Muslims." At the PEN ceremony, Charlie Hebdo was introduced by Congolese author Alain Mabanckou and Dominique Sopo, the president of the French anti-bias group, SOS Racisme.
Quote from: derspiess on June 14, 2016, 09:50:18 PM
Ghad-dam :mellow:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/latest-police-suspect-shot-apparently-dead-39850955
These things happen in the workplace from time to time.
https://youtu.be/zNiv6GFpjqo
Quote from: derspiess on June 14, 2016, 09:51:13 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 14, 2016, 09:49:56 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 14, 2016, 09:37:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 14, 2016, 08:43:44 PM
:lol: I don't suppose you'd know this, but that sounds like racists in the US say. "I don't see race".
How is that racist?
It says you're not paying attention. Turning a blind eye.
Go on.
They're as blind to racism going on around them as they are smug. Even worse than overt racism. Like an alcoholic saying they don't have a drinking problem.
http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1848&context=law_journal_law_policy
I guess that's one way of looking at it. To me, that statement means the person doesn't view or treat people differently based upon race.
edit: I mean, when the Boogie Boys rapped in 1986 that they wanted to live in a color-blind world, who knew they were dirty racists :(
Quote from: derspiess on June 14, 2016, 10:32:25 PM
I guess that's one way of looking at it. To me, that statement means the person doesn't view or treat people differently based upon race.
Zoutopia.
It will blow up in their face (France) in a bad way.
Quote from: derspiess on June 14, 2016, 10:32:25 PM
I guess that's one way of looking at it. To me, that statement means the person doesn't view or treat people differently based upon race.
edit: I mean, when the Boogie Boys rapped in 1986 that they wanted to live in a color-blind world, who knew they were dirty racists :(
Call it ethnic suppression.
No :angry:
Wow, and when I thought the thread could not go any more insane.
Quote from: barkdreg on June 14, 2016, 04:44:21 PM
Martinus: Having no intention to crawl through a 40-page rant I was wondering what your thoughts are on the fact that the shooter might be gay.
But then if I respond now, you have to crawl through several pages to find the response so what's the difference?
Quote from: Martinus on June 14, 2016, 11:12:23 PM
Wow, and when I thought the thread could not go any more insane.
It's Languish
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 14, 2016, 06:35:28 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 14, 2016, 11:44:40 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 14, 2016, 11:35:37 AM
Thing is, we don't keep them in ghettos or bar them from gainful employment. But that's just a variation on a theme when it comes to Europeans and ethnic minorities.
:jaron:
Don't give me that bullshit. American Muslims start businesses and assimilate themselves into an economic asset that punches far above its weight as a percentage of the total US population.
On the other hand, Europe attempts to exterminate them in Yugoslavia, keep them concentrated in ghettos throughout the continent, and let them languish in unemployment at obscene rates.
Berkut is right: America does not have a "Muslim problem"--and neither would Europe, if it didn't have a problem with Muslims. But you ignorant racist fucks never fucking learn, whether it's the Jews, Africans, Middle Easterners or Miscellaneous.
We will see in November how many Americans think America has a "Muslim problem". :thumbsup:
Quote from: Razgovory on June 14, 2016, 08:41:39 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 14, 2016, 08:27:02 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 14, 2016, 08:13:44 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 14, 2016, 08:00:26 PM
No, I think I'll talk down to you whities all day everyday when it comes to racism. Make America Great Again!
Pitiful, but what you can expect from a country where one of the major parties was founded by a racist war criminal. But maybe we should go soft on you, you haven't an ethnic cleansing in like six years.
So...how is Ferguson doing these days Missouri? All those blacks all nice and integrated by your magical integration powers? Since it seems it is our enlightenment that has made our Muslims so very happy. Not at all that we limit their immigration to educated middle class professionals. Hey how many of those Syrian immigrants did we let in to enjoy our enlightened toleration?
Ferguson is quite now. The problem there was not integration it was policing. The local elected a new government are in the process of reforming the police department. Thank you for asking.
I know you are soft on France, but France does have Muslim problem, just like it has a black problem, a Chinese problem, a Roma problem and a Jewish problem.
France has a Black problem? A Chinese Problem too? And a Jewish problem? Wow. You're a real expert in foreign politics :)
The recipe for insight seems to be living in basement, with Assburger and a cat as only companions.
Weird story. Self hatred is a hell of a thing.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/06/14/orlandos-tight-knit-lgbt-community-comes-grips-shooting/85887572/
QuoteLocals are doing their best to grapple with the reality that Mateen, a 29-year-old married man with a young child at home, spent years drinking and socializing at Pulse, the nightclub where the attack took place. The FBI is looking into those claims.
Harris, who visited Pulse every other week or so, didn't recall encountering Mateen there, but others did.
Jim Van Horn, 71, a frequent patron at the Pulse night club, said Mateen used to come to the bar regularly, even though Orlando is a two-hour drive north of Fort Pierce, where Mateen lived.
"On the weekends sometimes he would be there, sometimes he would miss a couple of weeks and then be in again," Van Horn told the Associated Press. "He was a regular — we considered that regular, because some of us go to a different bar on a different weekend."
Van Horn recalled that Mateen "was trying to pick up people, men. He was a homosexual and he was trying to pick up men." He would put his arm around them, buy them a drink and try to get them to dance, he said. "That's what people do at gay bars. That's what we do."
Chris Callen and Ty Smith told the Canadian Press they often saw Mateen at Pulse — Smith said he'd seen a drunk Mateen escorted from the club several times. The pair said they stopped speaking to Mateen after he threatened them with a knife, apparently over a joke about religion.
The men said they didn't believe an account given Sunday by Mateen's father about how the gunman had been disturbed by the sight of men kissing in downtown Miami. In that account, Mir Seddique told NBC News that his son "saw two men kissing each other in front of his wife and kid and he got very angry. They were kissing each other and touching each other and he said, 'Look at that. In front of my son they are doing that.' "
Callen and Smith said Mateen had seen plenty of men kiss. "He's been around us," Smith said. "Some of those people did a little more than (kiss) outside the bar."
Smith added, "He was partying with the people who supposedly drove him to do this?"
Quote from: Martinus on June 14, 2016, 11:16:10 PM
But then if I respond now, you have to crawl through several pages to find the response so what's the difference?
:rolleyes:
Quote from: barkdreg on June 15, 2016, 02:06:28 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 14, 2016, 11:16:10 PM
But then if I respond now, you have to crawl through several pages to find the response so what's the difference?
:rolleyes:
Ok, reposting what I said earlier:
QuoteYeah, and I fail to see why him being gay actually changes anything about the analysis.
Surely if you are gay and then you are raised in a murderous homophobic backward ideology/cult and told that being gay is wrong and deserve death, then your murderous homophobic backward behaviour is a direct result of your ideology/cult, not your sexuality.
It reminds me of the argument used by some anti-semites claiming that Hitler was, allegedly, half-Jewish. Even if it is true, so what?
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what we fight with:
QuoteImam Denies Tie to Orlando Islamic Terror Attacker
In an interview that aired on Tuesday's broadcast of Fox News Channel's "On the Record," fundamentalist Muslim Imam Abu Taubah denied reports that Orlando terrorist Omar Mateen attended his online seminary while refusing to condemn the stoning of women for adultery and saying that some journalists should be beheaded. However, later in the segment, Taubah backpedaled on that remark.
Taubah flatly denied that Mateen was a student of his or of his school, saying that the online seminary doesn't have the face to face classes. He denied ever having met Mateen.
Marcus Dwayne Robertson, one of Taubah aliases, worked as a bodyguard for Omar Abdel-Rahman, also known as "the Blind Sheik."
Abdel-Rahman was convicted of seditious conspiracy in plotting Islamic terror bombings on several high impact targets and was sentenced to life in prison. As Van Susteren points out Robertson has been a gang leader and bank robber who was released from prison just last year.
When asked if he disavowed Mateen being a devout Muslim, Robertson replied, "I disavow the concept of anyone taking the law into their own hand ... no one can justify that with Islam."
He also refused to condemn stoning women for adultery in the second segment of the interview. He referenced the Quran and the Sunnah, saying, "We stone the person who is an adulterer."
Host Greta Van Susteren asked about Mateen's association with American suicide bomber Moner Mohammad Abu-Salha, who is believed to be the first American to carry out a suicide bombing in Syria.
Taubah responded, "I personally don't believe that all those guys are suicide bombings."
Mateen also attended the Islamic Center of Fort Pierce which with Imam Shafiq Rahman according to Fox News was the same mosque that Abu-Salha attended.
Taubah also voiced opposition to both GOP presumptive nominee Donald Trump and Democratic Party presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton.
He told Van Susteren, "As a Muslim I object to Hillary Clinton. I don't believe women should be the president of a nation."
He went on to reference his prophet, saying, "He taught us that whenever a woman is in charge is gonna be problems. What if she's on her menses and it's time to go to war, she gonna press the button cause she's angry?"
"I like Bernie [Sanders]," said Robertson.
In the Fox News report on the Orlando attacker and his connection to the Imam, it is noted that the Robertson's school was recently renamed to Timbuktu Seminary.
"I believe some journalists need to be beheaded. But I wouldn't have done that," said Robertson in response to Van Susteren's question about journalist James Foley who was beheaded by Islamic terror group ISIS. Robertson then backpedaled the statement claiming, "I only say that facetiously."
Van Susteren then asked if we should stop ISIS.
Robertson responded, "No. Why would, why?"
Van Susteren responded, "Because they're beheading Americans."
Robertson suggested that it's none of America's "business."
But I gotta say I agree - let him exercise his freedom of speech. Shine more light on this filth. So when Trump is elected in November it is easier to identify who the enemies are.
Trump isn't going to win. Sorry.
QuoteTransgender Person Stabbed By Alleged 'Islamic State' Supporters In Belgium
A transgender Tunisian migrant in Belgium was stabbed by a pair of men, also from Tunisia, who claimed to be members of Islamic State.
On Saturday in the Brussels suburb of Etterbeek, a transgender migrant from Tunisia was reportedly stabbed in the street. The transgender person, known as Sharky, was brutally beaten by his attackers, stabbed several times in the abdomen and was later hospitalised for his injuries, reports HLN.be.
The victim had faced similar persecution in Tunisia where he claims to have been attacked by radical Islamists and men who pledged allegiance to Islamic State in North Africa. The two men who carried out the attack told Sharky that they were fighters of Islamic State and the incident came after repeated threats from other members of the group online.
Sharky told Belgian media of his experiences dealing with Islamist threats in Belgium saying: "They were the same people as in Tunisia. They told me that they are only awaiting an official command to behead me. I fear greatly for my life." The victim added: "I want to officially change my name and seek asylum in another country, where I am not threatened. These people followed me all the time in Tunisia."
The victim explained how the Islamic State members had first harassed him online before the threats turned into an almost deadly assault. "It started on social media. At first I tried to not take the threats seriously, even though they made it clear that they were members of Islamic State. They said they would kill me in the name of God and would make an example out of me to young people who do not respect religious law."
According to the Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism Unia, Sharky had reached out to them over the online harassment long before the attack. They confirmed the acts of aggression dated to this weekend, and stated that: "The victim has been threatened on his Facebook profile and physical aggression was already there."
Police in the area have confirmed that they are currently looking for suspects in the case but so far no one has been arrested. The local prosecutor has told the press that while they could confirm the details of the attack, the motivation was still in question.
The attack comes on the heels of both the mass shooting at the gay nightclub Pulse in Orlando that left 49 dead, and the fatal stabbing of a police officer and his wife in France, both of which Islamic State claimed responsibility via its media arm Amaq Agency.
Attacks against homosexuals and transsexuals, as was the case in Dortmund earlier this year, by Islamic State and other radical Islamists have become more and more common in European cities and asylum homes. Some cities and local governments are considering separating Muslims from homosexuals and others in their asylum homes for the safety of the latter.
Maybe let's name this a "Ramadan Jihad megathread"? It would make it easier for apologist cucks to just make a blanket apology for all Muslim violence in one place, instead of repeating the same stupid points whenever there is a new attack each day?
Quote from: Valmy on June 14, 2016, 08:31:07 PM
Quote from: dps on June 14, 2016, 08:28:58 PM
QuoteThe evidence is pretty overwhelming that most immigrants will assimilate as quickly as we let them.
Oh for fuck sake. Yeah and France has not had a non-Nazi aided ethnic cleansing in a few centuries. We are talking shit here.
I am the guy who wanted to bring all those Syrians here. I know they would be overweight suburbanite slobs in no time.
I was mostly just yanking your chain a bit. But I don't think that there's any doubt that we have historically made it difficult at different time for different groups to assimilate, and that African-Americans and Native Americans have gotten the shortest end of that stick. But if we're talking about current policies, I think ours are clearly superior to Europe's in regards to minorities. In particular with regards to immigrants, a lot of European countries make it very difficult if not impossible for immigrants to become citizens. While I'm not an expert on European naturalization laws, in fairness to Zoupa, from what I do know, France isn't as bad as some other European nations in that regard, though I may be mistaken about it.
I don't understand. Why, Martinus, aren't you up in arms about the following? All of which are shootings or stabbings that have occurred since Friday.
http://pilotonline.com/news/nation-world/national/year-old-girl-killed-in-shooting-in-oakland-california/article_6703ce93-ca2c-5d44-994e-1ea9392c17d2.html
Quote16-year-old girl killed in shooting in Oakland, California
Police in Oakland, California, say a 16-year-old girl has died after being shot in the city's downtown area, where another three people were wounded.
The number of people shot fluctuated throughout Tuesday evening. Oakland police initially said five people had been shot. The department then corrected the information to six people wounded, and finally said a total of four people had been shot, including a teenage girl who died at a hospital.
Police say the other people shot are in stable condition. They range in age from mid-teens to early twenties.
The department says the shooting happened during a vigil for someone drowned last year in Salinas, California.
It's unclear if the shooting is connected to the memorial gathering, which was about two blocks away from the shooting.
The San Francisco Chronicle reports the broad-daylight shooting sent people ducking for cover.
Mason Stone tells the newspaper people were running "every which way."
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/15/one-80-year-old-shoots-another-in-cemetery-then-dies-in-police-gun-battle
QuoteOne 80-year-old shoots another in cemetery, then dies in police gun battle
An 80-year-old man killed an 81-year-old man in a cemetery, then led police on a car chase before officers fatally shot him, Rhode Island authorities have said.
John Cloud of Kingston, Massachusetts, and Edward Acquisto of Tiverton arranged to meet on Monday evening in a Tiverton cemetery, where Acquisto was known to go to read his Bible, Tiverton Police Chief Tom Blakey said at a news conference.
Acquisto then shot Cloud to death, he said.
"This was not a random act. The victim and the suspect knew each other," Blakey said.
Police were still investigating how the men knew each other and the motive for the shooting.
Reports of the shooting came in shortly before 7 p.m.
"There were people visiting graves in the cemetery, visiting loved ones' gravesites, and they heard the commotion, heard the gunshots," Blakey said.
After the shooting, Acquisto drove into neighboring Fall River, Massachusetts. Officers from that city spotted his vehicle and followed him back into Tiverton, where they chased him into a residential neighborhood.
He then stopped on a dead end, where he shot at officers, police said. Two Fall River officers and one Tiverton officer returned fire, killing him.
Acquisto had a criminal history, including pleading no contest to manslaughter in 1982 and being found guilty of sexual assault in 1981, according to court records.
All three officers were placed on administrative leave and Rhode Island State Police were investigating the shooting, standard practice in such cases.
http://katu.com/news/local/police-say-stabbing-in-gresham-park-marijuana-related
QuoteA teenage boy was stabbed during a fight in Red Sunset Park on Tuesday, and according to witnesses the victim was a 17-year-old.
Police were called to the park at about 6:20 p.m.
Gresham police said the victim was seriously injured from two stab wounds. He was taken to the hospital in critical condition. They said the teen is expected to survive.
Leslie, who lives near the park, asked us not to use her last name for her safety. She says she heard a commotion and looked out from her patio deck to see a group of teens fighting.
"I walked onto my back patio and the guy was laying on the ground and two gentlemen were stomping at his face," she said.
Leslie says she ran over and yelled at the teens, who then ran away.
"Saw that there was a stab wound, and I immediately applied pressure and just told him to keep talking to me," the mother of four told KATU's Chris Liedle. "His eyes were very, very swollen."
Meanwhile, another neighbor heard the fight and walked over. She says the victim's girlfriend was hiding in the bushes and mouthed for her to call police.
"I walked up and saw the victim laying in the grass with the stab wound, and a gun laying near him," the neighbor said.
Police said they believe the stabbing was related to a marijuana deal.
They said they found a handgun at the scene, but it doesn't appear it was used.
Police are looking for four suspects ranging in age from 15 to 17 years old who fled the park on foot.
http://www.sfexaminer.com/suspects-fatal-stabbing-construction-worker-linked-another-crime-sf/
QuoteSuspects in fatal stabbing of construction worker linked to another crime in SF
Two suspects arrested in connection with the fatal stabbing of a construction worker in San Francisco's South of Market neighborhood Friday morning have also been charged in connection with a second attack that occurred last month, prosecutors confirmed Tuesday.
Lizette Maria Cauich, 23, and Oscar Mendez, 43, are set to be arraigned Tuesday afternoon in San Francisco Superior Court on multiple felony charges.
Cauich and Mendez, both Los Angeles residents, were arrested Friday in connection with the fatal stabbing of Mitzi Campbell, 58, according to police.
