Terrorist Shooting In Orlando, FL

jeffbr said:

mcgruff10 said:

rgambs said:

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.

ISIS just took it to another level:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/17/world/middleeast/isis-genocide-yazidi-un.html

GENEVA — Islamic State forces have committed genocide and other war crimes in a continuing effort to exterminate the Yazidi religious minority in Syria and Iraq, United Nations investigators said on Thursday, urging stronger international action to halt the killing and to prosecute the terrorist group.

The investigators detailed mass killings of Yazidi men and boys who refused to convert to Islam, saying they were shot in the head or their throats were slit, often in front of their families, littering roadsides with corpses. Dozens of mass graves have been uncovered in areas recaptured from Islamic State and are being investigated.

The investigators have produced 11 reports documenting wide-ranging crimes against humanity and war crimes committed by many parties to the five-year-old civil war in Syria, but in a report released on Thursday, they invoked the crime of genocide. They based their findings on actions taken by the Islamic State since August 2014 against 400,000 members of the Yazidi community, followers of a centuries-old religion drawing on many faiths.

Praise Allah, that this is a religion of peace! Things would be pretty messed up otherwise.

But wait for someone to post a link to the Westboro Baptist Church where the worst thing they do is hold up obscene signs outside funerals. Terrible actions but not remotely on par and 99.9% of Christians think Westboro is crazy.

Go Beavers said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

Go Beavers said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

jnimhaoileoin 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.

Exactly, we all grew up with a general understanding of Christianity. We don't really have a proper understanding of Islam, I certainly don't anyway. As usual, we fear and distrust what we don't understand. Instead of just condemning the notion of wearing a hijab and deciding it could only be a sign of repression, I asked about it and tried to better understand it. As a result, I don't regard it with the same suspicion and unease that I did before

I guess you guys didn't watch the above video.

I did, but tell me what I missed.

1:55 - 2:15
Please tell us what you think.

What I think is that you think that's enough of a sample size for you to support a conclusion you already have made. I also think I could phrase a similar question to a group of Southern Baptists and get a similar hand raising response. And hand raise response can also just be a measure of how much pressure there is to conform to the group. Also, with a lot of videos on the internet, I also question if it's been manipulated/edited.

I don't think you would get a similar hand raise in a Southern Baptist church. You see, our big issues with the Church and gays right now is not making them wedding cakes, versus stoning them and throwing them off roofs in the Middle East.

Go Beavers said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Go Beavers said:

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

Your link just has a paraphrase from a journalist years after and doesn't go into before the bombing. There's also many other individual acts where people have murdered motivated by their own version of Christianity. But once again, my point isn't that Christian extremist are as violent as Muslim extremists, it's that fundamentalism is the problem. And fundamentalism takes different forms, religion being just one of them.

I still think it's not valid to suggest we abhor Muslim terrorist acts more than we abhor Christian terrorist acts which was something you hinted at on page 19 of this thread.

To suggest something like that... we would need a genuine Christian terrorist act to compare one of the many Muslim terrorist acts we have been treated to recently... and then compare the responses. The McVeigh case was suggested as one, but it's not a Christian terrorist act. There have been no others presented (even in your post you referred to 'many other individual acts' instead of anything specific).

Here's a list of some genuine Christian terrorist acts. You can also include nearly all targeted killing of doctors who perform abortions and any abortion clinic bombings.
alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/10-worst-terror-attacks-extreme-christians-and-far-right-white-men

First, that article doesn't claim these are all Christians, but only white males. According to your article, only about half had religious ties-so it doesn't do much for me in terms of putting Christian terrorism on par with Muslim radicals.

