Terrorist Shooting In Orlando, FL

rgambs said:

show previous quotes

Ledbetterman10 said:

Gern Blansten said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

I can just about guarantee you that the FBI already has plants/paid informants inside mosques. Just because we don't read about it in the news doesn't mean it's not happening.

You're right, but it can't just be informants. For example, why didn't his ex-wife dime him out?

I think the lone shooters are going to be nearly impossible to stop.

Was it his ex-wife? I thought they were still together

edit: honestly I've kind of wondered why we haven't seen more lone shooter terrorism (al-queada/ISIS, etc.) since 9/11.

I think lone-shooter terrorism will continue to grow. It appears, to me, that psychos all over the world are pledging their allegiance to ISIS. It seems (and I could be totally wrong about this) that Al-Qaeda would train terrorists and send them out on missions. ISIS surly does this too. But I think ISIS has many "members" that really have no connection to them other than pledging allegiance. Was the Orlando shooter under orders of ISIS to do what he did? Has he ever met or communicated with an ISIS official? The answer doesn't really matter. He did what he did because of the influence of ISIS; be it directly or just because he believes in the message of ISIS.

This is why I support military action against ISIS. Another "war on terror" I suppose. If the influence by the leaders of ISIS is so strong that it's trickling down to everyday psychopaths, we've got to cut the head off the snake so to speak. How do we do that? Well that's where I have no clue.

Your first and second paragraphs don't really jive for me. The fact that ISIS leadership is not instrumental in planning and coordinating attacks is evidence that military action won't have the desired effect.
Unfortunately, ISIL, ISIS, Daesh, whatever you call it is a thing bigger than itself now, if we bomb away the current incarnation, it will pop up somewhere else. Lone shooters will continue to pledge their allegiance to the Islamic State even if the actual organization is decimated, and as long as there are even a handful of actual, on the ground participants, they will continue to claim credit for attacks they didn't orchestrate.

Well if the first and second paragraphs don't "jive" for you, I guess my post in general doesn't....as it's only two paragraphs.

Anyway, I completely agree with you when you say "ISIL, ISIS, Daesh, whatever you call it is a thing bigger than itself now" and that there's lunatics that will pledge their allegiance to the Islamic State even if there is no organization. But I still feel that taking out ISIS leadership would be a start towards making progress. We have to start somewhere.

Godfather. said:

show previous quotes

rgambs said:

Godfather. said:

yup ! gun sales soar every time that goofball opens his mouth about guns, the weapons manufactures of the world love him !

Godfather.

It isn't very hard to separate a fool from his money lol

did somebody steal your money ??????......you didn't hear this from me but it was a democrat.

Godfather.

Hahahah no, I don't run to the gun store at every tragedy so I feel pretty fool-proof.

Go Beavers said:

show previous quotes

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Go Beavers said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Go Beavers said:

jnimhaoileoin said:

I was asking my friend, who's a Bosnian Muslim, about the hijab the other day and I was saying to her how we find such aspects hard to understand. I think it's important to remember that we cannot judge all Muslims by the actions of a relatively tiny percentage, no matter how terrible the deeds. We talked a bit about the general perception of Islam and these were just some of her thoughts.

'Most muslims are decent, warm, peaceful people.. A few bad eggs...and the whole religion is typecast. We don't consider the extremists to be muslim for their actions are not justifiable. Sadly the media is to blame a lot i think.'

It's the same thing with Christian extremists, but the difference with them is that the general public accepts the notion that they aren't representing Christianity because most of us in the U.S. have a lot of familiarity with the religion. When a Christian extremist kills someone, we attribute their motivations to something else and find a different label for them.

This has come up before.

The Christian extremists are cupcakes compared to Islamic extremists. It's not even remotely close... and I am as critical of Christianity as anyone on these boards (see recent posts in the last pages of this thread).

The Crusades don't count- too many centuries ago. The occasional abortion clinic bombing is legitimate- but so infrequent that the event is hardly alarming. And capitalist ventures such as the US one in the Middle East are not in the name of religion- as much as some want to categorize such as so given their agenda they are trying to promote (and that you might have been alluding to with your last sentence).

So... exactly what Christian crimes compare to the Islamic terrorist events we continually hear about ( including the ones that- as PJSoul would suggest- we don't care about)?

Whenever I make this point, people always respond with saying that Muslim terrorists are way more of a threat than Christian terrorists. My point isn't to compare the level of threat between the two, but to look at how we talk about the two groups, how the media covers it, and how we then subsequently respond to the two groups. McVeigh killed 168, but how is this Christian terrorist talked about?

McVeigh wasn't motivated by the bible. He was anti-government. Not a good example.

It's a good example. McVeigh was very fond of the Christian Identity movement.

he may have been fond of it but he didn't kill 168 people in ok city in the name of the christian identity movement.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

show previous quotes

callen said:

bootlegger10 said:

Degeneratefk said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

Godfather. said:

mrussel1 said:

Godfather. said:

question: if your mother, sister or any loved one said she was marrying a muslim and flying to Pakistan to meet the family, wouldn't you be the least bit concerned ? my friends daughter did just that and it did not go well in fact her husbands father hated the white American girl his son married then would let her leave the house or the country, if my friend didn't have friends in government she may have never come home...you don't want to ask him about muslims.

