Mass shooting in Orlando, Florida USA 20 dead

[Crucible]

*Terrorist attack occurs*
*Oh no, who did it!?*
*It could have been anyone!*

*Muslim*

*Ah, who would have guessed it?*
*Me*
*You bigot! There are non-Muslim murderers too!*

Every.
Single.
Time.

Such people should be charged with murder themselves, because they are letting it happen.

 

[jgarden]

You don't think that we should send the Muslims back to Africa? Right along with Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and all of their crew and demographic?

What about sending all those with European ancestors back to Europe!

By 2050 visible minorities will constitute the majority in America and the era of "white entitlement" will grind to a halt!

 

[Town Heretic]

The problem here isn't guns. It's Muslims.

Most murders in this country aren't committed by Muslims.

We need to send them back to Africa and build a wall. It's that simple.

Most Muslims aren't from Africa.

The dude has a brown name.

Does your bronze subscription make you uneasy with yourself? lain:

 

[Town Heretic]

This was a muslim terror attack.

No, it was an act of terror committed by a Muslim. There's no Muslim, Inc. He isn't an agent representing Islam.

Could it be
a} that Americans have not made any distinction between Muslims and other religions when screening for entry?

No. He was born here. His parents, Muslims who weren't, assimilated. What are there a billion and a half Muslims world wide? And of that how many are fanatical terrorists? A relatively small percentage, being fought ideologically and physically by, it should be noted, other Muslims.

b) that Muslims are in fact much more likely to seek to pursue their aims through terror than other religions?

I'd be interested in a breakdown, by percentage, and a comparison to those who commit acts of terror for other reasons as well. Christendom has a pretty bloody track record, though we've settled in nicely. Islam, like our faith, has a huge following. Hinduism would be a distant third, but still sizable. I know how it went in India and Pakistan, but I don't know how it shakes out these days.

c) that many Americans choose to love Muslims because it fits their ideal of a liberal society, even though they know that Muslims themselves are far more likely not to reciprocate?

I don't accept your premise that a) you have to be a liberal to love others, that b) this is about loving others, or that c) Muslims are inherently more anti social. Extremist anything looks crazy and acts crazy.

d) If your constitution requires you not to discriminate against people on religious grounds, does that extend to non-citizens who are applying for entry to the USA?

Immigration is a process of discrimination when you think about it. It has to be. What our principles should require of us is that our standards be rational and consistent.

e) What will happen if Muslim immigration to the US goes unchecked?

No immigration occurs without checks. And most of our immigration is coming from Latino populations who bring their own potential for problems

Is asking such questions wrong because it is disrespectful to those who have died?

I think using the nightclub incident as fuel for it is a bit knee-jerk, given we haven't really established much about him other than he was born and reared here, was allegedly abusive within his brief marriage, and hated homosexuals.

 

[ClimateSanity]

No, it was an act of terror committed by a Muslim. There's no Muslim, Inc. He isn't an agent representing Islam.

Was this a terror attack inspired by a belief in a literal understanding of the Koran taught by the imams he grew up with in Afghanistan?

No. He was born here. His parents, Muslims who weren't, assimilated. What are there a billion and a half Muslims world wide? And of that how many are fanatical terrorists? A relatively small percentage, being fought ideologically and physically by, it should be noted, other Muslims.

Do American immigration policies make any distinction between Muslims and other religions when screening for entry?

I'd be interested in a breakdown, by percentage, and a comparison to those who commit acts of terror for other reasons as well. Christendom has a pretty bloody track record, though we've settled in nicely'.

Are Muslims much more likely to seek to pursue their aims through terror than other religions in today's world?

 

[patrick jane]

Originally Posted by Traditio
The dude has a brown name.

Does your bronze subscription make you uneasy with yourself? lain:

:rotfl:

 

[musterion]

Fascinating job history the murderer had.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...-which-tranports-illegal-immigrants-deep-insi

 

[Selaphiel]

You don't think that we should send the Muslims back to Africa? Right along with Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and all of their crew and demographic?