Campbell, a San Francisco resident, was working at a construction site on Shipley Street, an alley between Harrison and Folsom streets, on Friday morning when she had an argument with a man and a woman there, police said.
She escorted the pair away from the site, but when she didn't come back right away, her co-workers went looking for her around 9:30 a.m. and found her stabbed, police said.
The co-workers saw the man and woman, later identified as Mendez and Cauich, walking away and tried to stop them. They followed them to the area of Fifth and Folsom Streets, where officers arrived and arrested them.
Campbell was taken to a hospital but died there shortly afterward.
Since their arrest, Cauich and Mendez have been linked to a previous stabbing that occurred in the Tenderloin around 1:30 p.m. on May 29.
Police said that stabbing occurred in the area of Eddy and Taylor streets after the suspects, described as a 23-year-old woman and a man of unspecified age, asked the male victim to use a portable toilet located on a lot there.
When the victim refused, the suspects allegedly stabbed him in the upper torso with a knife, causing life-threatening injuries.
According to a statement issued by Mayor Ed Lee on Friday, Campbell was a 2013 graduate of San Francisco's CityBuild construction job training program and a member of Laborers Local 261.
Cauich faces charges including murder, attempted murder, mayhem, assault with force likely to commit great bodily injury and battery with serious bodily injury, according to jail records.
Mendez is charged with attempted murder, mayhem, assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury, battery with serious injury, carrying a dirk and dagger, possession of a controlled substance, receiving or buying stolen property and giving false information to a police officer, as well as two previous felony warrants.
Both are currently being held without bail.
http://www.sfexaminer.com/homicide-shooting-overnight/
QuoteTuesday morning homicide preceded by separate shooting and stabbing
A man was shot and killed in the Mission District early Tuesday morning, according to police.
The shooting happened near the intersection of Shotwell and 20th streets just after 4:05 a.m.
The victim, who was taken to a nearby hospital, but died from his wounds.
The killing marks The City's 23rd homicide of 2016.
The Mission slaying was not the only violence so far this week in San Francisco.
A 19-year-old woman was hit by stray gunshots at 9:40 p.m. Monday in the Western Addition near Buchanan and Hayes streets.
The woman heard gunshots and started to run, then realized she had been hit.
The victim was hit in the thigh and taken to a hospital and is expected to survive.
A third incident of violence — a stabbing — happened in Visitacion valley.
A 32-year-old woman was stabbed in the abdomen after trying to break up a fight early Monday morning.
The woman was in the 2200 block of Bayshore Boulevard when she was two woman in their 20s who were fighting. When one of them pulled out a knife, the victim stepped in and was stabbed.
She was taken to the hospital for her wound and is expected to survive.
In fact, many of those have happened in SF(/Bay Area)! :o
Let's just acknowledge Europe is not very good at trying to assimilate immigrants.
There is some wisdom in trying to improve if you are not very good at something - but if you try and fail for several decades, and still cannot learn how to do it properly, then the sensible solution is to stop trying - and just stop having immigrants. :P
Otherwise, it's like being a man in his 40s still trying to become a professional soccer player or a rock star - you just come across as laughable.
Quote from: Martinus on June 15, 2016, 03:02:51 AM
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what we fight with:
Quote
He told Van Susteren, "As a Muslim I object to Hillary Clinton. I don't believe women should be the president of a nation."
derspiess and most of the Republican Party?
Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2016, 06:57:39 AM
I don't understand. Why, Martinus, aren't you up in arms about the following? All of which are shootings or stabbings that have occurred since Friday.
You forgot this one:
QuoteNew York man randomly slit the throat of a shopper in the produce aisle at ShopRite, police say
Washington Post
June 13, 2016
The victim was perusing the produce aisle mid-morning on Saturday in a ShopRite grocery store in New Windsor, N.Y., about 60 miles north of New York City.
Behind him, a quiet assailant calmly approached.
He brandished a folding box cutter knife in his hand, reported the Times Herald-Record, and without warning or struggle, he slit the victim's throat.
Then as quietly as he came, the assailant disappeared, camouflaged amid the crowds of weekend shoppers. He remained there for 45 minutes, according to police, while medics rushed the unconscious, bleeding victim to a nearby hospital where he died and while authorities searched for his attacker.
After reviewing surveillance footage and identifying the man with the knife, the New Windsor Police Department and store officials at ShopRite found the assailant in the crowd.
Police identified him as Andrew Goodenough, a 35-year-old resident of Highland Falls, another small town nestled along the the Hudson River, and charged him with second-degree murder.
As details unfolded about the grisly crime that wreaked havoc inside a popular area grocery store, it was actually the lack of information that seemed most haunting. There was no altercation before the stabbing, officials told CBS New York, and there was no apparent connection between the two men.
Police described the stabbing as a random attack amid a sea of 250 shoppers, reported the Herald-Record.
Police were waiting to release the victim's name until they notified his family. They gave only his age, 35.
On social media, frequent shoppers at the supermarket expressed their shock and horror. "What the hell?!?!?" one woman wrote on Facebook. "What's wrong with this world," another person tweeted. "I'm not leaving my house anymore," wrote another.
A name for Goodenough's attorney wasn't immediately available, reported the Associated Press, but neighbors described the man to CBS New York as troubled and "unstable."
According to the Herald-Record, Goodenough had never before been charged with a crime, but he was known to police. On multiple occasions in the past, officers had asked him to leave areas around town after he acted suspiciously.
ShopRite released a statement to customers after the bloody crime, reported CBS New York:
"We can confirm that an unfortunate incident took place this morning at our store. The store will remain closed for the rest of the day while police conduct a thorough investigation. While we can't discuss the ongoing investigation, we are working with the police and reaching out to all of our associates. Our thoughts and prayers go out to all those involved."
In the produce aisle. Just...dead.
Quote from: Martinus on June 15, 2016, 06:58:00 AM
Let's just acknowledge Europe is not very good at trying to assimilate low-skilled/illiterate muslim immigrants.
There is some wisdom in trying to improve if you are not very good at something - but if you try and fail for several decades, and still cannot learn how to do it properly, then the sensible solution is to stop trying - and just stop having immigrants. :P
Otherwise, it's like being a man in his 40s still trying to become a professional soccer player or a rock star - you just come across as laughable.
Way to tar with the same brush Martinus. :rolleyes: :D
Assimilation would also work better without self-loathing.
Quote from: dps on June 15, 2016, 06:54:11 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 14, 2016, 08:31:07 PM
Quote from: dps on June 14, 2016, 08:28:58 PM
QuoteThe evidence is pretty overwhelming that most immigrants will assimilate as quickly as we let them.
Oh for fuck sake. Yeah and France has not had a non-Nazi aided ethnic cleansing in a few centuries. We are talking shit here.
I am the guy who wanted to bring all those Syrians here. I know they would be overweight suburbanite slobs in no time.
I was mostly just yanking your chain a bit. But I don't think that there's any doubt that we have historically made it difficult at different time for different groups to assimilate, and that African-Americans and Native Americans have gotten the shortest end of that stick. But if we're talking about current policies, I think ours are clearly superior to Europe's in regards to minorities. In particular with regards to immigrants, a lot of European countries make it very difficult if not impossible for immigrants to become citizens. While I'm not an expert on European naturalization laws, in fairness to Zoupa, from what I do know, France isn't as bad as some other European nations in that regard, though I may be mistaken about it.
In Spain it's piss easy to become a national if you're from a former colony, which is the reason we have such a big latin-american immigration. However, for the case at hand, say mr. Muslim from Muslimia:
- 10 years of residence.
- Cut down to 5 years if you enjoy refugee status.
- Cut down to 1 year if you're married to a Spanish national.
Children of immigrants, born in Spanish soil, can become Spanish nationals after 1 year of residence. Which means that the vast majority of second generation immigrants are Spanish citizens.
Doesn't look too bad to me.
I think it is also shorter than 10 years if you own real estate - I know because D. and I were checking this as an option in case Putin invades. :P
Quote from: Martinus on June 15, 2016, 07:09:46 AM
I think it is also shorter than 10 years if you own real estate - I know because D. and I were checking this as an option in case Putin invades. :P
After this latest attack, I think Spain should be very careful about letting homicidal radicalized gays into the country.
Quote from: celedhring on June 15, 2016, 07:07:46 AM
Quote from: dps on June 15, 2016, 06:54:11 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 14, 2016, 08:31:07 PM
Quote from: dps on June 14, 2016, 08:28:58 PM
QuoteThe evidence is pretty overwhelming that most immigrants will assimilate as quickly as we let them.
Oh for fuck sake. Yeah and France has not had a non-Nazi aided ethnic cleansing in a few centuries. We are talking shit here.
I am the guy who wanted to bring all those Syrians here. I know they would be overweight suburbanite slobs in no time.
I was mostly just yanking your chain a bit. But I don't think that there's any doubt that we have historically made it difficult at different time for different groups to assimilate, and that African-Americans and Native Americans have gotten the shortest end of that stick. But if we're talking about current policies, I think ours are clearly superior to Europe's in regards to minorities. In particular with regards to immigrants, a lot of European countries make it very difficult if not impossible for immigrants to become citizens. While I'm not an expert on European naturalization laws, in fairness to Zoupa, from what I do know, France isn't as bad as some other European nations in that regard, though I may be mistaken about it.
In Spain it's piss easy to become a national if you're from a former colony, which is the reason we have such a big latin-american immigration. However, for the case at hand, say mr. Muslim from Muslimia:
- 10 years of residence.
- Cut down to 5 years if you enjoy refugee status.
- Cut down to 1 year if you're married to a Spanish national.
Children of immigrants, born in Spanish soil, can become Spanish nationals after 1 year of residence. Which means that the vast majority of second generation immigrants are Spanish citizens.
Doesn't look too bad to me.
No, that isn't bad. My understanding is that it's really tough to become a naturalized citizen of Germany or the UK (and if I'm wrong, someone please correct me) and wasn't sure how common that was in Europe.
Quote from: Martinus on June 15, 2016, 07:09:46 AM
I think it is also shorter than 10 years if you own real estate - I know because D. and I were checking this as an option in case Putin invades. :P
IIRC that just gives you a residence permit, and you're a EU citizen already. It's aimed at rich Chinese/Russians/Arabs and the odd yank.
Quote from: celedhring on June 15, 2016, 07:16:01 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 15, 2016, 07:09:46 AM
I think it is also shorter than 10 years if you own real estate - I know because D. and I were checking this as an option in case Putin invades. :P
IIRC that just gives you a residence permit, and you're a EU citizen already. It's aimed at rich Chinese/Russians/Arabs and the odd yank.
Hmm, I seem to remember that it was 3 years for holding real property if you already had residence permit. But could be wrong.
It could have been for marriage of two non-nationals. I am confused now. :wacko:
Here's an interesting take on why the President using the term "radical Islam" matters:
QuoteTuesday on CNN's "Outfront," CNN contributor David Gergen, a former presidential adviser that served in the Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton administrations, explained why he sides with presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump on using the term "radical Islam" to describe the terror threat aimed at the United States.
According to Gergen, using such terms provides "clarity," which he likened to Ronald Reagan describing the Soviet Union as the "evil empire."
"Absolute disdain for Donald Trump and everything he represents," Gergen said in describing Obama's speech earlier in the day. "There's a great fear on the president's part that Donald Trump could actually succeed. He'll do everything in his power from prevent that from happening. I must say on the substance, you have to distinguish between two things – and that is the ban on all Muslims trump is calling for, versus using the term radical Islam. On the first, I think the president is doing very well on that issue. I think he's got the upper hand on that issue. A lot of Americans ... don't like the ban."
"They think it was a bad idea. Importantly, high-ranking Republicans very, very important to him right now are opposed to this ban," he continued. "Paul Ryan has made it repeatedly clear and said so again today and Trump doesn't want to face a rebellion before the convention among the Congress. On the second point, radical Islam if I may be permitted a quick story. Back in the early 1980s, President Reagan was trying to decide whether to call the Soviet Union an evil empire. I was among those who urged him not to do that on his staff. I thought it was wrong. I thought it would upset the Soviets. I think in retrospect I was wrong. He used the term. I think it worked well. Tony Dolan who was a speechwriter was the one who persuaded him. He had the better argument and that is rhetorically confronting, telling, having plain-spoken truth about what you're facing helps to clarify and helps to strengthen your hand."
Quote from: Martinus on June 15, 2016, 07:31:04 AM
Quote from: celedhring on June 15, 2016, 07:16:01 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 15, 2016, 07:09:46 AM
I think it is also shorter than 10 years if you own real estate - I know because D. and I were checking this as an option in case Putin invades. :P
IIRC that just gives you a residence permit, and you're a EU citizen already. It's aimed at rich Chinese/Russians/Arabs and the odd yank.
Hmm, I seem to remember that it was 3 years for holding real property if you already had residence permit. But could be wrong.
It could have been for marriage of two non-nationals. I am confused now. :wacko:
You know, you made me check the legislation currently in place and there's nothing in it like what you're talking about. Since obtaining a residence permit (which you wouldn't need) is the first step in the path to citizenship, maybe the place where you checked it conflated both things.
OTOH, in this fantasy scenario maybe Poland would be yanked out of the EU following a Russian invasion.
Quote from: viper37 on June 15, 2016, 12:09:50 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 14, 2016, 08:41:39 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 14, 2016, 08:27:02 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 14, 2016, 08:13:44 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 14, 2016, 08:00:26 PM
No, I think I'll talk down to you whities all day everyday when it comes to racism. Make America Great Again!
Pitiful, but what you can expect from a country where one of the major parties was founded by a racist war criminal. But maybe we should go soft on you, you haven't an ethnic cleansing in like six years.
So...how is Ferguson doing these days Missouri? All those blacks all nice and integrated by your magical integration powers? Since it seems it is our enlightenment that has made our Muslims so very happy. Not at all that we limit their immigration to educated middle class professionals. Hey how many of those Syrian immigrants did we let in to enjoy our enlightened toleration?
Ferguson is quite now. The problem there was not integration it was policing. The local elected a new government are in the process of reforming the police department. Thank you for asking.
I know you are soft on France, but France does have Muslim problem, just like it has a black problem, a Chinese problem, a Roma problem and a Jewish problem.
France has a Black problem? A Chinese Problem too? And a Jewish problem? Wow. You're a real expert in foreign politics :)
You forgot Roma. What happened to those Roma in France half a decade ago?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 15, 2016, 07:01:01 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 15, 2016, 03:02:51 AM
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what we fight with:
Quote
He told Van Susteren, "As a Muslim I object to Hillary Clinton. I don't believe women should be the president of a nation."
derspiess and most of the Republican Party?
So I'm a Muslim now?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 15, 2016, 07:56:59 AM
You forgot Roma. What happened to those Roma in France half a decade ago?
Nothing much. Statistics indicate their numbers have not even been dented. But we know how that generally goes with our attempts to expel unwanted immigrants.
Quote from: derspiess on June 15, 2016, 08:29:15 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 15, 2016, 07:01:01 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 15, 2016, 03:02:51 AM
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what we fight with:
Quote
He told Van Susteren, "As a Muslim I object to Hillary Clinton. I don't believe women should be the president of a nation."
derspiess and most of the Republican Party?
So I'm a Muslim now?
The vicissitudes of the left are amazing, aren't they?
Quote from: derspiess on June 15, 2016, 08:29:15 AM
So I'm a Muslim now?
You should be glad. Now you can call anybody who insults you an Islamophobe :P
Quote from: derspiess on June 15, 2016, 08:29:15 AM
So I'm a Muslim now?
It would at least explain your fear and hatred of women.
Alas, you're only an asshole.
Quote from: Valmy on June 15, 2016, 08:54:25 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 15, 2016, 07:56:59 AM
You forgot Roma. What happened to those Roma in France half a decade ago?
Nothing much. Statistics indicate their numbers have not even been dented. But we know how that generally goes with our attempts to expel unwanted immigrants.
Quote from: Valmy on June 15, 2016, 08:54:25 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 15, 2016, 07:56:59 AM
You forgot Roma. What happened to those Roma in France half a decade ago?
Nothing much. Statistics indicate their numbers have not even been dented. But we know how that generally goes with our attempts to expel unwanted immigrants.
Depends if they meet representatives of the ™Religion of Peace™ or not.
http://i.imgur.com/Hp3m2nc.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/Hp3m2nc.jpg) NSFW!
Charlie Ebdo's commentary:
(https://scontent-frt3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/s526x395/13412939_1174708975885572_2489640303754445734_n.jpg?oh=4e38ad2b0d1f9ebee028e77acbba5ba4&oe=580F065F)
"Orlando. The killer was gay."
"So, you just happened to know that but never checked?"
I seem to remember a mass deportation. Anyway, I take it that fellow in the cart was murdered in France? Not exactly a good example of the tolerance that country.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 15, 2016, 07:56:59 AM
You forgot Roma. What happened to those Roma in France half a decade ago?
I know what happenned under communist regimes:
In Czechoslovakia, they were labeled a "socially degraded stratum," and Romani women were sterilized as part of a state policy to reduce their population. This policy was implemented with large financial incentives, threats of denying future welfare payments, with misinformation, or after administering drugs.[148][149]
An official inquiry from the Czech Republic, resulting in a report (December 2005), concluded that the Communist authorities had practiced an assimilation policy towards Romanis, which "included efforts by social services to control the birth rate in the Romani community."I did not know France had a similar policy, so please enlighten me? Because the only thing I see is France expelling illegal immigrants back to their original country, which is apparently the good thing to do, according to this forum. Even then, they were given 300euros each + 100 euros per child. That's a lot more than what your future president has proposed doing toward working Mexicans.