Godfather.

I would be concerned, of course, because of the treatment of women in that country. But that has zero to do with deporting American citizens who are Muslims, which is what you floated yesterday.

how else would we get a handle on the terrorism committed by "home grown muslims" ?

Godfather.

The same way we stamp out terrorism by Dylan Roof, the Colorado shooter, Timothy McVeigh and the Bundy clan. Intelligence, surveillance when supported by legal orders, and 'see something, say something'. There is NOTHING that gives us the right to take away the rights, deport or detain citizens. If we learned nothing else from the Japanese internment camps, let's learn that.

Let's also learn that Islamic ideology is a problem. Please watch this...

https://youtu.be/xEMHKO5MC6c

The point this speaker is making is that these thoughts are mainstream. This is what everyone must comprehend and this is he ideology that must be confronted. With strength we must say this is not ok. No more being tolerant of the intolerant.

And we need to be intolerant of the intolerant. You're not going to extinguish the largest religion in the world so you must marginalize extremism. That's the point.

The goal isn't to extinguish but to implement a reformation and this can't happen until we are at least willing to recognize the full depth of the problem.

Can we also implement reform for the radical christians?

We should discuss that "problem" when everyone from Muslim countries aren't trying to immigrate to historically Christian countries (European countries, US, Canada).

No one is trying immigrate the other way unless they are wannabe terrorists because shocker....historically Christian countries are a whole lot safer and provide more freedom than Muslim nations..

Tell that to the families of the thousands that are killed by guns in the good ole USA. We're a Christian nation. Christian nation that cherishes right to buy military style weapons that were used in this killing.

God and guns and hate. USA USA USA.

Can deflect about other countries and cultures but we created a mess.

Then we have racist baiting presidential republican nominee!?!?!?!?

USA USA USA.

Horrible argument. As goofy as some of GF's, but from the other side of the spectrum. Just terrible.

The USA is a mixed bag. It is not a Christian nation. Are you Christian?

The Middle East occupation is about oil and capitalism is at its roots. Period. There's a little piece of it tied to the US relations with Saudi (again oil and profit related). But to say it's Christians that have rallied to fight opponents of the bible is ridiculous.

Why do you gotta be that way?

I don't think he's all that off base. I'm sure if your broke down public support for the wars demographically, you would find considerably higher support within the evangelical Christian community. Not to mention - perception plays a huge roll here. I don't know how many middle eastern residents view the wars as Christian violence by Christian nations, but if the generalizations of Islam by people in North America are any indication, it would be a large percentage. So does it really matter if Christianity is at the core of the wars or not, if their governments and media and leaders make it so - the same way ours do?

As for Christian terror...most incidents fall under 'the terror attacks we don't care about'. people seem to have quickly forgotten Joseph Kony and the Lord's Resistance Army...haven't seen a word about Nigerian witch hunters in the media...how many people here are familiar with anti-balaka? There are Christian terrorists in other African nations, and places like India as well. we could talk about Jewish terrorists for days.
For the most part, terror is founded in places of economic disadvantage and/or oppression. Who are the world's worst oppressors and who are the money men behind those oppressors? Most of us can agree on root causes; we need to mirror our condemnation.

Go Beavers said:

show previous quotes

bootlegger10 said:

Go Beavers said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Go Beavers said:

jnimhaoileoin said:

I was asking my friend, who's a Bosnian Muslim, about the hijab the other day and I was saying to her how we find such aspects hard to understand. I think it's important to remember that we cannot judge all Muslims by the actions of a relatively tiny percentage, no matter how terrible the deeds. We talked a bit about the general perception of Islam and these were just some of her thoughts.

'Most muslims are decent, warm, peaceful people.. A few bad eggs...and the whole religion is typecast. We don't consider the extremists to be muslim for their actions are not justifiable. Sadly the media is to blame a lot i think.'

It's the same thing with Christian extremists, but the difference with them is that the general public accepts the notion that they aren't representing Christianity because most of us in the U.S. have a lot of familiarity with the religion. When a Christian extremist kills someone, we attribute their motivations to something else and find a different label for them.

This has come up before.

The Christian extremists are cupcakes compared to Islamic extremists. It's not even remotely close... and I am as critical of Christianity as anyone on these boards (see recent posts in the last pages of this thread).

The Crusades don't count- too many centuries ago. The occasional abortion clinic bombing is legitimate- but so infrequent that the event is hardly alarming. And capitalist ventures such as the US one in the Middle East are not in the name of religion- as much as some want to categorize such as so given their agenda they are trying to promote (and that you might have been alluding to with your last sentence).

So... exactly what Christian crimes compare to the Islamic terrorist events we continually hear about ( including the ones that- as PJSoul would suggest- we don't care about)?

Whenever I make this point, people always respond with saying that Muslim terrorists are way more of a threat than Christian terrorists. My point isn't to compare the level of threat between the two, but to look at how we talk about the two groups, how the media covers it, and how we then subsequently respond to the two groups. McVeigh killed 168, but how is this Christian terrorist talked about?