You cannot possible be this dumb. 1)Islam is a semitic religion, not African. 2)There are Muslim countries in Africa, but the largest Muslim country in the world is Indonesia. 3)The terrorist was from Afghanistan. That is closer to China than it is to the closest African country.

What's the last (sane) white male that you can think of that committed a mass terrorist shooting?

Please. Try to name one.

Of course, when they are white they must be insane, while this guy was obviously perfectly rational...When it is a representative from our culture, we pathologize them. When they are from other cultures, they are in fact a perfect ambassador for that culture. This guy was in fact no less sane or insane than someone like Breivik who shot and murdered nearly 90 people due his fascist ideologies. His manifesto contains very similar ideas to the racist garbage you are spouting on this site.

 

[patrick jane]

This incident will galvanize and strengthen the lbgt community, they will gain more support and more sympathizers

 

[patrick jane]

How did this guy just walk into a night club with an AK-47 and nobody sees the rifle ?

 

[musterion]

...shut up those that spread the good news of Jesus Christ.

The end game of all Satan's children during this dispensation of grace. We observe them constantly on TOL and here on this very thread.

 

[patrick jane]

It's a sad reflection of the state of our country and most importantly the Republican party.

How is this tragedy in any way a reflection of the republican party ? :duh:

 

[Desert Reign]

No, it was an act of terror committed by a Muslim. There's no Muslim, Inc. He isn't an agent representing Islam.

Wrong. Muslim. Terrorism. And he had previously declared allegiance to IS and IS afterwards acknowledged him as their member.

No. He was born here. His parents, Muslims who weren't, assimilated. What are there a billion and a half Muslims world wide? And of that how many are fanatical terrorists? A relatively small percentage, being fought ideologically and physically by, it should be noted, other Muslims.

Irrelevant. I was talking about the environment generally.

I'd be interested in a breakdown, by percentage, and a comparison to those who commit acts of terror for other reasons as well. Christendom has a pretty bloody track record, though we've settled in nicely. Islam, like our faith, has a huge following. Hinduism would be a distant third, but still sizable. I know how it went in India and Pakistan, but I don't know how it shakes out these days.

Why do we have to avoid the issue? Why would you be interested in that? Because you don't like to accept the statstics. Your idealism that all religions are equal is not borne out by the facts.

I don't accept your premise that a) you have to be a liberal to love others, that b) this is about loving others, or that c) Muslims are inherently more anti social. Extremist anything looks crazy and acts crazy.

No such premise.

Immigration is a process of discrimination when you think about it. It has to be. What our principles should require of us is that our standards be rational and consistent.

There's that idealism of yours shining through loud and clear. At some point you have got to stop treating Musim potential immigrants the same as Hindu potential immigrants. Yeah, just do a criminality check, background check on known associates, parents, etc. Ok. Pass. Come on in. It doesn't work. It's not rational at all.

No immigration occurs without checks. And most of our immigration is coming from Latino populations who bring their own potential for problems

Avoiding the issue again.

I think using the nightclub incident as fuel for it is a bit knee-jerk, given we haven't really established much about him other than he was born and reared here, was allegedly abusive within his brief marriage, and hated homosexuals.

And the next incident I guess will be the same. And the one after that. And the last one, did you say the same about that?

 

[Desert Reign]

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

I see that you want to use laws to keep Muslims out of our country but not to recriminalize homosexuality DR. Why is that?

Two 'cultures of death' (Islam and the LGBTQ movement) met last night and the result was 50 people dead and 50+ injured. That must be a very tough statement for a multiculturalist like you to "tackle" DR.

The LGBTQ body count just continues to grow since the decriminalization of homosexuality doesn't it DR?

I refer you to my previous statement.

 

[patrick jane]

It was Latino Night @ the club Pulse

 

[Desert Reign]

He was a wife-beater.

OK, so let's be fair here:
He was a wife-beater.
He was emotionally unstable.
He had a volatile temper.
He was male.
He hated homosexuals, etc. so that settles it. The father was right. This attack had nothing to do with religion.

Oh, yes, and by the way, not that it matters,
He was a Muslim.
It was Ramadan.
IS declared that he was one of their operatives.
He himself declared beforehand that he had sworn allegiance to IS.