I have several problems with this article. One, I've never heard anyone say that ONLY Muslims or non-whites are terrorists. No one says that. Look at Columbine, Colorado theater shooting, we know Muslims don't account for all mass killings. Yes, there is the idea when you mention a terrorist most may picture a middle-eastern male, but everyone knows they aren't the only terrorists or mass killings.
Second, with the exception of the OK bombing, the highest fatality rate in that list was 6. Most were just 1 or 2 casualties, hardly on par with the 9/11 or Orlando attacks. And I said with the exception of OK bombing because even the article mentions it wasn't religiously motivated, so why is that brought up as Christian terrorism? It wasn't, it was anti-government, so we can exclude that bombing when we talk about Christian terrorism vs Muslim radical terrorism. Even half the the remaining attacks weren't by Christians, but by "white supremacists" as described in the article with no mention of Christianity, but we'll leave them on the list for argument sake.
So doing a count as I skim through the article, 18 fatalities are used to argue why Christian terrorism (including non-Christian white supremacists) is just as bad or worse than Muslim terrorism? Triple that number were killed by a Muslim terrorist this week alone, and this article covers 4 decades as the previous comment noted.

The author of the article lost me when he criticized news coverage for being "matter of fact" when it comes to Christian terrorism. Isn't that how coverage suppose to be? What do you want them to do, make up facts to make it sounds as bad as Muslim terrorism in this country?

No one denies that there has been Christian bombings or killings, and acts of terrorism by white men, but to say its on the same level as Muslim terrorism in this country is just being in denial. But there is a reason why Americans associate terrorism with radical Islam. What is the worst terrorist act in our country? 9/11 and who did it? Orlando is now the worse mass shooting in our country, and he was shouting Allah Akbar while he did it. 2 for 2 so far.

BS44325 said:

http://variety.com/2016/music/news/radiohead-listening-party-in-istanbul-attacked-by-islamists-1201798367/

Holy shit, that's brutal.

Thank you Gimme. That was getting really irritating and I'm glad you swooped in bright some logic and reason to the conversation when it was most needed, lol.

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Go Beavers said:

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

Your link just has a paraphrase from a journalist years after and doesn't go into before the bombing. There's also many other individual acts where people have murdered motivated by their own version of Christianity. But once again, my point isn't that Christian extremist are as violent as Muslim extremists, it's that fundamentalism is the problem. And fundamentalism takes different forms, religion being just one of them.

I still think it's not valid to suggest we abhor Muslim terrorist acts more than we abhor Christian terrorist acts which was something you hinted at on page 19 of this thread.

To suggest something like that... we would need a genuine Christian terrorist act to compare one of the many Muslim terrorist acts we have been treated to recently... and then compare the responses. The McVeigh case was suggested as one, but it's not a Christian terrorist act. There have been no others presented (even in your post you referred to 'many other individual acts' instead of anything specific).

Here's a list of some genuine Christian terrorist acts. You can also include nearly all targeted killing of doctors who perform abortions and any abortion clinic bombings.
alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/10-worst-terror-attacks-extreme-christians-and-far-right-white-men

First, that article doesn't claim these are all Christians, but only white males. According to your article, only about half had religious ties-so it doesn't do much for me in terms of putting Christian terrorism on par with Muslim radicals.

I have several problems with this article. One, I've never heard anyone say that ONLY Muslims or non-whites are terrorists. No one says that. Look at Columbine, Colorado theater shooting, we know Muslims don't account for all mass killings. Yes, there is the idea when you mention a terrorist most may picture a middle-eastern male, but everyone knows they aren't the only terrorists or mass killings.
Second, with the exception of the OK bombing, the highest fatality rate in that list was 6. Most were just 1 or 2 casualties, hardly on par with the 9/11 or Orlando attacks. And I said with the exception of OK bombing because even the article mentions it wasn't religiously motivated, so why is that brought up as Christian terrorism? It wasn't, it was anti-government, so we can exclude that bombing when we talk about Christian terrorism vs Muslim radical terrorism. Even half the the remaining attacks weren't by Christians, but by "white supremacists" as described in the article with no mention of Christianity, but we'll leave them on the list for argument sake.
So doing a count as I skim through the article, 18 fatalities are used to argue why Christian terrorism (including non-Christian white supremacists) is just as bad or worse than Muslim terrorism? Triple that number were killed by a Muslim terrorist this week alone, and this article covers 4 decades as the previous comment noted.