If there were Mexican living illegally in the US, in unofficial urban camps, not working and causing social uprest, even the Democrats would support their expulsion from the country. With a lot less tact than the French authority.
And I still want to know about these other problems France has.
Quote from: Martinus on June 15, 2016, 09:27:08 AM
Charlie Ebdo's commentary:
(https://scontent-frt3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/s526x395/13412939_1174708975885572_2489640303754445734_n.jpg?oh=4e38ad2b0d1f9ebee028e77acbba5ba4&oe=580F065F)
"So, you just happened to know that but never checked?"
"And you had to claim the attack without checking first?"
Quote from: Razgovory on June 15, 2016, 09:30:33 AM
I seem to remember a mass deportation. Anyway, I take it that fellow in the cart was murdered in France? Not exactly a good example of the tolerance that country.
I am sure you do remember it. Having never been there and all.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 15, 2016, 09:30:33 AM
I seem to remember a mass deportation. Anyway, I take it that fellow in the cart was murdered in France? Not exactly a good example of the tolerance that country.
:secret:
Murdered in a banlieue by non-French people.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 15, 2016, 09:14:26 AM
It would at least explain your fear
I do not fear women. Women have been very important in my life.
Quoteand hatred of women.
LOVE THEM
QuoteAlas, you're only an asshole.
That I can live with.
Quote from: viper37 on June 15, 2016, 09:35:21 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 15, 2016, 07:56:59 AM
You forgot Roma. What happened to those Roma in France half a decade ago?
I know what happenned under communist regimes:
In Czechoslovakia, they were labeled a "socially degraded stratum," and Romani women were sterilized as part of a state policy to reduce their population. This policy was implemented with large financial incentives, threats of denying future welfare payments, with misinformation, or after administering drugs.[148][149]
An official inquiry from the Czech Republic, resulting in a report (December 2005), concluded that the Communist authorities had practiced an assimilation policy towards Romanis, which "included efforts by social services to control the birth rate in the Romani community."
I did not know France had a similar policy, so please enlighten me? Because the only thing I see is France expelling illegal immigrants back to their original country, which is apparently the good thing to do, according to this forum. Even then, they were given 300euros each + 100 euros per child. That's a lot more than what your future president has proposed doing toward working Mexicans.
If there were Mexican living illegally in the US, in unofficial urban camps, not working and causing social uprest, even the Democrats would support their expulsion from the country. With a lot less tact than the French authority.
And I still want to know about these other problems France has.
I'm not interested in communist regimes, I merely observed what the Sarkozy did six years ago. Actions which decryed by both the European commissions and the EU Parliament. French behavior was disgraceful.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 15, 2016, 09:46:34 AM
I'm not interested in communist regimes, I merely observed what the Sarkozy did six years ago. Actions which decryed by both the European commissions and the EU Parliament. French behavior was disgraceful.
Again not much came of it. What is your bizarre conspiracy here? You hate France so therefore that is why we had a guy shoot up an Orlando gay club?
Quote from: Valmy on June 15, 2016, 09:52:33 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 15, 2016, 09:46:34 AM
I'm not interested in communist regimes, I merely observed what the Sarkozy did six years ago. Actions which decryed by both the European commissions and the EU Parliament. French behavior was disgraceful.
Again not much came of it. What is your bizarre conspiracy here? You hate France so therefore that is why we had a guy shoot up an Orlando gay club?
I thought all of this was stemming from a discus...series of posts about how France has issues with ethnic/religious minorities.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 15, 2016, 09:44:21 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 15, 2016, 09:30:33 AM
I seem to remember a mass deportation. Anyway, I take it that fellow in the cart was murdered in France? Not exactly a good example of the tolerance that country.
:secret:
Murdered in a banlieue by non-French people.
:lol: I was so hopping you would say that! They ain't real French, they are Arabs! Thank you for making the case that France isn't integrating for me.
Quote from: Valmy on June 15, 2016, 09:52:33 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 15, 2016, 09:46:34 AM
I'm not interested in communist regimes, I merely observed what the Sarkozy did six years ago. Actions which decryed by both the European commissions and the EU Parliament. French behavior was disgraceful.
Again not much came of it. What is your bizarre conspiracy here? You hate France so therefore that is why we had a guy shoot up an Orlando gay club?
They weren't deported? You aren't following this very well. Seedy pointed out that the US doesn't have a Muslim problem but Europe does which I agreed with. Zoupa, became quite angry with this, saying there is no racism in France and other bizarre things.
Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2016, 09:55:05 AM
I thought all of this was stemming from a discus...series of posts about how France has issues with ethnic/religious minorities.
Which has jack all to do with anything. And in any case they have problems with some minorities and no problems with others.
Quote from: viper37 on June 15, 2016, 09:36:28 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 15, 2016, 09:27:08 AM
Charlie Ebdo's commentary:
(https://scontent-frt3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/s526x395/13412939_1174708975885572_2489640303754445734_n.jpg?oh=4e38ad2b0d1f9ebee028e77acbba5ba4&oe=580F065F)
"So, you just happened to know that but never checked?"
"And you had to claim the attack without checking first?"
Oh that's better - my French is not that good it seems. :P
Quote from: Razgovory on June 15, 2016, 09:56:26 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 15, 2016, 09:44:21 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 15, 2016, 09:30:33 AM
I seem to remember a mass deportation. Anyway, I take it that fellow in the cart was murdered in France? Not exactly a good example of the tolerance that country.
:secret:
Murdered in a banlieue by non-French people.
:lol: I was so hopping you would say that! They ain't real French, they are Arabs! Thank you for making the case that France isn't integrating for me.
Nice try. ;) They were not Arabs. Your ignorance of the case is absolutely appalling! Stop making such racist assumptions motivated by your self-loathing, typically European-American left(ish). Somewhat lefty, we all remember your opinion on Ferguson.
You would not see evidence of France integrating even if an integrated person was speaking to you.
Quote from: derspiess on June 15, 2016, 09:44:21 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 15, 2016, 09:14:26 AM
It would at least explain your fear
I do not fear women. Women have been very important in my life.
Quoteand hatred of women.
LOVE THEM
QuoteAlas, you're only an asshole.
That I can live with.
It's actually quite funny that a single guy living with cats is accusing a married guy with kids of "hating and fearing women". :lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on June 15, 2016, 09:59:59 AM
They weren't deported? You aren't following this very well. Seedy pointed out that the US doesn't have a Muslim problem but Europe does which I agreed with. Zoupa, became quite angry with this, saying there is no racism in France and other bizarre things.
First of all we have our dominant political party, which controls both the house and the senate, rallying around politicians making anti-Islam policy demands. Which is very weird if we have no Muslim problem. Then Seedy takes our draconian quota system and the fact we refuse to take any refugees and instead only take educated middle class professionals as some kind of badge of superiority for integration.
Zoupa was pissed you guys were shitting all over them like our shit doesn't stink. And in any case I have explained why France has issues with some minorities and not others. You don't give a shit. You just want to talk trash.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 15, 2016, 10:01:47 AM
Nice try. ;) They were not Arabs. Your ignorance of the case is absolutely appalling! Stop making such racist assumptions motivated by your self-loathing, typically European-American left(ish). Somewhat lefty, we all remember your opinion on Ferguson.
You would not see evidence of France integrating even if an integrated person was speaking to you.
Then who were the perpetrators? Who were these "non-French"? I was in Ferguson, I have family in that area. What of it?
Quote from: Martinus on June 15, 2016, 07:39:19 AM
Here's an interesting take on why the President using the term "radical Islam" matters:
Premise is totally wrong though. USSR didn't collapse because RR called it an "evil empire"; it collapsed because the economy became dependent on oil, the oil price tanked, and because Gorbachev was willing to dispense with Party control. In a different set of factual circumstances, different results.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 15, 2016, 10:04:09 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 15, 2016, 10:01:47 AM
Nice try. ;) They were not Arabs. Your ignorance of the case is absolutely appalling! Stop making such racist assumptions motivated by your self-loathing, typically European-American left(ish). Somewhat lefty, we all remember your opinion on Ferguson.
You would not see evidence of France integrating even if an integrated person was speaking to you.
Then who were the perpetrators? Who were these "non-French"? I was in Ferguson, I have family in that area. What of it?
You are the one claiming to know they were Arabs. I thought you knew better than somebody living in Paris. :P You might want to reading up on the Roma lynching case.
Quote from: Valmy on June 15, 2016, 10:03:56 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 15, 2016, 09:59:59 AM
They weren't deported? You aren't following this very well. Seedy pointed out that the US doesn't have a Muslim problem but Europe does which I agreed with. Zoupa, became quite angry with this, saying there is no racism in France and other bizarre things.
First of all we have our dominant political party, which controls both the house and the senate, rallying around politicians making anti-Islam policy demands. Which is very weird if we have no Muslim problem. Then Seedy takes our draconian quota system and the fact we refuse to take any refugees and instead only take educated middle class professionals as some kind of badge of superiority.
Zoupa was pissed you guys were shitting all over them like our shit doesn't stink.
I don't think you get it. Muslims in this country aren't the problem. They do fine for the most part. There is a simply a large number of people who don't like them. That's not a Muslim problem, that's an everyone else problem. France does have Muslim problem, they live in ghettos, are badly underemployed and are becoming radical.
So, since you are taking Zoupa's side on this are agreeing with his assessment that the US is just a bunch of segregated communities that all hate one another?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 15, 2016, 10:09:38 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 15, 2016, 07:39:19 AM
Here's an interesting take on why the President using the term "radical Islam" matters:
Premise is totally wrong though. USSR didn't collapse because RR called it an "evil empire"; it collapsed because the economy became dependent on oil, the oil price tanked, and because Gorbachev was willing to dispense with Party control. In a different set of factual circumstances, different results.
Marty was there in the Eastern Bloc. He remembers how strong and rich and popular the USSR was. How excellently administrated and efficient it was. Communism works and it was about to win. Thank God Reagan said a mean thing about it and it all collapsed.
Quote from: Martinus on June 15, 2016, 10:02:24 AM
It's actually quite funny that a single guy living with cats is accusing a married guy with kids of "hating and fearing women". :lol:
Just because of one woman I don't particularly like. As if Hillary stood for all women. Ugh, the thought of that just makes me sick.
Quote from: derspiess on June 15, 2016, 10:13:53 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 15, 2016, 10:02:24 AM
It's actually quite funny that a single guy living with cats is accusing a married guy with kids of "hating and fearing women". :lol:
Just because of one woman I don't particularly like. As if Hillary stood for all women. Ugh, the thought of that just makes me sick.
Well clearly. You've demonstrated you like your women submissive and Hillary is anything but.
Neither France nor the US has much moral authority to stand on in terms of accusing the other of problems with race and ethnicity. This kind of nationalist trash talking has its amusements but it's pointless and just plays into the hands of the bad guys. European countries have their problems, we (Americans) have ours, they both need to be fixed
Quote from: Razgovory on June 15, 2016, 10:11:19 AM
I don't think you get it. Muslims in this country aren't the problem. They do fine for the most part. There is a simply a large number of people who don't like them. That's not a Muslim problem, that's an everyone else problem. France does have Muslim problem, they live in ghettos, are badly underemployed and are becoming radical.
I spent many months of my life in France and there were Muslims (and Africans and Asians and so forth) all over the place doing very well and getting along well with the locals. But they decided to take on French culture. Which you have to do in France. They are very much about their culture, which is the source of their nationalism and obnoxiousness. Which is the same reason the Roma have issues. I have only told you this a billion times. You don't give a fuck. It is really important to you to embrace this simplification and caricature of the situation.
QuoteSo, since you are taking Zoupa's side on this are agreeing with his assessment that the US is just a bunch of segregated communities that all hate one another?
He doesn't really believe that, he is talking shit like he does. But that version of the US is just as ridiculous and ignorant as yours on France.
Quote from: Valmy on June 15, 2016, 10:15:37 AM
But that version of the US is just as ridiculous and ignorant as yours on France.
Right.
Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2016, 10:14:40 AM
Well clearly. You've demonstrated you like your women submissive
:lol:
Quoteand Hillary is anything but.
She's awfully submissive to her Middle Eastern donors :contract:
Quote from: Martinus on June 15, 2016, 10:02:24 AM
It's actually quite funny that a single guy living with cats is accusing a married guy with kids of "hating and fearing women". :lol:
You think that's funny, you should see my Stalin impression: I make gay Polocks disappear.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 15, 2016, 10:10:06 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 15, 2016, 10:04:09 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 15, 2016, 10:01:47 AM
Nice try. ;) They were not Arabs. Your ignorance of the case is absolutely appalling! Stop making such racist assumptions motivated by your self-loathing, typically European-American left(ish). Somewhat lefty, we all remember your opinion on Ferguson.
You would not see evidence of France integrating even if an integrated person was speaking to you.
Then who were the perpetrators? Who were these "non-French"? I was in Ferguson, I have family in that area. What of it?
You are the one claiming to know they were Arabs. I thought you knew better than somebody living in Paris. :P You might want to reading up on the Roma lynching case.
You told me they were non-French. I looked for that case but I could not find any perpetrators put on trial. Apparently nobody was put on trial. Still the point remains, you chose distinguish them from French (possibly without even knowing who did it, unless you have information the cops didn't).
Quote from: derspiess on June 15, 2016, 10:17:12 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2016, 10:14:40 AM
Well clearly. You've demonstrated you like your women submissive
:lol:
Quoteand Hillary is anything but.
She's awfully submissive to her Middle Eastern donors :contract:
QuoteHILLARY CLINTON: The third area that demands attention is preventing radicalization and countering efforts by ISIS and other international terrorist groups to recruit in the U.S. and Europe.
For starters, it is long past time for the Saudis, Qatari and Kuwaitis and others to stop their citizens from funding extremist organizations. And they should stop supporting radical schools and mosques around the world that have set too many young people on a path towards extremism.
:hmm:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 15, 2016, 10:17:28 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 15, 2016, 10:02:24 AM
It's actually quite funny that a single guy living with cats is accusing a married guy with kids of "hating and fearing women". :lol:
You think that's funny, you should see my Stalin impression: I make gay Polocks disappear.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia3.giphy.com%2Fmedia%2FYG3qalnBXN0pG%2Fgiphy.gif&hash=10002287b0e0175b4791bf8443ce9bf28167a7db)
Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2016, 10:19:59 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 15, 2016, 10:17:12 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2016, 10:14:40 AM
Well clearly. You've demonstrated you like your women submissive
:lol:
Quoteand Hillary is anything but.
She's awfully submissive to her Middle Eastern donors :contract:
QuoteHILLARY CLINTON: The third area that demands attention is preventing radicalization and countering efforts by ISIS and other international terrorist groups to recruit in the U.S. and Europe.
For starters, it is long past time for the Saudis, Qatari and Kuwaitis and others to stop their citizens from funding extremist organizations. And they should stop supporting radical schools and mosques around the world that have set too many young people on a path towards extremism.
:hmm:
Weak. Where's her condemnation of how their laws treat gays in their own countries?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 15, 2016, 10:15:33 AM
Neither France nor the US has much moral authority to stand on in terms of accusing the other of problems with race and ethnicity. This kind of nationalist trash talking has its amusements but it's pointless and just plays into the hands of the bad guys. European countries have their problems, we (Americans) have ours, they both need to be fixed
Lighten up. Its langujsh
Quote from: Razgovory on June 15, 2016, 10:19:40 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 15, 2016, 10:10:06 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 15, 2016, 10:04:09 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 15, 2016, 10:01:47 AM
Nice try. ;) They were not Arabs. Your ignorance of the case is absolutely appalling! Stop making such racist assumptions motivated by your self-loathing, typically European-American left(ish). Somewhat lefty, we all remember your opinion on Ferguson.
You would not see evidence of France integrating even if an integrated person was speaking to you.
Then who were the perpetrators? Who were these "non-French"? I was in Ferguson, I have family in that area. What of it?
You are the one claiming to know they were Arabs. I thought you knew better than somebody living in Paris. :P You might want to reading up on the Roma lynching case.
You told me they were non-French. I looked for that case but I could not find any perpetrators put on trial. Apparently nobody was put on trial. Still the point remains, you chose distinguish them from French (possibly without even knowing who did it, unless you have information the cops didn't).
The Roma did not mention French people. Call him a racist if you want.
Quote from: derspiess on June 15, 2016, 10:21:40 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2016, 10:19:59 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 15, 2016, 10:17:12 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2016, 10:14:40 AM
Well clearly. You've demonstrated you like your women submissive
:lol:
Quoteand Hillary is anything but.
She's awfully submissive to her Middle Eastern donors :contract:
QuoteHILLARY CLINTON: The third area that demands attention is preventing radicalization and countering efforts by ISIS and other international terrorist groups to recruit in the U.S. and Europe.
For starters, it is long past time for the Saudis, Qatari and Kuwaitis and others to stop their citizens from funding extremist organizations. And they should stop supporting radical schools and mosques around the world that have set too many young people on a path towards extremism.
:hmm:
Weak. Where's her condemnation of how their laws treat gays in their own countries?
What is weak is your refusal to acknowledge anything positive about Clinton's stance on this subject, no matter what evidence is given. No matter what, there will always be something else for you to demand she perform in order to fulfill your idea of Islam hate theater.