Go figure.

For those who need help in figuring: you can look at the man all you want and say he was emotionally unstable etc. Indeed, it seems often to me that anyone who commits an atrocity such as this, is deemed to be unstable a priori. Which does rather defeat the entire line of argument. But you are looking in the wrong direction. Look instead at the religion, at what it does to its adherents, whether stable and unstable.

 

[rocketman]

There are two ways of looking at the situation with firearms as exemplified by the Orlando shooting.

A. It's an acceptable risk. In the grand scheme of things, you're more likely to be killed by lightening than by a terrorist. (More general gun violence is different of course) This is probably what will be "determined" if nothing else by political paralysis.

B. The risk is unacceptable and we should do *something*. Of course we've already seen a number of posters go the us vs. them route. We already know this won't work as most of the assailants in previous mass shooting have been white males.

- The other choices are:
1. Ban guns entirely and get as many off the street as possible with buyback programs (not likely to happen and likely less effective )
2. Come up with some other kind of regulations. I would recommend restricting weapons with the capacity to be used to kill a lot of people in a short period of time with no breaks for reloading.
3. More guns. This is the NRA answer (which enhances their bottom line since they are in bed with the gun manufacturers.

Two major problems with this "solution":
a. It's based on the idea that a minimally trained civilian can take down an armed assailant with his sidearm. In the current case there were 11 trained police officers firing at this guy. It wasn't as if one police officer could walk up and pick him off with a shot or two. Why does anyone think they'll do better in the same situation.
b. Not everyone wants to or can carry a firearm. Gun ownership has been going down, not up. You can't force people to carry firearms unless you want to turn the country into a police state.

I predict nothing will come of this unless the house of representatives flips in the next election. If the deaths of 20 little kids couldn't spur people into action, a massacre at a nightclub won't do it. It's a sad reflection of the state of our country and most importantly the Republican party.

Putting your absolute ignorance on display again Alate? The centerpiece of this massacre is not the weapon, nor was it the weapon in Boston, or San Bernardino it is an ideology...and no, you lose again it is not Republicans or Democrats, it is not Methodists, Catholics, or evangelicals either. It is morons like you that are a danger to yourselves and all around you because you willfully disregard the obvious for the sake of offense of the very ideology that intends to harm you, me, and every other American. Your politically correct mumbo jumbo is just empty words lacking the fortitude to name your enemy...it is called Radical Islam, it is an ideology, an ideology that preys on the weak and is emboldened by the willful ignorance of politically correct morons like you. You claim to be an intellectual but you are not even intellectually honest enough to recognize the problem for fear of offending someone...your as big an idiot as the loser president of this nation is. :down:

 

[Tambora]

Psst. Afghanistan isn't in Africa. :listen:

That get's them across the water.
They can walk from there.

 

[rocketman]

OK, so let's be fair here:
He was a wife-beater.
He was emotionally unstable.
He had a volatile temper.
He was male.
He hated homosexuals, etc. so that settles it. The father was right. This attack had nothing to do with religion.

Oh, yes, and by the way, not that it matters,
He was a Muslim.
It was Ramadan.
IS declared that he was one of their operatives.
He himself declared beforehand that he had sworn allegiance to IS.

Go figure.

For those who need help in figuring: you can look at the man all you want and say he was emotionally unstable etc. Indeed, it seems often to me that anyone who commits an atrocity such as this, is deemed to be unstable a priori. Which does rather defeat the entire line of argument. But you are looking in the wrong direction. Look instead at the religion, at what it does to its adherents, whether stable and unstable.

Unfortunately it is far easier for the intellectually lazy or politically correct to blame the weapon used, or the emotional state of the individual than it is to name the enemy & the ideology/religion that they adhere to.

 

[Caino]

Good point.....but it happened at 2:00 am, unless I was coked up, I usually didn't last that long. And as strange as it may sound, where I live the gay bar would switch to straight after hours because they were private clubs and were allowed to continue to serve alcohol. So at midnight the straight people would come in as the gays were leaving.