Because there aren't 200,000 mcveighs forming a caliphate in several countries throwing gay people off the roof and beheading people from different religions. Radical Christianity doesn't remotely exist at the same levels as radical Islam. Islamic terrorism is not isolated but expected. Nobody is expecting a white guy from Mississippi to blow up a federal building. And if they do they don't say God be Praised before they do it because it isn't motivated by their interprtation of the Bible. That is why!

Again, I'm not comparing the level of threat between the two, I'm talking about how it's viewed and digested. And McVeigh was motivated by the Bible. It's interesting that you say no one's expecting a white guy to blow up a federal building, when that actually has happened!! You just reinforced my point: white domestic terrorists are put in a different category, when the actual individual motivations are pretty much the same.

The OKC bombing was 21 years ago. My point is that people don't get concerned about radical Christians or talk about it because it doesn't happen often, so it really isn't a problem.

BS44325 said:

show previous quotes

mrussel1 said:

Godfather. said:

mrussel1 said:

Godfather. said:

question: if your mother, sister or any loved one said she was marrying a muslim and flying to Pakistan to meet the family, wouldn't you be the least bit concerned ? my friends daughter did just that and it did not go well in fact her husbands father hated the white American girl his son married then would let her leave the house or the country, if my friend didn't have friends in government she may have never come home...you don't want to ask him about muslims.

Godfather.

I would be concerned, of course, because of the treatment of women in that country. But that has zero to do with deporting American citizens who are Muslims, which is what you floated yesterday.

how else would we get a handle on the terrorism committed by "home grown muslims" ?

Godfather.

The same way we stamp out terrorism by Dylan Roof, the Colorado shooter, Timothy McVeigh and the Bundy clan. Intelligence, surveillance when supported by legal orders, and 'see something, say something'. There is NOTHING that gives us the right to take away the rights, deport or detain citizens. If we learned nothing else from the Japanese internment camps, let's learn that.

Let's also learn that Islamic ideology is a problem. Please watch this...

https://youtu.be/xEMHKO5MC6c

The point this speaker is making is that these thoughts are mainstream. This is what everyone must comprehend and this is he ideology that must be confronted. With strength we must say this is not ok. No more being tolerant of the intolerant.

With strength MUSLIMS must say this is not okay. Anyone else saying it is pointless. It has long been my argument that Muslims in general don't stand up against Islamic terrorism and just fanaticism in general anywhere near enough.

Go Beavers said:

show previous quotes

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Go Beavers said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Go Beavers said:

jnimhaoileoin said:

I was asking my friend, who's a Bosnian Muslim, about the hijab the other day and I was saying to her how we find such aspects hard to understand. I think it's important to remember that we cannot judge all Muslims by the actions of a relatively tiny percentage, no matter how terrible the deeds. We talked a bit about the general perception of Islam and these were just some of her thoughts.

'Most muslims are decent, warm, peaceful people.. A few bad eggs...and the whole religion is typecast. We don't consider the extremists to be muslim for their actions are not justifiable. Sadly the media is to blame a lot i think.'

It's the same thing with Christian extremists, but the difference with them is that the general public accepts the notion that they aren't representing Christianity because most of us in the U.S. have a lot of familiarity with the religion. When a Christian extremist kills someone, we attribute their motivations to something else and find a different label for them.

This has come up before.

The Christian extremists are cupcakes compared to Islamic extremists. It's not even remotely close... and I am as critical of Christianity as anyone on these boards (see recent posts in the last pages of this thread).

The Crusades don't count- too many centuries ago. The occasional abortion clinic bombing is legitimate- but so infrequent that the event is hardly alarming. And capitalist ventures such as the US one in the Middle East are not in the name of religion- as much as some want to categorize such as so given their agenda they are trying to promote (and that you might have been alluding to with your last sentence).

So... exactly what Christian crimes compare to the Islamic terrorist events we continually hear about ( including the ones that- as PJSoul would suggest- we don't care about)?

Whenever I make this point, people always respond with saying that Muslim terrorists are way more of a threat than Christian terrorists. My point isn't to compare the level of threat between the two, but to look at how we talk about the two groups, how the media covers it, and how we then subsequently respond to the two groups. McVeigh killed 168, but how is this Christian terrorist talked about?

McVeigh wasn't motivated by the bible. He was anti-government. Not a good example.

It's a good example. McVeigh was very fond of the Christian Identity movement.

Sorry, but as strong as you typically are on these pages... you're not in this instance. Was he fond of Metallica? Maybe heavy metal music inspired him?

He was a conspiracist that was attacking the government- his own.

And is a case, as someone else noted... 21 years ago, the only one you can present to further your argument that Christians are just as violent as Muslims (not that it is legitimate in the first place)?

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

McVeigh told The Guardian that he did not believe in heaven or hell.

http://www.businessinsider.com/20-years-after-the-oklahoma-city-bombing-timothy-mcveigh-remains-the-only-terrorist-executed-by-us-2015-4

stop using facts dirty!

Wasn't it something about his weirdo father being fired from the postal service or something along those lines (or was it McVeigh himself?), and then it devolved from there??