She is the fucking Secretary of State. Her job is to actually manage our foreign relations, not make the sub-90 IQ crowd feel good about hating Muslims.
Quote from: Valmy on June 15, 2016, 10:15:37 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 15, 2016, 10:11:19 AM
I don't think you get it. Muslims in this country aren't the problem. They do fine for the most part. There is a simply a large number of people who don't like them. That's not a Muslim problem, that's an everyone else problem. France does have Muslim problem, they live in ghettos, are badly underemployed and are becoming radical.
I spent many months of my life in France and there were Muslims (and Africans and Asians and so forth) all over the place doing very well and getting along well with the locals. But they decided to take on French culture. Which you have to do in France. They are very much about their culture, which is the source of their nationalism and obnoxiousness. Which is the same reason the Roma have issues. I have only told you this a billion times. You don't give a fuck. It is really important to you to embrace this simplification and caricature of the situation.
QuoteSo, since you are taking Zoupa's side on this are agreeing with his assessment that the US is just a bunch of segregated communities that all hate one another?
He doesn't really believe that, he is talking shit like he does. But that version of the US is just as ridiculous and ignorant as yours on France.
What you don't understand is that the French demands on immigrants are by American standards unreasonable, and make it much harder for integrate thus their problem. Being obnoxious is not a good defense.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 15, 2016, 10:17:28 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 15, 2016, 10:02:24 AM
It's actually quite funny that a single guy living with cats is accusing a married guy with kids of "hating and fearing women". :lol:
You think that's funny, you should see my Stalin impression: I make gay Polocks disappear.
Did anyone not see that coming?
Seedy having a nicotine fit? Yeah, you can probably count on that several times a day.
Quote from: derspiess on June 15, 2016, 10:33:55 AM
Seedy having a nicotine fit? Yeah, you can probably count on that several times a day.
That is kind and sensitive person talk mister.
Self-ban by moderator.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 15, 2016, 10:34:49 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 15, 2016, 10:33:55 AM
Seedy having a nicotine fit? Yeah, you can probably count on that several times a day.
That is kind and sensitive person talk mister.
:lol:
Apparently Milo has been banned from Twitter. Interesting timing with the Marti banning :hmm:
We can't ban Marty - he is to languish what Trump is to the media. He may be an exasperating, trolling, egomaniac. But we need the ratings.
Quote from: derspiess on June 15, 2016, 11:00:38 AM
Apparently Milo has been banned from Twitter. Interesting timing with the Marti banning :hmm:
Wow. Considering what I regularly see on Twitter it boggles the mind what one must do to be banned from it.
I wonder who this Milo chap is?
Is it worth looking up?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 15, 2016, 11:22:29 AM
We can't ban Marty - he is to languish what Trump is to the media. He may be an exasperating, trolling, egomaniac. But we need the ratings.
No, I think we'd be better of disbanding if that's our lifeline.
Quote from: Valmy on June 15, 2016, 11:25:42 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 15, 2016, 11:00:38 AM
Apparently Milo has been banned from Twitter. Interesting timing with the Marti banning :hmm:
Wow. Considering what I regularly see on Twitter it boggles the mind what one must do to be banned from it.
That crazy female rapper was banned. Basically, I think it was because she kept sending a ton of hateful tweets to one person.
Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2016, 10:14:40 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 15, 2016, 10:13:53 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 15, 2016, 10:02:24 AM
It's actually quite funny that a single guy living with cats is accusing a married guy with kids of "hating and fearing women". :lol:
Just because of one woman I don't particularly like. As if Hillary stood for all women. Ugh, the thought of that just makes me sick.
Well clearly. You've demonstrated you like your women submissive and Hillary is anything but.
Yes, I especially like how she divorced her cheating husband and didn't accept being a kind and sensitive person.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 15, 2016, 11:29:06 AM
I wonder who this Milo chap is?
Is it worth looking up?
I couldn't make it through the Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milo_Yiannopoulos) about him without taking a dislike to the man; but Martinus seems to have found him inspirational.
Quote from: Savonarola on June 15, 2016, 11:49:03 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 15, 2016, 11:29:06 AM
I wonder who this Milo chap is?
Is it worth looking up?
I couldn't make it through the Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milo_Yiannopoulos) about him without taking a dislike to the man; but Martinus seems to have found him inspirational.
which in itself should make you pause.
Quote from: The Brain on June 15, 2016, 11:48:25 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2016, 10:14:40 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 15, 2016, 10:13:53 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 15, 2016, 10:02:24 AM
It's actually quite funny that a single guy living with cats is accusing a married guy with kids of "hating and fearing women". :lol:
Just because of one woman I don't particularly like. As if Hillary stood for all women. Ugh, the thought of that just makes me sick.
Well clearly. You've demonstrated you like your women submissive and Hillary is anything but.
Yes, I especially like how she divorced her cheating husband and didn't accept being a kind and sensitive person.
Well if it is hard to get ahead in America as a woman, even more so for a divorced woman.
Besides, I've heard of this concept called...love? :hmm:
Plenty of couples stay together despite some cheating having gone on. Anyway that is none of my business.
Quote from: Valmy on June 15, 2016, 12:16:03 PM
Plenty of couples stay together despite some cheating having gone on. Anyway that is none of my business.
Personally, I think it'd be a game over for me. You wanna talk to me about it, see if I'm amenable to it, okay. You want to be a chicken shit and try to hide it from me? Boy, bye.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 15, 2016, 11:29:06 AM
I wonder who this Milo chap is?
Is it worth looking up?
Capetan Mihali looked him up recently and, I believe, regretted doing so.
Quote from: Valmy on June 15, 2016, 12:16:03 PM
Plenty of couples stay together despite some cheating having gone on. Anyway that is none of my business.
Yeah, but Bill has "strayed" quite a number of times over the years.
From the outside it's always appeared that they stayed married for reasons of politics and power, not love.
Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2016, 12:14:27 PM
Besides, I've heard of this concept called...love? :hmm:
:lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:
Quote from: Barrister on June 15, 2016, 12:40:54 PM
From the outside it's always appeared that they stayed married for reasons of politics and power, not love.
How is one supposed to demonstrate that one is staying for love?
Quote from: Barrister on June 15, 2016, 12:40:54 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 15, 2016, 12:16:03 PM
Plenty of couples stay together despite some cheating having gone on. Anyway that is none of my business.
Yeah, but Bill has "strayed" quite a number of times over the years.
From the outside it's always appeared that they stayed married for reasons of politics and power, not love.
I don't know. Bill is pretty lovable. Seedy always seemed very taken by him.
Quote from: Barrister on June 15, 2016, 12:40:54 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 15, 2016, 12:16:03 PM
Plenty of couples stay together despite some cheating having gone on. Anyway that is none of my business.
Yeah, but Bill has "strayed" quite a number of times over the years.
From the outside it's always appeared that they stayed married for reasons of politics and power, not love.
Alternately, they love one another and have an understanding about non-monogamy; it's a thing that happens. Or perhaps they love each other in spite of the fidelity issues.
It's kind of hard to tell from our position, and it isn't really anybody's business except theirs.
Quote from: Jacob on June 15, 2016, 12:46:38 PM
Alternately, they love one another and have an understanding about non-monogamy; it's a thing that happens. Or perhaps they love each other in spite of the fidelity issues.
It's kind of hard to tell from our position, and it isn't really anybody's business except theirs.
No. She's running to be leader of the free world. Her temperament and character are very much at issue, and to the extent that her relationship with Bill tells us about her personality it is very much our business.
It would be one thing if they had a "non-monogamous" relationship, but they've never said so. Instead Bill always lied about not having affairs, and Hillary helped him to cover them up, and to intimidate women into not coming forward.
Quote from: Barrister on June 15, 2016, 12:51:04 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 15, 2016, 12:46:38 PM
Alternately, they love one another and have an understanding about non-monogamy; it's a thing that happens. Or perhaps they love each other in spite of the fidelity issues.
It's kind of hard to tell from our position, and it isn't really anybody's business except theirs.
No. She's running to be leader of the free world. Her temperament and character are very much at issue, and to the extent that her relationship with Bill tells us about her personality it is very much our business.
It would be one thing if they had a "non-monogamous" relationship, but they've never said so. Instead Bill always lied about not having affairs, and Hillary helped him to cover them up, and to intimidate women into not coming forward.
Well we already know her temperament and character. She has been a public figure for 25 years.
Quote from: Valmy on June 15, 2016, 12:56:23 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 15, 2016, 12:51:04 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 15, 2016, 12:46:38 PM
Alternately, they love one another and have an understanding about non-monogamy; it's a thing that happens. Or perhaps they love each other in spite of the fidelity issues.
It's kind of hard to tell from our position, and it isn't really anybody's business except theirs.
No. She's running to be leader of the free world. Her temperament and character are very much at issue, and to the extent that her relationship with Bill tells us about her personality it is very much our business.
It would be one thing if they had a "non-monogamous" relationship, but they've never said so. Instead Bill always lied about not having affairs, and Hillary helped him to cover them up, and to intimidate women into not coming forward.
Well we already know her temperament and character. She has been a public figure for 25 years.
Indeed we do. Nothing I'm talking about is new news.
But Jacob was the one saying "it isn't anybodies business".
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 15, 2016, 11:22:29 AM
We can't ban Marty - he is to languish what Trump is to the media. He may be an exasperating, trolling, egomaniac. But we need the ratings.
Well not permanently. We need him to be here when Trump loses.
Check out this massacre in 1927.
Because we never had these before the AR15.....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
Quote from: Razgovory on June 15, 2016, 01:04:58 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 15, 2016, 11:22:29 AM
We can't ban Marty - he is to languish what Trump is to the media. He may be an exasperating, trolling, egomaniac. But we need the ratings.
Well not permanently. We need him to be here when Trump loses.
Trump is going to wipe the floor with the Clinton Crime Family.
Quote from: Siege on June 15, 2016, 01:12:54 PM
Check out this massacre in 1927.
Because we never had these before the AR15.....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
Ban Winchester Model 54s!
I think you have the wrong thread.
Quote from: Siege on June 15, 2016, 01:14:19 PM
Trump is going to wipe the floor with the Clinton Crime Family.
Siege -- you're my Languish brother, and I love you. But don't ever take sides with anyone against the Family again. Ever.
Quote from: Siege on June 15, 2016, 01:14:19 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 15, 2016, 01:04:58 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 15, 2016, 11:22:29 AM
We can't ban Marty - he is to languish what Trump is to the media. He may be an exasperating, trolling, egomaniac. But we need the ratings.
Well not permanently. We need him to be here when Trump loses.
Trump is going to wipe the floor with the Clinton Crime Family.
Why should we believe anything you say? You are a liar.
Quote from: derspiess on June 15, 2016, 10:21:40 AM
Weak. Where's her condemnation of how their laws treat gays in their own countries?
Where's Bush condemnation of the same? Bush Sr? Reagan? Any Republican presidential candidate to the last three presidential races including this year?
Quote from: viper37 on June 15, 2016, 01:45:50 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 15, 2016, 10:21:40 AM
Weak. Where's her condemnation of how their laws treat gays in their own countries?
Where's Bush condemnation of the same? Bush Sr? Reagan? Any Republican presidential candidate to the last three presidential races including this year?
In January, Trump said he would want to help Saudi Arabia in conflicts against Iran...as long as they are willing to pay. :D
Frankly I am not interested in making other countries have internal policies we like. I will leave the international social engineering to Spicey.
Quote from: Barrister on June 15, 2016, 12:51:04 PM
No. She's running to be leader of the free world. Her temperament and character are very much at issue, and to the extent that her relationship with Bill tells us about her personality it is very much our business.
I don't recall you giving much attention to Harper's marriage troubles during his tenure.
QuoteIt would be one thing if they had a "non-monogamous" relationship, but they've never said so. Instead Bill always lied about not having affairs, and Hillary helped him to cover them up, and to intimidate women into not coming forward.
:rolleyes:
The entire focus on how Hillary reacts to Bill's marital fidelity is just grossly misogynist.
There is no two ways about it. Nobody holds men to any kind of standard like that.
I don't know. Marty called us cucks all the time and my wife has never even been unfaithful :P
Quote from: Jacob on June 15, 2016, 01:54:25 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 15, 2016, 12:51:04 PM
No. She's running to be leader of the free world. Her temperament and character are very much at issue, and to the extent that her relationship with Bill tells us about her personality it is very much our business.
I don't recall you giving much attention to Harper's marriage troubles during his tenure.
QuoteIt would be one thing if they had a "non-monogamous" relationship, but they've never said so. Instead Bill always lied about not having affairs, and Hillary helped him to cover them up, and to intimidate women into not coming forward.
:rolleyes:
Don't roll your eyes at me. Those are the allegations of Juanita Broaddrick.
And I'd never heard of any trouble with Harper's marriage. Googling now, there was a story published in 2011 that Laureen Harper had moved out of 24 Sussex that was promptly pulled by the G&M, and nothing published ever since.
I don't think mine has...of course, that is what cucks always think, I am sure.
Quote from: Barrister on June 15, 2016, 02:06:08 PMDon't roll your eyes at me. Those are the allegations of Juanita Broaddrick.
is that the primary source for the "hillary covered it up" allegations? checked out her allegations. while bill raping her seems plausible, if we assume the whole thing was true, then the comment from hillary at that fundraiser could very easily have been an innocent gesture that broaddrick, still traumatized, misinterpreted.
Quote from: Barrister on June 15, 2016, 12:51:04 PM
It would be one thing if they had a "non-monogamous" relationship, but they've never said so. Instead Bill always lied about not having affairs, and Hillary helped him to cover them up, and to intimidate women into not coming forward.
How positively conspiratorial. I had no idea Hillary was actually Bill's raternity brother.
Quote from: Berkut on June 15, 2016, 10:27:21 AM
She is the fucking Secretary of State.
Uhm, your information is a bit out of date there.
Quote from: Barrister on June 15, 2016, 02:06:08 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 15, 2016, 01:54:25 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 15, 2016, 12:51:04 PM
No. She's running to be leader of the free world. Her temperament and character are very much at issue, and to the extent that her relationship with Bill tells us about her personality it is very much our business.
I don't recall you giving much attention to Harper's marriage troubles during his tenure.
QuoteIt would be one thing if they had a "non-monogamous" relationship, but they've never said so. Instead Bill always lied about not having affairs, and Hillary helped him to cover them up, and to intimidate women into not coming forward.
:rolleyes:
Don't roll your eyes at me. Those are the allegations of Juanita Broaddrick.
And I'd never heard of any trouble with Harper's marriage. Googling now, there was a story published in 2011 that Laureen Harper had moved out of 24 Sussex that was promptly pulled by the G&M, and nothing published ever since.
Is she the one that said Clinton killed her cat?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 15, 2016, 11:29:06 AM
I wonder who this Milo chap is?
Is it worth looking up?
Not really. He was one of the cropper Telegraph blogs guys back from when that was good. Leveraged gamergate into building a following as an outrageous gay conservative. Katie Hopkins with highlights, basically.
Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2016, 12:17:39 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 15, 2016, 12:16:03 PM
Plenty of couples stay together despite some cheating having gone on. Anyway that is none of my business.
Personally, I think it'd be a game over for me. You wanna talk to me about it, see if I'm amenable to it, okay. You want to be a chicken shit and try to hide it from me? Boy, bye.
infidelity among gays? Say it ain't so! ;)
I thought it was part of the lifestyle.
Quote from: Barrister on June 15, 2016, 12:40:54 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 15, 2016, 12:16:03 PM
Plenty of couples stay together despite some cheating having gone on. Anyway that is none of my business.
Yeah, but Bill has "strayed" quite a number of times over the years.
From the outside it's always appeared that they stayed married for reasons of politics and power, not love.
Plenty of people do that. You think Melania Trump would still love her husband if he was poor?
Quote from: viper37 on June 15, 2016, 03:01:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2016, 12:17:39 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 15, 2016, 12:16:03 PM
Plenty of couples stay together despite some cheating having gone on. Anyway that is none of my business.
Personally, I think it'd be a game over for me. You wanna talk to me about it, see if I'm amenable to it, okay. You want to be a chicken shit and try to hide it from me? Boy, bye.
infidelity among gays? Say it ain't so! ;)
I thought it was part of the lifestyle.
Like straight people, gay people can have all sorts of relationship styles. :huh:
Lol Languish doesn't want people to know about Milo. He must be dangerous or something.
Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2016, 12:14:27 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 15, 2016, 11:48:25 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2016, 10:14:40 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 15, 2016, 10:13:53 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 15, 2016, 10:02:24 AM
It's actually quite funny that a single guy living with cats is accusing a married guy with kids of "hating and fearing women". :lol:
Just because of one woman I don't particularly like. As if Hillary stood for all women. Ugh, the thought of that just makes me sick.
Well clearly. You've demonstrated you like your women submissive and Hillary is anything but.
Yes, I especially like how she divorced her cheating husband and didn't accept being a kind and sensitive person.
Well if it is hard to get ahead in America as a woman, even more so for a divorced woman.
Besides, I've heard of this concept called...love? :hmm:
Which love? The love of a woman for a fine cigar?
Quote from: derspiess on June 15, 2016, 03:12:30 PM
Lol Languish doesn't want people to know about Milo. He must be dangerous or something.
More like as insightful and entertaining as Marti.
Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2016, 01:50:33 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 15, 2016, 01:45:50 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 15, 2016, 10:21:40 AM
Weak. Where's her condemnation of how their laws treat gays in their own countries?
Where's Bush condemnation of the same? Bush Sr? Reagan? Any Republican presidential candidate to the last three presidential races including this year?