The author of the article lost me when he criticized news coverage for being "matter of fact" when it comes to Christian terrorism. Isn't that how coverage suppose to be? What do you want them to do, make up facts to make it sounds as bad as Muslim terrorism in this country?

No one denies that there has been Christian bombings or killings, and acts of terrorism by white men, but to say its on the same level as Muslim terrorism in this country is just being in denial. But there is a reason why Americans associate terrorism with radical Islam. What is the worst terrorist act in our country? 9/11 and who did it? Orlando is now the worse mass shooting in our country, and he was shouting Allah Akbar while he did it. 2 for 2 so far.

Once again, I'm not trying to say Christian terrorists have killed as many people, I'm saying the thinking on the individual level can be the same, but the media and public response is different. People absolutely deny that a Christian terrorist is motivated by their religion, or that they are influenced by Christian terrorist groups. They are typically pushed into the 'crazy' category. The Orlando shooter was labelled a terrorist in less than a day. And now they say he was 'influenced' by a terrorist group. So I'm guessing the next time a white male American shoots people who is motivated by a domestic terrorist group, we'll be calling him a terrorist too? The Charleston shooter was motivated by white supremacist groups, but I don't recall him being labelled a terrorist.

The language used around it is important to me because is guides the dialogue and the response by leaders and the general public. When someone is called a Muslim extremist, people conclude that the religion is the issue, not the issues that factor in to someone deciding they are going to kill people. It basically can shut down intelligent responses to these things (as you can see in this thread).

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Go Beavers said:

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

Your link just has a paraphrase from a journalist years after and doesn't go into before the bombing. There's also many other individual acts where people have murdered motivated by their own version of Christianity. But once again, my point isn't that Christian extremist are as violent as Muslim extremists, it's that fundamentalism is the problem. And fundamentalism takes different forms, religion being just one of them.

I still think it's not valid to suggest we abhor Muslim terrorist acts more than we abhor Christian terrorist acts which was something you hinted at on page 19 of this thread.

To suggest something like that... we would need a genuine Christian terrorist act to compare one of the many Muslim terrorist acts we have been treated to recently... and then compare the responses. The McVeigh case was suggested as one, but it's not a Christian terrorist act. There have been no others presented (even in your post you referred to 'many other individual acts' instead of anything specific).

Here's a list of some genuine Christian terrorist acts. You can also include nearly all targeted killing of doctors who perform abortions and any abortion clinic bombings.
alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/10-worst-terror-attacks-extreme-christians-and-far-right-white-men

First, that article doesn't claim these are all Christians, but only white males. According to your article, only about half had religious ties-so it doesn't do much for me in terms of putting Christian terrorism on par with Muslim radicals.

I have several problems with this article. One, I've never heard anyone say that ONLY Muslims or non-whites are terrorists. No one says that. Look at Columbine, Colorado theater shooting, we know Muslims don't account for all mass killings. Yes, there is the idea when you mention a terrorist most may picture a middle-eastern male, but everyone knows they aren't the only terrorists or mass killings.
Second, with the exception of the OK bombing, the highest fatality rate in that list was 6. Most were just 1 or 2 casualties, hardly on par with the 9/11 or Orlando attacks. And I said with the exception of OK bombing because even the article mentions it wasn't religiously motivated, so why is that brought up as Christian terrorism? It wasn't, it was anti-government, so we can exclude that bombing when we talk about Christian terrorism vs Muslim radical terrorism. Even half the the remaining attacks weren't by Christians, but by "white supremacists" as described in the article with no mention of Christianity, but we'll leave them on the list for argument sake.
So doing a count as I skim through the article, 18 fatalities are used to argue why Christian terrorism (including non-Christian white supremacists) is just as bad or worse than Muslim terrorism? Triple that number were killed by a Muslim terrorist this week alone, and this article covers 4 decades as the previous comment noted.

The author of the article lost me when he criticized news coverage for being "matter of fact" when it comes to Christian terrorism. Isn't that how coverage suppose to be? What do you want them to do, make up facts to make it sounds as bad as Muslim terrorism in this country?

