Mass killing in Orlando gay nightclub

[Berkut]

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.

Gilroy, 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.

[OttoVonBismarck]

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?

[Valmy]

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.

[Malthus]

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.

[Valmy]

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.

[OttoVonBismarck]

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.

[Martinus]

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.

[OttoVonBismarck]

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.

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."

[Valmy]

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.

[Martinus]

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.

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.

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.

[Berkut]

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.

[Berkut]

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.

[Martinus]

Apparently it's the NRA who is waging a deadly Jihad here:

[Martinus]

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.

[Grey Fox]

Preach it, DN. Preach it.