In January, Trump said he would want to help Saudi Arabia in conflicts against Iran...as long as they are willing to pay. :D
He also said he thinks the Saudis should get nukes to defend themselves, and then said they shouldn't get nukes.
Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2016, 03:03:09 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 15, 2016, 03:01:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2016, 12:17:39 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 15, 2016, 12:16:03 PM
Plenty of couples stay together despite some cheating having gone on. Anyway that is none of my business.
Personally, I think it'd be a game over for me. You wanna talk to me about it, see if I'm amenable to it, okay. You want to be a chicken shit and try to hide it from me? Boy, bye.
infidelity among gays? Say it ain't so! ;)
I thought it was part of the lifestyle.
Like straight people, gay people can have all sorts of relationship styles. :huh:
lighten up, please :)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 15, 2016, 03:41:33 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2016, 01:50:33 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 15, 2016, 01:45:50 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 15, 2016, 10:21:40 AM
Weak. Where's her condemnation of how their laws treat gays in their own countries?
Where's Bush condemnation of the same? Bush Sr? Reagan? Any Republican presidential candidate to the last three presidential races including this year?
In January, Trump said he would want to help Saudi Arabia in conflicts against Iran...as long as they are willing to pay. :D
He also said he thinks the Saudis should get nukes to defend themselves, and then said they shouldn't get nukes.
In fairness he thinks every country should get their own nukes and stop free-loading. I never thought it'd be Americans who buried their entire, admirable post-war system :blink:
Quote from: viper37 on June 15, 2016, 04:04:20 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2016, 03:03:09 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 15, 2016, 03:01:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2016, 12:17:39 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 15, 2016, 12:16:03 PM
Plenty of couples stay together despite some cheating having gone on. Anyway that is none of my business.
Personally, I think it'd be a game over for me. You wanna talk to me about it, see if I'm amenable to it, okay. You want to be a chicken shit and try to hide it from me? Boy, bye.
infidelity among gays? Say it ain't so! ;)
I thought it was part of the lifestyle.
Like straight people, gay people can have all sorts of relationship styles. :huh:
lighten up, please :)
Sure when you make a fun joke.
Noticed something. After the San Bernadino shootings a lot of my Facebook friends (in particular the conservative friends) put up an American flag overlay. None have done this for the Orlando murders.
On related note, the Cole County refused to lower the flags as a sign of respect, until a resident (who to be honest is nuts) attended the committed meeting and demanded it. They still staid no, so he walked out and lower the flag himself and sat in front of it all day so nobody would raise back up. Eventually they gave in and have lower the flag at half-staff.
Quote from: derspiess on June 15, 2016, 03:12:30 PM
Lol Languish doesn't want people to know about Milo. He must be dangerous or something.
Being a gamer I knew about him well before he became Marty's crush.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 15, 2016, 04:07:48 PM
In fairness he thinks every country should get their own nukes and stop free-loading. I never thought it'd be Americans who buried their entire, admirable post-war system :blink:
You didn't? Oh I was pretty sure it would be us who would fuck it up.
But we have not elected Trump yet.
Derspeiss is now an avid follower of Milo, presumably because "he makes the right people angry", which could be said of Kim Jung Un or the guy who just killed all those people in Orlando.
Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2016, 04:26:53 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 15, 2016, 04:04:20 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2016, 03:03:09 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 15, 2016, 03:01:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2016, 12:17:39 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 15, 2016, 12:16:03 PM
Plenty of couples stay together despite some cheating having gone on. Anyway that is none of my business.
Personally, I think it'd be a game over for me. You wanna talk to me about it, see if I'm amenable to it, okay. You want to be a chicken shit and try to hide it from me? Boy, bye.
infidelity among gays? Say it ain't so! ;)
I thought it was part of the lifestyle.
Like straight people, gay people can have all sorts of relationship styles. :huh:
lighten up, please :)
Sure when you make a fun joke.
you're as touchy on this subject as I am on language issues. :)
Not really. I'm not upset. :)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 15, 2016, 10:15:33 AM
Neither France nor the US has much moral authority to stand on in terms of accusing the other of problems with race and ethnicity. This kind of nationalist trash talking has its amusements but it's pointless and just plays into the hands of the bad guys. European countries have their problems, we (Americans) have ours, they both need to be fixed
I agree.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 15, 2016, 05:39:09 PM
Noticed something. After the San Bernadino shootings a lot of my Facebook friends (in particular the conservative friends) put up an American flag overlay. None have done this for the Orlando murders.
On related note, the Cole County refused to lower the flags as a sign of respect, until a resident (who to be honest is nuts) attended the committed meeting and demanded it. They still staid no, so he walked out and lower the flag himself and sat in front of it all day so nobody would raise back up. Eventually they gave in and have lower the flag at half-staff.
I had a few who did that for the Orlando victims, but not many. One confused gal asked why everyone isn't doing that this time. Seeing a lot of rainbow overlays though.
I don't do overlays, like I don't do ribbons, bumper stickers, etc. Too showy for my tastes.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 15, 2016, 08:51:30 PM
Derspeiss is now an avid follower of Milo, presumably because "he makes the right people angry", which could be said of Kim Jung Un or the guy who just killed all those people in Orlando.
Yeah, but Milo is also entertaining, and AFAIK has not killed anyone.
Ok. Who the hell is Milo?
Oh God no!
Quote from: Siege on June 16, 2016, 09:48:48 AM
Ok. Who the hell is Milo?
He's the one Languish doesn't want you to know about. Go-- seek him out!!
Quote from: Siege on June 16, 2016, 09:48:48 AM
Ok. Who the hell is Milo?
A fascist that Marty has a crush on.
Quote from: Siege on June 16, 2016, 09:48:48 AM
Ok. Who the hell is Milo?
A writer at Beitbart. Martinus likes him. You probably would too.
Quote from: Siege on June 16, 2016, 09:48:48 AM
Ok. Who the hell is Milo?
A right wing online pundit. He has managed to persuade Marty to align with Trump politically, so you might find him worthwhile.
Quote from: Siege on June 16, 2016, 09:48:48 AM
Ok. Who the hell is Milo?
marti's dark, curly-haired crush of the month.
And now the UK might finds itself in a similar situation, a violent gun outrage could leave politician and commentators struggling to explain or define events and perhaps making political capital out of a tragedy?
Quote from: derspiess on June 16, 2016, 08:13:51 AM
I don't do overlays, like I don't do ribbons, bumper stickers, etc. Too showy for my tastes.
I've found that almost every single person who put up the French overlay after the Paris attacks to be right wing. Strange but true. Whenever I see the overlay or see it in someone's past profile pictures, I can usually find all kinds of the typical Conservative memes and talking points on their page.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on June 16, 2016, 01:44:26 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 16, 2016, 08:13:51 AM
I don't do overlays, like I don't do ribbons, bumper stickers, etc. Too showy for my tastes.
I've found that almost every single person who put up the French overlay after the Paris attacks to be right wing. Strange but true. Whenever I see the overlay or see it in someone's past profile pictures, I can usually find all kinds of the typical Conservative memes and talking points on their page.
I put up the French overlay after Paris. And while I never post political stuff on FB, I am pretty conservative.
I'd put up a rainbow overlay if FB had made a similarly-easy way to do so.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on June 16, 2016, 01:44:26 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 16, 2016, 08:13:51 AM
I don't do overlays, like I don't do ribbons, bumper stickers, etc. Too showy for my tastes.
I've found that almost every single person who put up the French overlay after the Paris attacks to be right wing. Strange but true. Whenever I see the overlay or see it in someone's past profile pictures, I can usually find all kinds of the typical Conservative memes and talking points on their page.
I saw plenty of lefty liberal type people on my FB with the French overlay back when it was topical, and a fair number of middle of the road types too.
Yeah, I haven't seen any kind of ideological bent to the use of those overlays. I never use them myself, though.
I guess it's just me then. It only seems to apply to the French flag overlay. I tested my theory with three people after all you have said you haven't noticed it. 3 for 3 supporters of right to hardcore right views. More research is required on my end!
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on June 16, 2016, 06:39:54 PM
I guess it's just me then. It only seems to apply to the French flag overlay. I tested my theory with three people after all you have said you haven't noticed it. 3 for 3 supporters of right to hardcore right views. More research is required on my end!
Nope, not alone! I have a feeling that many people are more concerned about the perpetrators than care for the victims.
http://drudgetoday.com/v2/r?n=0&s=2&c=1&pn=Anonymous&u=http://www.dailywire.com/news/6612/west-hollywood-inundated-poster-rainbow-gadsen-hank-berrien
See, gays could do a range/day cafe with style. Take a break from shooting and go get brunch and a latte at their nice day cafe.
:thumbsup:
(https://www.dailywire.com/sites/default/files/uploads/2016/06/2016_06_15_shootback_3_0.jpg)
Riiiiiight...because that worked so well when blacks tried it. #SecondAmendmentWhitesOnly #DeadNiggerStorage
Yeah, that one might blow up in conservative's face.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 16, 2016, 11:32:16 PM
Riiiiiight...because that worked so well when blacks tried it. #SecondAmendmentWhitesOnly #DeadNiggerStorage
Of course it didn't work. Fried chicken is not good for you.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 16, 2016, 11:40:29 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 16, 2016, 11:32:16 PM
Riiiiiight...because that worked so well when blacks tried it. #SecondAmendmentWhitesOnly #DeadNiggerStorage
Of course it didn't work. Fried chicken is not good for you.
I hope you get shot in the face by a black man's penis.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/anonymous-hacker-posts-gay-pride-messages-pro-isis-accounts-article-1.2676814
Quote
Hacker group Anonymous fills pro-ISIS accounts with gay pride messages and porn
Considering how many of them are closet fags to begin with, is that really going to be all that effective?
If not for the ROTWs humor factor, yes.
Really want to troll ISIS, spam them with pics of, say, women with jobs.
This thread has run its course.
CdM, please lock it.
Quote from: Jaron on June 17, 2016, 02:53:03 AM
This thread has run its course.
CdM, please lock it.
Get bent
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 17, 2016, 12:20:17 AM
Really want to troll ISIS, spam them with pics of, say, women with jobs.
:lol:
It's kinda amusing that websites like Breitbart have been posting a lot of pro-gay articles lately, to a visible confusion of their comments section. :lol:
Quote from: 11B4V on June 14, 2016, 12:23:34 AM
I still want to know why it took three hours to end this by OPD.
No compelling reasons that I can see. What do you think?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/us/fbi-transcripts-orlando-shooting-omar-mateen.html?_r=0
QuoteOrlando Police Defend Actions as Clock Ticked in Massacre
By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA, FRANCES ROBLES and ERIC LICHTBLAUJUNE 20, 2016
Some details of the Orlando nightclub massacre are known to the minute: The first reports of gunfire came at 2:02 a.m. The gunman made a 911 call at 2:35 a.m., in which he pledged allegiance to the Islamic State. By 5:15 a.m., as hostages fled to safety, he lay dead or mortally wounded in a scene of unimaginable carnage.
Many questions persist about those three hours at the blood-drenched Pulse nightclub, and about how law enforcement handled the crisis on June 12. Orlando police officials have been peppered with queries from the public, survivors and the news media about whether they should have confronted the gunman sooner and whether any of the victims were shot by the police.
The city's police chief, John Mina, and other officials have repeatedly defended the delay in storming a bathroom where the gunman had taken hostages, and have deflected questions about whose bullets did what damage. On Monday, Chief Mina answered in a way that left open the possibility that some of the 49 people killed and 53 wounded were, in fact, hit by police gunfire.
"That's part of the investigation, but here's what I will tell you: Those killings are on the suspect," he said.
The chief spoke at a news conference with local and federal law enforcement officials outside the club to release a partial transcript of the gunman's conversations with the police during the siege, and to fill a few gaps in the official account of what took place. But the news conference seemed intended just as much to reject criticism of the police.
"I think there was this misconception that we didn't do anything for three hours, and that's absolutely not true," the chief said. He said the police had used the time to rescue patrons, get the lay of the building, put resources into place, determine where people were hiding and talk to the gunman.
Federal law enforcement officials at Monday's news conference offered vigorous praise of local agencies and their personnel. "They should not be second-guessed," said A. Lee Bentley III, the United States attorney for the Middle District of Florida. "Lives were saved because of their heroic work."
The killer, Omar Mateen, spoke with the authorities four times for a total of 29 minutes while holding hostages in a bathroom where victims lay bleeding. The transcript released by the F.B.I. covered only the first, brief call and fragments of the last call; the substance of his statements was made public last week but not the precise language.
In the first call, to 911 at 2:35 a.m., which lasted less than a minute, Mr. Mateen, 29, took responsibility for the shootings "in the name of God the merciful," and declared allegiance to the Islamic State and its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. He demanded that the United States halt its bombing in Syria and Iraq.
He talked with a police negotiator at 2:48 for nine minutes, at 3:03 for 16 minutes and at 3:24 for three minutes. In the last call, he claimed — falsely, it turned out — to have explosives.
"There is some vehicle outside that has some bombs, just to let you know," he said. "You people are gonna get it, and I'm gonna ignite it if they try to do anything stupid." He said he had a vest of the kind "used in France," an apparent reference to explosive vests used by Islamic State attackers in Paris in November.
"While the killer made these murderous statements, he did so in a chilling, calm and deliberate manner," said Ronald Hopper, an assistant special agent in charge of the F.B.I.'s office in Tampa, Fla.
The F.B.I. at first released a transcript redacted to avoid mentioning the Islamic State and Mr. Baghdadi by name, which officials described as an effort not to play into the group's propaganda. That drew ridicule in the news media and from some Republicans, led by Speaker Paul D. Ryan, who suggested the Obama administration was playing down the attacker's radical Islamist motivation.
Hours later, the F.B.I. released what it said was an unedited transcript of the first 911 call, with the names.
The material released does not include any mention of a hatred of gays, which the bureau has been investigating as a possible motive.
Federal officials declined to release transcripts of all the calls, or of 911 calls made by people trapped inside Pulse, or audio recordings of any of them.
The first calls about a shooting came at 2:02 a.m., according to a timeline released by the F.B.I. The timeline did not say whether Mr. Mateen exchanged gunfire with an off-duty officer working security, as some officials have said.
At 2:04, more officers arrived, and at 2:08, officers from multiple agencies entered the club, and they and Mr. Mateen opened fire.
"That engagement and that initial entry caused him to stop shooting, retreat, and barricade himself into a bathroom," Chief Mina said.
Officials did not say how many officers fired in that gun battle, or how many rounds. The Orange County medical examiner, Dr. Joshua D. Stephany, said in an interview that autopsies of victims had not made any determination about who fired the fatal shots.
In an interview, the SWAT commander, Mark Canty, said he doubted any fatalities resulted from police bullets. Members of his team, he said, "are trained to kind of identify the targets."
But it is not clear whether any officers in that gunfight were from the SWAT team, and it is clear that some were not. The full team was not called to the scene until 2:18.
From the time Mr. Mateen retreated to the bathroom, Chief Mina said, "There was no shooting in that three-hour period until the commencement of the hostage-rescue operation."
Survivors who were in that bathroom have said Mr. Mateen had sprayed it with gunfire, killing and injuring several people, but their accounts did not make clear whether that happened before or after the firefight with the police. Former hostages agreed that a long period without shooting followed, though some have said Mr. Mateen shot a few more people at the end of the siege, after officers began to storm the building.
Officials here have insisted that the police followed protocol in not trying to force a showdown that could have claimed more lives. In fact, Mayor Buddy Dyer said the department's practices called for officers to retreat 1,000 feet once there was a threat of explosives, but they did not.
Chief Mina said that throughout the standoff, officers went into the club, putting themselves in danger to rescue people. Some survivors have told stories to that effect; Angel Colon, tearfully told of being unable to walk after having been shot several times, and expressed gratitude to an officer who pulled him to safety.
But others who escaped with their lives have not been so complimentary. Norman Caisano said that after hiding and then making his way toward the club entrance, "I poked my head out, and the police actually shot at me."
"I started crying and yelling, 'I'm a victim, I'm a victim, please, I'm hurt, I'm injured, I've been shot twice,' " he said.
Jeannette McCoy, 37, who escaped early on, was furious at the caution of the police, yelling at them to end the matter. "I wanted this guy dead," she said, but "they gave him so much time."
At 4:21 a.m., officers pulled an air-conditioner out of a wall, creating an escape route for people hiding in one room of the club. Eight minutes later, according to the F.B.I. timeline, some people who been inside had told the police that the gunman had said he was going to put explosive vests on four hostages within 15 minutes.
That prompted the decision to storm the club, officials have said. While the gunman and his hostages were in one bathroom, officials decided to breach the building's outer wall at another bathroom nearby, to free people trapped there, and make a path in.
A team from the Orange County Sheriff's Office placed explosives on the wall. Those were detonated at 5:02 a.m., but did not break all the way through, so officers used an armored vehicle to punch through the wall. But officials have said their aim was off, and they had to try multiple times to find the right spot for a hole. At 5:14 a.m., there were gunshots, as officers traded fire with Mr. Mateen. At 5:15, word came across the radio: the suspect was down.
The F.B.I. said it had collected more than 600 pieces of evidence and conducted more than 500 interviews. One of those interviewed, Mohammad Malik, said that Mr. Mateen, a longtime friend, told him two years ago that he had listened to recordings of Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical American-born cleric who was killed in an American drone strike in Yemen. Mr. Malik told a reporter that he told the F.B.I. at the time, and the bureau investigated but did not bring charges. The F.B.I. has said it looked into Mr. Mateen in 2014.