No one denies that there has been Christian bombings or killings, and acts of terrorism by white men, but to say its on the same level as Muslim terrorism in this country is just being in denial. But there is a reason why Americans associate terrorism with radical Islam. What is the worst terrorist act in our country? 9/11 and who did it? Orlando is now the worse mass shooting in our country, and he was shouting Allah Akbar while he did it. 2 for 2 so far.

Once again, I'm not trying to say Christian terrorists have killed as many people, I'm saying the thinking on the individual level can be the same, but the media and public response is different. People absolutely deny that a Christian terrorist is motivated by their religion, or that they are influenced by Christian terrorist groups. They are typically pushed into the 'crazy' category. The Orlando shooter was labelled a terrorist in less than a day. And now they say he was 'influenced' by a terrorist group. So I'm guessing the next time a white male American shoots people who is motivated by a domestic terrorist group, we'll be calling him a terrorist too? The Charleston shooter was motivated by white supremacist groups, but I don't recall him being labelled a terrorist.

The language used around it is important to me because is guides the dialogue and the response by leaders and the general public. When someone is called a Muslim extremist, people conclude that the religion is the issue, not the issues that factor in to someone deciding they are going to kill people. It basically can shut down intelligent responses to these things (as you can see in this thread).

I disagree.

I said this at the bottom of my response to you: "Change the guilty parties and the outrage would be equal for Christians. Without question."

Muslim 'extremists' have earned a brutal reputation for themselves for good reason. Each one of their despicable acts is not an isolated event as much as some would like everyone to belief- they are all part of a growing body of work and people are really f**king tired of it.

And you spoke of 'Mushroom Head'? He received all the scorn and more for his obscenity. If more white supremacists committed similar acts... the trend would most assuredly be labelled as terrorism. As it happened, it was- more appropriately in my mind- labelled a hate crime. Further...and rightfully so, generalizations occurred for supremacists and their ideology: they were all painted as f**king idiots as Mushroom Head placed them in the spotlight.

Stop downplaying extreme Islamic actions. These clowns deserve every bit of criticism they get and the faith that inspires them should stand to question.

The answer is simple. I will illustrate it below:

If 100 people kill someone shouting Alluhah Akbar and then one person kills someone shouting Jesus is Great, then what do you think the story is going to be? You would expect to hear something about Islamic terrorism. But why would you expect to hear something about radical Christian terrorism? Wouldn't you expect something more like we get now that the person is just crazy because it is so rare that someone else would do the same thing?

We call Islamic terrorism terrorism because there is a movement behind it and hundreds of attacks happen all over the world each month.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Go Beavers said:

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

Your link just has a paraphrase from a journalist years after and doesn't go into before the bombing. There's also many other individual acts where people have murdered motivated by their own version of Christianity. But once again, my point isn't that Christian extremist are as violent as Muslim extremists, it's that fundamentalism is the problem. And fundamentalism takes different forms, religion being just one of them.

I still think it's not valid to suggest we abhor Muslim terrorist acts more than we abhor Christian terrorist acts which was something you hinted at on page 19 of this thread.

To suggest something like that... we would need a genuine Christian terrorist act to compare one of the many Muslim terrorist acts we have been treated to recently... and then compare the responses. The McVeigh case was suggested as one, but it's not a Christian terrorist act. There have been no others presented (even in your post you referred to 'many other individual acts' instead of anything specific).

Here's a list of some genuine Christian terrorist acts. You can also include nearly all targeted killing of doctors who perform abortions and any abortion clinic bombings.
alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/10-worst-terror-attacks-extreme-christians-and-far-right-white-men

First, that article doesn't claim these are all Christians, but only white males. According to your article, only about half had religious ties-so it doesn't do much for me in terms of putting Christian terrorism on par with Muslim radicals.