Investigators continue to believe that Mr. Mateen acted on his own, inspired by extremist groups but not directly in contact with them. They are still looking into what his wife knew, to determine whether she should face charges.
Agent Hopper appealed for the public's patience with a case so complex that agents were still combing the crime scene.
"This investigation is one week and one day old," he said, "and it may last months, and even years."
Correction: June 20, 2016
An earlier version of this article, because of a misspelling in the transcripts released by the F.B.I., misquotes the gunman in the Orlando shooting massacre. He warned that there were bombs in a car outside Pulse nightclub and explosives inside it, and that "you people are gonna get it, and I'm gonna ignite it if they try to do anything stupid." He did not say, "you people are gonna get it, and I'm gonna ignore it if they try to do anything stupid."
Quote"I think there was this misconception that we didn't do anything for three hours, and that's absolutely not true," the chief said. He said the police had used the time to rescue patrons, get the lay of the building, put resources into place, determine where people were hiding and talk to the gunman.
No, there's no misconception. They knew they had only one gunman. They knew this was not going to be a hostage situation once fatalities had started piling up: you can't negotiate with somebody who's already indiscriminately killed. Get the lay of the building, my ass.
QuoteAt 4:21 a.m., officers pulled an air-conditioner out of a wall, creating an escape route for people hiding in one room of the club. Eight minutes later, according to the F.B.I. timeline, some people who been inside had told the police that the gunman had said he was going to put explosive vests on four hostages within 15 minutes.
That prompted the decision to storm the club, officials have said. While the gunman and his hostages were in one bathroom, officials decided to breach the building's outer wall at another bathroom nearby, to free people trapped there, and make a path in.
A team from the Orange County Sheriff's Office placed explosives on the wall. Those were detonated at 5:02 a.m., but did not break all the way through, so officers used an armored vehicle to punch through the wall. But officials have said their aim was off, and they had to try multiple times to find the right spot for a hole. At 5:14 a.m., there were gunshots, as officers traded fire with Mr. Mateen. At 5:15, word came across the radio: the suspect was down.
Way to telegraph your punches, fellas. By all means, take your time.
Sounds to me like there's going to be more Active Shooter scenario training in the future, since it's obvious there's been none so far. That, and on-scene leadership sucks ass on a Saturday night. I guess the varsity squad gets the weekends off down there.
QuoteThe F.B.I. at first released a transcript redacted to avoid mentioning the Islamic State and Mr. Baghdadi by name, which officials described as an effort not to play into the group's propaganda. That drew ridicule in the news media and from some Republicans, led by Speaker Paul D. Ryan, who suggested the Obama administration was playing down the attacker's radical Islamist motivation.
Hours later, the F.B.I. released what it said was an unedited transcript of the first 911 call, with the names.
And a big "Thumbs Up" to you assholes, too. Fucking morons. PIO 101: NEVER RELEASE A SUSPECT'S DIRECT QUOTES
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 20, 2016, 11:13:10 PM
PIO 101: NEVER RELEASE A SUSPECT'S DIRECT QUOTES
Why is that? :unsure:
No need to provide sympathizers with bullshit excuses for sloganeering, any potential copycats with game-time inspiration, and in this case, terrorists with propaganda from an event they had nothing to do with.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 20, 2016, 10:46:48 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 14, 2016, 12:23:34 AM
I still want to know why it took three hours to end this by OPD.
No compelling reasons that I can see. What do you think?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/us/fbi-transcripts-orlando-shooting-omar-mateen.html?_r=0
QuoteOrlando Police Defend Actions as Clock Ticked in Massacre
By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA, FRANCES ROBLES and ERIC LICHTBLAUJUNE 20, 2016
Some details of the Orlando nightclub massacre are known to the minute: The first reports of gunfire came at 2:02 a.m. The gunman made a 911 call at 2:35 a.m., in which he pledged allegiance to the Islamic State. By 5:15 a.m., as hostages fled to safety, he lay dead or mortally wounded in a scene of unimaginable carnage.
Many questions persist about those three hours at the blood-drenched Pulse nightclub, and about how law enforcement handled the crisis on June 12. Orlando police officials have been peppered with queries from the public, survivors and the news media about whether they should have confronted the gunman sooner and whether any of the victims were shot by the police.
The city's police chief, John Mina, and other officials have repeatedly defended the delay in storming a bathroom where the gunman had taken hostages, and have deflected questions about whose bullets did what damage. On Monday, Chief Mina answered in a way that left open the possibility that some of the 49 people killed and 53 wounded were, in fact, hit by police gunfire.
"That's part of the investigation, but here's what I will tell you: Those killings are on the suspect," he said.
The chief spoke at a news conference with local and federal law enforcement officials outside the club to release a partial transcript of the gunman's conversations with the police during the siege, and to fill a few gaps in the official account of what took place. But the news conference seemed intended just as much to reject criticism of the police.
"I think there was this misconception that we didn't do anything for three hours, and that's absolutely not true," the chief said. He said the police had used the time to rescue patrons, get the lay of the building, put resources into place, determine where people were hiding and talk to the gunman.
Federal law enforcement officials at Monday's news conference offered vigorous praise of local agencies and their personnel. "They should not be second-guessed," said A. Lee Bentley III, the United States attorney for the Middle District of Florida. "Lives were saved because of their heroic work."
The killer, Omar Mateen, spoke with the authorities four times for a total of 29 minutes while holding hostages in a bathroom where victims lay bleeding. The transcript released by the F.B.I. covered only the first, brief call and fragments of the last call; the substance of his statements was made public last week but not the precise language.
In the first call, to 911 at 2:35 a.m., which lasted less than a minute, Mr. Mateen, 29, took responsibility for the shootings "in the name of God the merciful," and declared allegiance to the Islamic State and its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. He demanded that the United States halt its bombing in Syria and Iraq.
He talked with a police negotiator at 2:48 for nine minutes, at 3:03 for 16 minutes and at 3:24 for three minutes. In the last call, he claimed — falsely, it turned out — to have explosives.
"There is some vehicle outside that has some bombs, just to let you know," he said. "You people are gonna get it, and I'm gonna ignite it if they try to do anything stupid." He said he had a vest of the kind "used in France," an apparent reference to explosive vests used by Islamic State attackers in Paris in November.
"While the killer made these murderous statements, he did so in a chilling, calm and deliberate manner," said Ronald Hopper, an assistant special agent in charge of the F.B.I.'s office in Tampa, Fla.
The F.B.I. at first released a transcript redacted to avoid mentioning the Islamic State and Mr. Baghdadi by name, which officials described as an effort not to play into the group's propaganda. That drew ridicule in the news media and from some Republicans, led by Speaker Paul D. Ryan, who suggested the Obama administration was playing down the attacker's radical Islamist motivation.
Hours later, the F.B.I. released what it said was an unedited transcript of the first 911 call, with the names.
The material released does not include any mention of a hatred of gays, which the bureau has been investigating as a possible motive.
Federal officials declined to release transcripts of all the calls, or of 911 calls made by people trapped inside Pulse, or audio recordings of any of them.
The first calls about a shooting came at 2:02 a.m., according to a timeline released by the F.B.I. The timeline did not say whether Mr. Mateen exchanged gunfire with an off-duty officer working security, as some officials have said.
At 2:04, more officers arrived, and at 2:08, officers from multiple agencies entered the club, and they and Mr. Mateen opened fire.
"That engagement and that initial entry caused him to stop shooting, retreat, and barricade himself into a bathroom," Chief Mina said.
Officials did not say how many officers fired in that gun battle, or how many rounds. The Orange County medical examiner, Dr. Joshua D. Stephany, said in an interview that autopsies of victims had not made any determination about who fired the fatal shots.
In an interview, the SWAT commander, Mark Canty, said he doubted any fatalities resulted from police bullets. Members of his team, he said, "are trained to kind of identify the targets."
But it is not clear whether any officers in that gunfight were from the SWAT team, and it is clear that some were not. The full team was not called to the scene until 2:18.
From the time Mr. Mateen retreated to the bathroom, Chief Mina said, "There was no shooting in that three-hour period until the commencement of the hostage-rescue operation."
Survivors who were in that bathroom have said Mr. Mateen had sprayed it with gunfire, killing and injuring several people, but their accounts did not make clear whether that happened before or after the firefight with the police. Former hostages agreed that a long period without shooting followed, though some have said Mr. Mateen shot a few more people at the end of the siege, after officers began to storm the building.
Officials here have insisted that the police followed protocol in not trying to force a showdown that could have claimed more lives. In fact, Mayor Buddy Dyer said the department's practices called for officers to retreat 1,000 feet once there was a threat of explosives, but they did not.
Chief Mina said that throughout the standoff, officers went into the club, putting themselves in danger to rescue people. Some survivors have told stories to that effect; Angel Colon, tearfully told of being unable to walk after having been shot several times, and expressed gratitude to an officer who pulled him to safety.
But others who escaped with their lives have not been so complimentary. Norman Caisano said that after hiding and then making his way toward the club entrance, "I poked my head out, and the police actually shot at me."
"I started crying and yelling, 'I'm a victim, I'm a victim, please, I'm hurt, I'm injured, I've been shot twice,' " he said.
Jeannette McCoy, 37, who escaped early on, was furious at the caution of the police, yelling at them to end the matter. "I wanted this guy dead," she said, but "they gave him so much time."
At 4:21 a.m., officers pulled an air-conditioner out of a wall, creating an escape route for people hiding in one room of the club. Eight minutes later, according to the F.B.I. timeline, some people who been inside had told the police that the gunman had said he was going to put explosive vests on four hostages within 15 minutes.
That prompted the decision to storm the club, officials have said. While the gunman and his hostages were in one bathroom, officials decided to breach the building's outer wall at another bathroom nearby, to free people trapped there, and make a path in.
A team from the Orange County Sheriff's Office placed explosives on the wall. Those were detonated at 5:02 a.m., but did not break all the way through, so officers used an armored vehicle to punch through the wall. But officials have said their aim was off, and they had to try multiple times to find the right spot for a hole. At 5:14 a.m., there were gunshots, as officers traded fire with Mr. Mateen. At 5:15, word came across the radio: the suspect was down.
The F.B.I. said it had collected more than 600 pieces of evidence and conducted more than 500 interviews. One of those interviewed, Mohammad Malik, said that Mr. Mateen, a longtime friend, told him two years ago that he had listened to recordings of Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical American-born cleric who was killed in an American drone strike in Yemen. Mr. Malik told a reporter that he told the F.B.I. at the time, and the bureau investigated but did not bring charges. The F.B.I. has said it looked into Mr. Mateen in 2014.
Investigators continue to believe that Mr. Mateen acted on his own, inspired by extremist groups but not directly in contact with them. They are still looking into what his wife knew, to determine whether she should face charges.
Agent Hopper appealed for the public's patience with a case so complex that agents were still combing the crime scene.
"This investigation is one week and one day old," he said, "and it may last months, and even years."
Correction: June 20, 2016
An earlier version of this article, because of a misspelling in the transcripts released by the F.B.I., misquotes the gunman in the Orlando shooting massacre. He warned that there were bombs in a car outside Pulse nightclub and explosives inside it, and that "you people are gonna get it, and I'm gonna ignite it if they try to do anything stupid." He did not say, "you people are gonna get it, and I'm gonna ignore it if they try to do anything stupid."
They should have went in there and got the guy. Seedy is on the money. That shit OPD did is practically pre-Columbine tactics. Probably cost more lives. If the shooter is shooting at the cops he's too busy shooting at innocent people. They have the firepower. They fucked up.
They did go in there.
Read the article.
First calls about the shooting came in just after 2am.
Several officers from different agencies entered the club at 2:08 a.m. That is like 5 minutes later. They clearly were not waiting.
They exchanged gunfire with Mateen, who then retreated into a bathroom and barricaded himself inside.
There was not anymore shooting for the next three hours, until they went in and killed him when they heard he was planning on blowing shit up.
I can't really fault much there - clearly the officers who initially responded went in with the "post-Columbine" thinking of immediate engagement with an active shooter, and probably saved a lot of lives by doing so.
Just saw that the bouncer that evacuated 60-70 people is a MuslimHindu Marine Corps veteran of the Afghanistan war.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/war-veteran-imran-yousef-saves-dozens-during-orlando-nightclub-shooting-omar-mateen
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 21, 2016, 08:40:25 AM
Just saw that the bouncer that evacuated 60-70 people is a Muslim Marine Corps veteran of the Afghanistan war.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/war-veteran-imran-yousef-saves-dozens-during-orlando-nightclub-shooting-omar-mateen
QuoteYousuf, a 24-year-old Hindu, served as a U.S. Marine in Afghanistan.
Hindu != Muslim.
Well shit, someone linked my facebook page and said it was a Muslim. I even read the article, but I guess my eyes just glided over that part since I already "knew" who he was.
Yeah, that's a hero, kids.
Of course, other than probably an Israeli, a Hindu is probably best placed to deal with violent Islamists. :P
Quote from: Berkut on June 21, 2016, 08:07:22 AM
They did go in there.
Read the article.
First calls about the shooting came in just after 2am.
Several officers from different agencies entered the club at 2:08 a.m. That is like 5 minutes later. They clearly were not waiting.
They exchanged gunfire with Mateen, who then retreated into a bathroom and barricaded himself inside.
There was not anymore shooting for the next three hours, until they went in and killed him when they heard he was planning on blowing shit up.
I can't really fault much there - clearly the officers who initially responded went in with the "post-Columbine" thinking of immediate engagement with an active shooter, and probably saved a lot of lives by doing so.
No follow through. He already shot and killed folks and they let him barricade himself. Three hours, give me a fucking break. That time allowed the shooter breathing room, which if they had pressed him he wouldn't have had. This was not a TV bank robbery.
They fucked up and it should be looked into.
Fascinating/grim that he paused in the shooting to search Facebook for it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 21, 2016, 09:53:37 AM
Fascinating/grim that he paused in the shooting to search Facebook for it.
I found all those tweets of victims as the tragedy unfolded chilling to the bone, too. Strange age we are in.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 21, 2016, 08:40:25 AM
Just saw that the bouncer that evacuated 60-70 people is a MuslimHindu Marine Corps veteran of the Afghanistan war.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/war-veteran-imran-yousef-saves-dozens-during-orlando-nightclub-shooting-omar-mateen
An ethnic Hindu?
Quote from: 11B4V on June 21, 2016, 09:48:41 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 21, 2016, 08:07:22 AM
They did go in there.
Read the article.
First calls about the shooting came in just after 2am.
Several officers from different agencies entered the club at 2:08 a.m. That is like 5 minutes later. They clearly were not waiting.
They exchanged gunfire with Mateen, who then retreated into a bathroom and barricaded himself inside.
There was not anymore shooting for the next three hours, until they went in and killed him when they heard he was planning on blowing shit up.
I can't really fault much there - clearly the officers who initially responded went in with the "post-Columbine" thinking of immediate engagement with an active shooter, and probably saved a lot of lives by doing so.
No follow through. He already shot and killed folks and they let him barricade himself. Three hours, give me a fucking break. That time allowed the shooter breathing room, which if they had pressed him he wouldn't have had. This was not a TV bank robbery.
They fucked up and it should be looked into.
Who gives a shit about breathing room?
If he is no longer an active threat, the focus becomes on how to resolve the situation with as little loss of innocent life as possible. Going in with guns blazing doesn't achieve that, since they know he has hostages.
So they fall back on their standard hostage situation tactics, and those are pretty well understood.
I don't understand the complaint here - while he was an active shooter, they used active shooter response tactics. Ideally that would result in him being dead, but in this case he was able to retreat into a situation where he was no longer an active shooter (success for the good guys) but was now a hostage taker.
So at that point you switch to the appropriate tactics for THAT situation.
Using active shooter tactics in a hostage situation that doesn't call for it is just as dumb as using hostage tactics in an active shooter situation.
I think we want our responders to be smart enough and flexible enough to change tactics as the situation changes.
Quote from: Berkut on June 21, 2016, 10:19:43 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 21, 2016, 09:48:41 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 21, 2016, 08:07:22 AM
They did go in there.
Read the article.
First calls about the shooting came in just after 2am.
Several officers from different agencies entered the club at 2:08 a.m. That is like 5 minutes later. They clearly were not waiting.
They exchanged gunfire with Mateen, who then retreated into a bathroom and barricaded himself inside.
There was not anymore shooting for the next three hours, until they went in and killed him when they heard he was planning on blowing shit up.
I can't really fault much there - clearly the officers who initially responded went in with the "post-Columbine" thinking of immediate engagement with an active shooter, and probably saved a lot of lives by doing so.
No follow through. He already shot and killed folks and they let him barricade himself. Three hours, give me a fucking break. That time allowed the shooter breathing room, which if they had pressed him he wouldn't have had. This was not a TV bank robbery.
They fucked up and it should be looked into.
Who gives a shit about breathing room?
If he is no longer an active threat, the focus becomes on how to resolve the situation with as little loss of innocent life as possible. Going in with guns blazing doesn't achieve that, since they know he has hostages.
So they fall back on their standard hostage situation tactics, and those are pretty well understood.
I don't understand the complaint here - while he was an active shooter, they used active shooter response tactics. Ideally that would result in him being dead, but in this case he was able to retreat into a situation where he was no longer an active shooter (success for the good guys) but was now a hostage taker.
So at that point you switch to the appropriate tactics for THAT situation.
Using active shooter tactics in a hostage situation that doesn't call for it is just as dumb as using hostage tactics in an active shooter situation.
I think we want our responders to be smart enough and flexible enough to change tactics as the situation changes.
They allowed the Hostage situation to happen and lost the initiative. The shooter already made his intent known.
Folks on here have no problems putting the microscope on the police, yet you give them a pass. That entire operation needs to be investigated.
But you know best don't you.
Quote
The first calls about a shooting came at 2:02 a.m., according to a timeline released by the F.B.I. The timeline did not say whether Mr. Mateen exchanged gunfire with an off-duty officer working security, as some officials have said.
At 2:04, more officers arrived, and at 2:08, officers from multiple agencies entered the club, and they and Mr. Mateen opened fire.
Excellent response
Quote
"That engagement and that initial entry caused him to stop shooting, retreat, and barricade himself into a bathroom," Chief Mina said.
As it should be. But did press the advantage and lost the initiative. Fuck up #1
Quote
Officials did not say how many officers fired in that gun battle, or how many rounds. The Orange County medical examiner, Dr. Joshua D. Stephany, said in an interview that autopsies of victims had not made any determination about who fired the fatal shots.
AS response is to neutralize the threat.
Quote
In an interview, the SWAT commander, Mark Canty, said he doubted any fatalities resulted from police bullets. Members of his team, he said, "are trained to kind of identify the targets."
Canned answer
Quote
But it is not clear whether any officers in that gunfight were from the SWAT team, and it is clear that some were not. The full team was not called to the scene until 2:18.
Not relevant
QuoteFrom the time Mr. Mateen retreated to the bathroom, Chief Mina said, "There was no shooting in that three-hour period until the commencement of the hostage-rescue operation."
Loss of the initiative the shooter had made his intent known.
Quote
Survivors who were in that bathroom have said Mr. Mateen had sprayed it with gunfire, killing and injuring several people, but their accounts did not make clear whether that happened before or after the firefight with the police. Former hostages agreed that a long period without shooting followed, though some have said Mr. Mateen shot a few more people at the end of the siege, after officers began to storm the building.
You are giving the cops a pass.
Quote
Officials here have insisted that the police followed protocol in not trying to force a showdown that could have claimed more lives. In fact, Mayor Buddy Dyer said the department's practices called for officers to retreat 1,000 feet once there was a threat of explosives, but they did not.
Upper management ass covering
Quote
Chief Mina said that throughout the standoff, officers went into the club, putting themselves in danger to rescue people. Some survivors have told stories to that effect; Angel Colon, tearfully told of being unable to walk after having been shot several times, and expressed gratitude to an officer who pulled him to safety.
Quote
But others who escaped with their lives have not been so complimentary. Norman Caisano said that after hiding and then making his way toward the club entrance, "I poked my head out, and the police actually shot at me."
"I started crying and yelling, 'I'm a victim, I'm a victim, please, I'm hurt, I'm injured, I've been shot twice,' " he said.
Jeannette McCoy, 37, who escaped early on, was furious at the caution of the police, yelling at them to end the matter. "I wanted this guy dead," she said, but "they gave him so much time."
Again you give them a pass.
Quote
At 4:21 a.m., officers pulled an air-conditioner out of a wall, creating an escape route for people hiding in one room of the club. Eight minutes later, according to the F.B.I. timeline, some people who been inside had told the police that the gunman had said he was going to put explosive vests on four hostages within 15 minutes.
That prompted the decision to storm the club, officials have said. While the gunman and his hostages were in one bathroom, officials decided to breach the building's outer wall at another bathroom nearby, to free people trapped there, and make a path in.
A team from the Orange County Sheriff's Office placed explosives on the wall. Those were detonated at 5:02 a.m., but did not break all the way through, so officers used an armored vehicle to punch through the wall. But officials have said their aim was off, and they had to try multiple times to find the right spot for a hole. At 5:14 a.m., there were gunshots, as officers traded fire with Mr. Mateen. At 5:15, word came across the radio: the suspect was down.
It's harder to regain the initiative after you have lost it.
Clearly *you* are the one who knows best.
I am not giving them a pass, I am saying none of the information I have now suggests that *I* think I could have done any better had I been in charge, and it seems like they handled the situation aggressively when aggression was called for, and carefully when that was called for, and went right back to aggressive when THAT was called for again.
KICK ASS TAKE NAMES DONT LOSE INITIATIVE HOO RAH RAH RAH sounds awesome, and very typical ex-military.
Should there be an investigation? Of course. 50 people are dead, and another 50 wounded, and this is not going to be the last time something like this happens - hopefully they go over the entire thing in great detail and figure out how to revise tactics and do it better next time.
But I am not quite ready to start whining about how I could have done ever so much better from the comfort of my office chair because *I* never would have let him retreat into a bathroom and blockade himself into a clearly dominating, initiative laden position like "barricaded in a bathroom, surrounded by police".
I like that your "evidence" includes a pissed off victim - like some victim wanting the shooter dead is *clearly* enough to make the tactical commander change his tactics. "Wait, someone is mad at the guy and wants him dead? Well fuck, why didn't someone say so? Send in the tanks!".
Quote
Some survivors of the attack had spoken out shortly after the events unfolded, criticizing a three-hour standoff that followed the early burst of gunfire.
"Why couldn't we have taken care of this much earlier?" New York television station WNYW quoted attack survivor Jeannette McCoy as saying two days afterward. "There were people in there bleeding to death. A part of me puts a sense of blame on (police). I'm sorry, but I was there. They could have done something."
But Monday, Orlando police Chief John Mina reiterated earlier statements he had made that circumstances changed when the initial response of officers who ran to the gunshots and fired on Mateen drove him into a bathroom of the club with hostages.
Gee, that sounds familiar, like something someone in this very thread said...
Quote
At that moment, Mina said, what had been an active shooter situation requiring officers to engage the gunman turned into a hostage situation that demanded negotiation and planning.
"The timeline released based upon radio communications clearly shows our officers were within the club within minutes and engaged the suspect in gunfire," Mina said Monday. "And that's important because that the engagement and that initial entry caused him to retreat, stop shooting and barricade himself in the bathroom with hostages."
And, he said, police were in and out of the club rescuing victims throughout the three hours between when police gunfire drove Mateen into the bathroom and the final encounter with the gunman after a SWAT team blew a hole in the wall and stormed in.
At the same time, crisis negotiators were trying to talk to Mateen to end the situation without further bloodshed, and the SWAT team was setting up for its entry, Mina said.
There was no gunfire during that time, he said.
When Mateen threatened to put explosive vests on hostages -- vests authorities later found he did not have -- commanders gave the order to go in, Mina said.
"So I'm extremely proud of the heroic actions of our officers, and I am very confident they saved many, many, many lives that night," he said.
Again, I am sure there will be a rather thorough AAR done, but I see nothing here to fault. They had the shooter neutralized, but there was still a hostage situation. They were able to get in and get wounded people out.
The goal at this point is to end the situation without further innocent injury or death. They are police, not soldiers. Indeed, they had taken away the shooters initiative completely, and could control the situation as it were.
It seems clear that going after him was going to result in more people dying, and in fact when they did go after him because of the explosives threat, it is likely (although this is currently unclear) that he did in fact shoot some of the hostages. Trying to avoid that was a very reasonable goal.
Quote from: Berkut on June 21, 2016, 11:19:58 AM
When Mateen threatened to put explosive vests on hostages -- vests authorities later found he did not have -- commanders gave the order to go in, Mina said.
Two hours after the initial entry. That is a deflection on their part. It's obvious we will not agree. Look at their actions that night with a critical eye and not just a pass. Make them answer and don't except a canned response.
QuoteAt 4:21 a.m., officers pulled an air-conditioner out of a wall, creating an escape route for people hiding in one room of the club. Eight minutes later, according to the F.B.I. timeline, some people who been inside had told the police that the gunman had said he was going to put explosive vests on four hostages within 15 minutes.
Quote"So I'm extremely proud of the heroic actions of our officers, and I am very confident they saved many, many, many lives that night," he said.
Typical upper management drivel.
I guess the key question is: how many critically wounded people was police unable to remove from the club during those three hours? In a way, leaving the wounded victims bleeding is tantamount to letting the hostage taker slowly execute them.
Quote from: Berkut on June 21, 2016, 11:10:48 AM
Clearly *you* are the one who knows best.
I am not giving them a pass, I am saying none of the information I have now suggests that *I* think I could have done any better had I been in charge, and it seems like they handled the situation aggressively when aggression was called for, and carefully when that was called for, and went right back to aggressive when THAT was called for again.
KICK ASS TAKE NAMES DONT LOSE INITIATIVE HOO RAH RAH RAH sounds awesome, and very typical ex-military.
Should there be an investigation? Of course. 50 people are dead, and another 50 wounded, and this is not going to be the last time something like this happens - hopefully they go over the entire thing in great detail and figure out how to revise tactics and do it better next time.
But I am not quite ready to start whining about how I could have done ever so much better from the comfort of my office chair because *I* never would have let him retreat into a bathroom and blockade himself into a clearly dominating, initiative laden position like "barricaded in a bathroom, surrounded by police".
Hyberbole much. Beings you have lost control of yourself, good day.
Quote from: DGuller on June 21, 2016, 12:08:40 PM
I guess the key question is: how many critically wounded people was police unable to remove from the club during those three hours? In a way, leaving the wounded victims bleeding is tantamount to letting the hostage taker slowly execute them.
A good question.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 21, 2016, 11:52:43 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 21, 2016, 11:19:58 AM
When Mateen threatened to put explosive vests on hostages -- vests authorities later found he did not have -- commanders gave the order to go in, Mina said.
Two hours after the initial entry. That is a deflection on their part. It's obvious we will not agree. Look at their actions that night with a critical eye and not just a pass. Make them answer and don't except a canned response.
I am not giving them a pass, I am withholding judgment, something you think you have enough information to go ahead with - there is nothing here so far that suggests that they made a mistake in letting the situation go for a couple hours while they try to come up with a way of resolving it that doesn't allow the shooter the chance to kill some more people. your position seems to be much more motivated by an emotional, ex-military viewpoint that demands action simply for the sake of action.
The evidence is that they were right to do so - since once they DID decide they had to go, he did in fact shoot some of his hostages.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 21, 2016, 12:15:51 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 21, 2016, 11:10:48 AM
Clearly *you* are the one who knows best.
I am not giving them a pass, I am saying none of the information I have now suggests that *I* think I could have done any better had I been in charge, and it seems like they handled the situation aggressively when aggression was called for, and carefully when that was called for, and went right back to aggressive when THAT was called for again.
KICK ASS TAKE NAMES DONT LOSE INITIATIVE HOO RAH RAH RAH sounds awesome, and very typical ex-military.
Should there be an investigation? Of course. 50 people are dead, and another 50 wounded, and this is not going to be the last time something like this happens - hopefully they go over the entire thing in great detail and figure out how to revise tactics and do it better next time.
But I am not quite ready to start whining about how I could have done ever so much better from the comfort of my office chair because *I* never would have let him retreat into a bathroom and blockade himself into a clearly dominating, initiative laden position like "barricaded in a bathroom, surrounded by police".
Hyberbole much. Beings you have lost control of yourself, good day.
You are the one who is so quick to question the judgment and courage of the professionals, not me.
Quote from: Berkut on June 21, 2016, 12:18:53 PM
viewpoint that demands action simply for the sake of action.
That's a little unfair. I think his viewpoint would be best described as one that believe action would have resulted in saving more lives. He may or may not be right but not simply action for the sake of taking action.
Quote from: Berkut on June 21, 2016, 12:19:37 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 21, 2016, 12:15:51 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 21, 2016, 11:10:48 AM
Clearly *you* are the one who knows best.
I am not giving them a pass, I am saying none of the information I have now suggests that *I* think I could have done any better had I been in charge, and it seems like they handled the situation aggressively when aggression was called for, and carefully when that was called for, and went right back to aggressive when THAT was called for again.
KICK ASS TAKE NAMES DONT LOSE INITIATIVE HOO RAH RAH RAH sounds awesome, and very typical ex-military.
Should there be an investigation? Of course. 50 people are dead, and another 50 wounded, and this is not going to be the last time something like this happens - hopefully they go over the entire thing in great detail and figure out how to revise tactics and do it better next time.
But I am not quite ready to start whining about how I could have done ever so much better from the comfort of my office chair because *I* never would have let him retreat into a bathroom and blockade himself into a clearly dominating, initiative laden position like "barricaded in a bathroom, surrounded by police".
Hyberbole much. Beings you have lost control of yourself, good day.
You are the one who is so quick to question the judgment and courage of the professionals, not me.
Good day
Quote from: DGuller on June 21, 2016, 12:08:40 PM
I guess the key question is: how many critically wounded people was police unable to remove from the club during those three hours? In a way, leaving the wounded victims bleeding is tantamount to letting the hostage taker slowly execute them.
That is a fair assessment only if it is reasonable to know the particulars of the question (how many people injured that they cannot get to, compared to how many hostages he had) at the time the decisions had to be made.
It is pretty easy to sit here now and pick apart every choice made in hindsight and perfect safety. A lot harder to make those decisions at the time, and the reason I am willing to give them the presumption of operating in good faith to the best of their abilities and training.
It is rather cheap, IMO, to Monday morning quarterback an incredibly difficult situation none of us have ever had even a tiny bit of familiarity with. I don't doubt that once a thorough AAR is put together, there will be many examples of mistakes that were made that had they not been made perhaps more lives could have been saved, and people will pick at those as if the people who are tasked with dealing with situations like this are defined only by the things they didn't get exactly right, when in reality it is very likely that they made a few thousand decisions in those few hours, most of which were probably right.
In any case, it is to soon to say. I am not saying they didn't make any mistakes, I am saying there isn't enough information to conclude that they handled the situation poorly overall, and more importantly to our gung ho ex-military members, there isn't enough information that suggests that they should have immediately gone after him rather than back off, negotiate, and let SWAT prepare the scene once he was neutralized from being an active shooter.
Quote from: garbon on June 21, 2016, 12:22:09 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 21, 2016, 12:18:53 PM
viewpoint that demands action simply for the sake of action.
That's a little unfair. I think his viewpoint would be best described as one that believe action would have resulted in saving more lives. He may or may not be right but not simply action for the sake of taking action.
But he has given us no reason to believe it would save lives, just demanded that they "don't lose the initiative". I get were he is coming from - it is straight out of Small Unit Infantry Tactics 101. Once you get the target retreating, don't stop, don't let up the pressure, don't give them time to adjust. It is great tactics when you are fighting a battle. But not so applicable to police, and in fact I think that applying military tactics to police work is a huge mistake.
I just don't think it applies, and there is no reason for us to think that the judgment of those on the scene was clearly wrong.
Honestly, I think this started with people not realizing that the three hour wait was AFTER the police had already aggressively responded to the active shooter, and now he is just married to that position and trying to justify it. I could be wrong about that though, of course.
I think that there is a lot to be said for B4's position: once the shooter has demonstrated that he is perfectly willing to kill the hostages (and he knows that he cannot negotiate a good outcome for himself, since he has already committed mass murder), you keep going until he is dead. Throw a couple of flash-bangs and go into the bathroom. I don't see what was to be gained by allowing him to reorient, reload, and take stock of his position. I recognize that there is merit to Berkut's position that we should default to the position that the professionals on the scene know what we know, plus have experience and first-hand knowledge, but, as a position in a meaningless internet debate, I'll side with B4 pending more information.
Well, you can't discount that it also allows the good guys to reorient, reload, and take stock of THEIR situation.
For example, for all we know the guys who initially engaged didn't have flash bangs - they had presumably gotten to the scene within minutes of the start of the shooting, with whatever they had with them. And we know that the bad guy has very limited resources, while the good guys will get lots more resources over the next few minutes.
Perhaps you could argue that the individuals at that split instant of decision, literally in the middle of a firefight, should have pressed and followed his retreat into the bathroom. Hell, they might be thinking that themselves in hindsight, but I am *really* loathe to question those kinds of decisions, made literally in the very middle of a firefight, with people all around, confusion, nobody really know what the fuck is going on, etc., etc.
I mean, trying to put myself in their shoes - they don't know shit at that point.
It is 2:07. You are outside with some other officers, and you are going to go in. Things you know:
1. There is someone shooting people inside.
Things you don't know:
1. Is there more than one person?
2. What is he armed with?
3. Does he have explosives?
4. How many people are hurt?
On and on.
So when you go in, engage that active shooter you know about, and he stops shooting and retreats to a restroom, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me at all at that point to pause, and take a moment to try to secure the situation and figure out what the fuck is going on. Are there more shooters? Are there more shooters? Are there more shooters?
That thought would be running through my head like crazy, and if Shooter A is willing to retreat and stop being an immediate threat, I guess I would be inclined to letting him go for now, so I can take stock myself, and make sure I didn't just neutralize shooter 1 of 2 or 3 or 4.
All very speculative of course. But I can very reasonably imagine why I would choose to take the temporary cessation of gunplay with a particular shooter at that moment.
And once you do that, and take a few minutes to realize that there aren't any more shooters, and you start evacing wounded...well, now we really are into a different situation that should be handled differently.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 21, 2016, 09:48:41 AMNo follow through. He already shot and killed folks and they let him barricade himself. Three hours, give me a fucking break. That time allowed the shooter breathing room, which if they had pressed him he wouldn't have had. This was not a TV bank robbery.
They fucked up and it should be looked into.
I've heard both sides of it over the past few days from friends of mine who are still active duty. I have two friends who are career MPs and both largely defend, or at least say we "shouldn't Monday morning quarterback" the Orlando PD. Most of the others lean toward OPD not handling it appropriately.
The MPs claim they've ran training exercises in which an active shooter situation becomes a hostage situation, and under that scenario OPD behaved correctly.
I don't have any expertise in this stuff but I do kinda question the idea of treating a mass shooter as a ordinary hostage taker. The fact that he's just killed a lot of people should probably mean something even if he's stopped shooting.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 21, 2016, 01:53:56 PM
The MPs claim they've ran training exercises in which an active shooter situation becomes a hostage situation, and under that scenario OPD behaved correctly.
I don't have any expertise in this stuff but I do kinda question the idea of treating a mass shooter as a ordinary hostage taker. The fact that he's just killed a lot of people should probably mean something even if he's stopped shooting.
I suspect nobody sitting outside "negotiating" had any illusions about how this was going to end - just trying to figure out how to end it in a manner that might save a few more people.
Quote from: Berkut on June 21, 2016, 12:19:37 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 21, 2016, 12:15:51 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 21, 2016, 11:10:48 AM
Clearly *you* are the one who knows best.
I am not giving them a pass, I am saying none of the information I have now suggests that *I* think I could have done any better had I been in charge, and it seems like they handled the situation aggressively when aggression was called for, and carefully when that was called for, and went right back to aggressive when THAT was called for again.
KICK ASS TAKE NAMES DONT LOSE INITIATIVE HOO RAH RAH RAH sounds awesome, and very typical ex-military.
Should there be an investigation? Of course. 50 people are dead, and another 50 wounded, and this is not going to be the last time something like this happens - hopefully they go over the entire thing in great detail and figure out how to revise tactics and do it better next time.
But I am not quite ready to start whining about how I could have done ever so much better from the comfort of my office chair because *I* never would have let him retreat into a bathroom and blockade himself into a clearly dominating, initiative laden position like "barricaded in a bathroom, surrounded by police".
Hyberbole much. Beings you have lost control of yourself, good day.
You are the one who is so quick to question the judgment and courage of the professionals, not me.
He's a professional in the same field. It ain't like he's a layman spouting off.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 21, 2016, 12:15:51 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 21, 2016, 11:10:48 AM
Clearly *you* are the one who knows best.
I am not giving them a pass, I am saying none of the information I have now suggests that *I* think I could have done any better had I been in charge, and it seems like they handled the situation aggressively when aggression was called for, and carefully when that was called for, and went right back to aggressive when THAT was called for again.
KICK ASS TAKE NAMES DONT LOSE INITIATIVE HOO RAH RAH RAH sounds awesome, and very typical ex-military.
Should there be an investigation? Of course. 50 people are dead, and another 50 wounded, and this is not going to be the last time something like this happens - hopefully they go over the entire thing in great detail and figure out how to revise tactics and do it better next time.
But I am not quite ready to start whining about how I could have done ever so much better from the comfort of my office chair because *I* never would have let him retreat into a bathroom and blockade himself into a clearly dominating, initiative laden position like "barricaded in a bathroom, surrounded by police".
Hyberbole much. Beings you have lost control of yourself, good day.
True to MOS, Berkut would prefer that the police shoot TOW missiles at the club.
It worked for Uday and Qusay.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 21, 2016, 06:48:49 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 21, 2016, 12:19:37 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 21, 2016, 12:15:51 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 21, 2016, 11:10:48 AM
Clearly *you* are the one who knows best.
I am not giving them a pass, I am saying none of the information I have now suggests that *I* think I could have done any better had I been in charge, and it seems like they handled the situation aggressively when aggression was called for, and carefully when that was called for, and went right back to aggressive when THAT was called for again.
KICK ASS TAKE NAMES DONT LOSE INITIATIVE HOO RAH RAH RAH sounds awesome, and very typical ex-military.
Should there be an investigation? Of course. 50 people are dead, and another 50 wounded, and this is not going to be the last time something like this happens - hopefully they go over the entire thing in great detail and figure out how to revise tactics and do it better next time.
But I am not quite ready to start whining about how I could have done ever so much better from the comfort of my office chair because *I* never would have let him retreat into a bathroom and blockade himself into a clearly dominating, initiative laden position like "barricaded in a bathroom, surrounded by police".
Hyberbole much. Beings you have lost control of yourself, good day.
You are the one who is so quick to question the judgment and courage of the professionals, not me.
He's a professional in the same field. It ain't like he's a layman spouting off.
That aside, Berkut's argument is not wrong by any means. Just a different view.
I'm in the process of a use of force investigation on an officer of mine. The officers statements don't quite jive. The upper chain was going to believe the officers until I told them to pull the video. A vid is worth a thousand words. Not all is as it appears. A lesson for the upper muckety mucks. Seedy would laugh at the whole thing, the root cause that is. But one more step and someone would have been dead.
Use of force is no laughing matter. Unless it involves an asian driver.
PM me sometime when the dust settles. :P
Obama doing the moonwalk away from the DOJ over transcript release.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 21, 2016, 10:24:18 PM
Use of force is no laughing matter. Unless it involves an asian driver.
PM me sometime when the dust settles. :P
The officer is Asian. :lol: no shirt really.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 21, 2016, 08:23:48 PM
That aside, Berkut's argument is not wrong by any means. Just a different view.
And these doctrines are fluid; they've changed before, and they'll change again. Just like workplace active shooter protocols: used to be Run, then it was Shelter in Place, now it's Grab a Stapler If You Have the Shot.
I'm not a big fan of the way they did it--once you're engaged, you don't disengage--but they have their reasons for doing what they did. I just don't see the negotiator angle here; all that indiscriminate killing sort of eliminates his credibility as a hostage taker.
The fact remains that he retreated to the bathroom. And people died in that bathroom.
Excellent timeline and floorplan of the club here:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/pulse-orlando-nightclub-shooting/os-orlando-pulse-nightclub-shooting-timeline-htmlstory.html
What kind of irks me the most is this part:
QuoteAn off-duty Orlando Police Department officer in the nightclub's parking lot hears shots fired and sees Omar Mateen near the entrance. They exchange fire, but the officer realizes he is "outgunned" and retreats to call for backup.
Specifically working as off-duty security for the club for, what, maybe $25-$30 a hour? isn't exactly working your district on a regular shift, but this guy wasn't the first on the scene; he was the scene.
No one truly knows how they would react in this sort of situation--I've known competitive shooting pistol champions that could shoot the tits off a housefly at 25 yards, yet if the shit had ever hit the fan I would fully expect them to drop their weapon and accidentally kick it over to the bad guy.
Hell, if I had been working that detail, pretty sure I would've been listed in the credits in order of appearance very quickly as Dead Guy With Analog Revolver :lol:
"...An' I seen him running, and all he was doing was fussin' with his bullets, and kept saying, 'are you fucking shitting me', over and over..."
But dude...that's your job. Do your fucking job.
Depressing.
:lol: @ your revolver. No jams though.
Is Al-Qaeda jealous of Daesh and/or lone wolves?
Elsewhere, Milo (yes! that one) calls for minorities to leave the islamophile Left, and fight back against Islam.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/orlando-nightclub-massacre/al-qaeda-orlando-shooter-should-have-targeted-whites-n598576 (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/orlando-nightclub-massacre/al-qaeda-orlando-shooter-should-have-targeted-whites-n598576)
Quote
Al Qaeda: Orlando Shooter Should Have Targeted Whites
An al Qaeda franchise is praising Orlando gunman Omar Mateen — but chiding him for targeting gay Latinos instead of straight whites.
A snarky public statement purportedly released by Inspire, the online magazine of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, says that by mowing down 49 people at a gay nightclub full of Latinos instead of setting his sights on a crowd of "Anglo-Saxons," Mateen muddled his message.
As a result, media coverage focused on whether Mateen was driven by hatred of gays — even though he professed allegiance to ISIS, and not its rival al Qaeda, in a 911 call during the June 12 massacre.
"The attacker chose a nightclub of homosexuals specifically," the Inspire statement said, adding that "better than that is to choose the places that do not specify a certain sect."
The statement, which was translated by the Flashpoint threat intelligence firm, also said that Mateen made a strategic misstep by launching his attack on a night when the club was full of Latinos.
"We see, and Allah knows, that we avoid targeting places and crowds of the minorities," it said.
"So we see that targeting should be against the general places or the places where Anglo-Saxons are concentrated, as this sect of the American fabric is truly who leads American [sic] and it is the majority of the population there."
Flashpoint co-founder Evan Kohlmann, an NBC terrorism analyst pointed out that even though Mateen cited ISIS as the inspiration for the attack, al Qaeda seemed to be claiming some responsibility because it has called for "lone wolf" attacks against the West.
"This is the first thing they have released in quite a while," Kohlmann said, "and it looks like they are trying to attract attention in a rather desperate way."
Kohlmann said the statement — which lauded Mateen as a heroic "lone jihad" holy warrior — appears to be an official Inspire release. But he said it was far less professional than others, including one after the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings that went to great lengths to praise the Tsarnaev brothers, who said they learned to make their explosive devices from another Inspire publication.
ISIS has also released statements praising Mateen, and there is no indication al Qaeda or any of its regional franchises played even an inspirational role in the Orlando shootings.
WTF is FOX doing :huh:
:59 sec
QuoteJudge Napolitano - "Nobody died until 05:13 in the morning" !!! ]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgRkh1NHlX8&t=0s
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2016, 04:53:04 PM
WTF is FOX doing :huh:
:59 sec
QuoteJudge Napolitano - "Nobody died until 05:13 in the morning" !!! ]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgRkh1NHlX8&t=0s
Whatever pushes up ratings.
While I agree with you, this goes beyond.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 27, 2016, 04:53:04 PM
WTF is FOX doing :huh:
Making up their own shit since 1996.
Quote"We see, and Allah knows, that we avoid targeting places and crowds of the minorities," it said.
AQ is playing the identity politics game too. Great.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2016, 06:28:36 PM
Quote"We see, and Allah knows, that we avoid targeting places and crowds of the minorities," it said.
AQ is playing the identity politics game too. Great.
I find it baffling. They have been murdering minorities in their own countries for decades :hmm:
You know they've got to be low on pledges for their membership drive if they're endorsing a self-hating big fag for his attack on non-self-hating fags.
Guess they just can't move enough tote bags and DVD sets of The Roosevelts this month. Should've gone with The Civil War again, that always gets the phone to ring.
Run Card
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2922995-OPDPulseLIVECAD-June172016-by.html#document/p1
Quote'People are bleeding out'
As the night progressed, according to the new dispatch records, callers became increasingly desperate, begged for help and warned that people around them were dying.
The 18-year-old woman who went silent after talking to a dispatcher for 25 minutes was one.
There were about 10 other people in the bathroom with her, she told a dispatcher.
"Everyone in the bathroom is groaning in pain," a dispatcher reported her saying. "People are bleeding out."
More than an hour later, at 3:46 a.m., another caller told a dispatcher that his girlfriend was texting him from a bathroom. There were 18 other people in the room with her, he said, two of them dead.
About 45 minutes later, the death count in the bathroom had climbed to four, he told a dispatcher, records show.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/pulse-orlando-nightclub-shooting/investigation/os-pulse-shooting-sheriffs-office-record-20160630-story.html
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 30, 2016, 08:20:14 PM
Quote'People are bleeding out'
As the night progressed, according to the new dispatch records, callers became increasingly desperate, begged for help and warned that people around them were dying.
The 18-year-old woman who went silent after talking to a dispatcher for 25 minutes was one.
There were about 10 other people in the bathroom with her, she told a dispatcher.
"Everyone in the bathroom is groaning in pain," a dispatcher reported her saying. "People are bleeding out."
More than an hour later, at 3:46 a.m., another caller told a dispatcher that his girlfriend was texting him from a bathroom. There were 18 other people in the room with her, he said, two of them dead.
About 45 minutes later, the death count in the bathroom had climbed to four, he told a dispatcher, records show.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/pulse-orlando-nightclub-shooting/investigation/os-pulse-shooting-sheriffs-office-record-20160630-story.html
Yeah, that's kinda what I was saying when I agreed with B4 about just going in and killing the guy from the start, rather than negotiating. It really doesn't seem like wisdom to allow sure deaths for fear of potential deaths, unless the numbers are just wildly disproportionate.
Oh, and so much for Fox's breathless credulity when Napolitano told his whopper. Unless the girl in the bathroom was lying about two people dead before 3:46.
I hope Napolitano gets crucified over that.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2016, 06:28:36 PM
Quote"We see, and Allah knows, that we avoid targeting places and crowds of the minorities," it said.
AQ is playing the identity politics game too. Great.
I think they are down to three guys and mimeograph anymore.
Not again. 17 shot at Ft. Myers night club. :cry:
http://www.winknews.com/2016/07/25/developing-gunshots-heard-large-deputy-presence-at-fort-myers-nightclub/?ftag=MSF0951a18
:(
Well fuck. :(
These ones were all kids too. :(
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 25, 2016, 06:52:07 AM
These ones were all kids too. :(
Yeah it was a teen party. What an age we live in.
:(
Anything known about the attackers yet?
Sweet Jesus. :(
I grew up there. It has been a while, but that used to be a rather run down area.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/us/fort-myers-club-blu-shooting.html?_r=0
QuoteShooting at Nightclub in Fort Myers, Florida, Leaves 2 Teenagers Dead
Two teenagers were killed and at least 16 others were wounded in a shooting early Monday at a nightclub here that had been hosting a party for young people, the authorities said.
Police officers were called to the nightclub, Club Blu, in a palm-tree-lined strip mall in this southwestern Florida city, about 12:30 a.m. Monday. They arrived to find "several victims suffering from gunshot wounds" in the club's parking lot, Capt. Jim Mulligan of the city's Police Department said in a statement.
The police gave no immediate indication on a possible motive, but said it "is not an act of terror." Residents of the neighborhood around the club said the area was stalked by drug dealing and violence.
The authorities identified the two victims killed as Sean Archilles, 14, and Stef'An Strawder, 18.
A family friend said on Monday that Mr. Strawder, who went by the nickname Dee, was an incoming senior and star basketball player at Lehigh Senior High School who aspired to play college ball.
"He was like a son to me," said the friend, Blanca Figueroa, 40. "He was a great kid, always was playing. He never would get tired."
Jermaine Wilson, a witness to the aftermath of the shooting, said the parking lot had been filled with cars and loud music as the teenagers were departing the club. Then he heard gunshots and saw a person lying on the ground, bleeding, he said.
"I saw everybody running," said Mr. Wilson, 32, adding, "a bunch of people were screaming names."
The authorities were also searching two other sites in the city — one on Parkway Street, where a home and several vehicles were shot at, with one person injured, and another on Ortiz Avenue. By late Monday morning, the Police Department said the area was deemed safe.
Victims, ages 12 to 27, began arriving at Lee Memorial Hospital around 1:30 a.m., according to Cheryl Garn, a hospital spokeswoman.
"Sixteen people were treated in the trauma center and emergency department," she said in a statement. "One victim expired at the hospital."
Four victims remained at Lee Memorial, one in critical condition, while the others were treated at the hospital and released. Two additional patients were released from other hospitals, officials said.
Gov. Rick Scott of Florida said in a statement that he would travel to Fort Myers later Monday.
"While we are still learning the details about what happened this morning, we know that some of the victims of this terrible incident were children," Governor Scott said. "We will continue to pray for the victims and their families."
As the sun rose in Fort Myers early Monday, the police were maintaining a half-mile perimeter around the nightclub. Yellow markers were placed next to dozens of shell casings scattered on the venue's parking lot.
A flier promoting the party the night before said that Club Blu, in the Carrell Corners strip mall, was hosting a Swimsuit Glow Party with live performances, and that no identification cards would be required.
A statement early Monday on the club's Facebook page described the gathering as a party for young people. It said the shooting erupted only after the event had ended, as teenagers were leaving the club and parents were arriving to pick them up.
"We are deeply sorry for all involved," the statement said. "We tried to give the teens what we thought was a safe place to have a good time."
It added, "It was not kids at the party that did this despicable act."
The nightclub cultivated an image that often veered from homespun to risqué.
It is a place that advertises its "New Orleans style soul food" and $6.99 lunch specials. Just last week, the club was promoting a meal of pork chops with rice, macaroni and cheese, lima beans, cornbread and pink lemonade.
But other ads depict the club as a racy hot spot of scantily clad women, blaring music and flowing liquor.
The club staged a "grand reopening" in May to debut what it described as an improved building. In a corner of an ad for the event, the club made a promise: "TIGHT SECURITY ALL NIGHT."
The attack occurred just 43 days after a gunman killed 49 people and wounded more than 50 others at Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla. The attacker, Omar Mateen, who took hostages at the nightclub and was killed in a police shootout, had sworn allegiance to the Islamic State.
The June 12 massacre in Orlando, which the authorities described as the worst mass shooting by a single assailant in United States history, stunned the country and spurred moves in Congress for tighter gun control.
Fort Myers, about 120 miles northwest of Miami, has about 65,000 residents. Historically, it has been a winter destination; Thomas Edison and Henry Ford had homes there. The Minnesota Twins and Boston Red Sox have spring training there.
Sounds like hoot rats attacking their own.
Quote from: Jaron on July 25, 2016, 12:17:43 PM
Sounds like hoot rats attacking their own.
Hootie hoot!