I have several problems with this article. One, I've never heard anyone say that ONLY Muslims or non-whites are terrorists. No one says that. Look at Columbine, Colorado theater shooting, we know Muslims don't account for all mass killings. Yes, there is the idea when you mention a terrorist most may picture a middle-eastern male, but everyone knows they aren't the only terrorists or mass killings.
Second, with the exception of the OK bombing, the highest fatality rate in that list was 6. Most were just 1 or 2 casualties, hardly on par with the 9/11 or Orlando attacks. And I said with the exception of OK bombing because even the article mentions it wasn't religiously motivated, so why is that brought up as Christian terrorism? It wasn't, it was anti-government, so we can exclude that bombing when we talk about Christian terrorism vs Muslim radical terrorism. Even half the the remaining attacks weren't by Christians, but by "white supremacists" as described in the article with no mention of Christianity, but we'll leave them on the list for argument sake.
So doing a count as I skim through the article, 18 fatalities are used to argue why Christian terrorism (including non-Christian white supremacists) is just as bad or worse than Muslim terrorism? Triple that number were killed by a Muslim terrorist this week alone, and this article covers 4 decades as the previous comment noted.

The author of the article lost me when he criticized news coverage for being "matter of fact" when it comes to Christian terrorism. Isn't that how coverage suppose to be? What do you want them to do, make up facts to make it sounds as bad as Muslim terrorism in this country?

No one denies that there has been Christian bombings or killings, and acts of terrorism by white men, but to say its on the same level as Muslim terrorism in this country is just being in denial. But there is a reason why Americans associate terrorism with radical Islam. What is the worst terrorist act in our country? 9/11 and who did it? Orlando is now the worse mass shooting in our country, and he was shouting Allah Akbar while he did it. 2 for 2 so far.

Once again, I'm not trying to say Christian terrorists have killed as many people, I'm saying the thinking on the individual level can be the same, but the media and public response is different. People absolutely deny that a Christian terrorist is motivated by their religion, or that they are influenced by Christian terrorist groups. They are typically pushed into the 'crazy' category. The Orlando shooter was labelled a terrorist in less than a day. And now they say he was 'influenced' by a terrorist group. So I'm guessing the next time a white male American shoots people who is motivated by a domestic terrorist group, we'll be calling him a terrorist too? The Charleston shooter was motivated by white supremacist groups, but I don't recall him being labelled a terrorist.

The language used around it is important to me because is guides the dialogue and the response by leaders and the general public. When someone is called a Muslim extremist, people conclude that the religion is the issue, not the issues that factor in to someone deciding they are going to kill people. It basically can shut down intelligent responses to these things (as you can see in this thread).

I disagree.

I said this at the bottom of my response to you: "Change the guilty parties and the outrage would be equal for Christians. Without question."

Muslim 'extremists' have earned a brutal reputation for themselves for good reason. Each one of their despicable acts is not an isolated event as much as some would like everyone to belief- they are all part of a growing body of work and people are really f**king tired of it.

And you spoke of 'Mushroom Head'? He received all the scorn and more for his obscenity. If more white supremacists committed similar acts... the trend would most assuredly be labelled as terrorism. As it happened, it was- more appropriately in my mind- labelled a hate crime. Further...and rightfully so, generalizations occurred for supremacists and their ideology: they were all painted as f**king idiots as Mushroom Head placed them in the spotlight.

Stop downplaying extreme Islamic actions. These clowns deserve every bit of criticism they get and the faith that inspires them should stand to question.

I'm not downplaying anything. You're downplaying domestic terrorism and the faith that inspires them. I'm curious what the threshold is, though. A person kills 49 people, clearly a hate crime, but he's labelled a terrorist very quickly. Wouldn't it more appropriately in your mind be labelled at hate crime?

EM194007 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thank you Gimme. That was getting really irritating and I'm glad you swooped in bright some logic and reason to the conversation when it was most needed, lol.

you know me. i call out outright falsehoods when i see them.

Better come off your high horse then. Because all states don't have the same good Samaritan laws. Depending on the state, yes, you could be sued for helping out as a good Samaritan. So, your posting falsehoods, sorry, but the truth. Better do your homework better before taking a bow.

The details of good Samaritan laws/acts vary by jurisdiction, including who is protected from liability and under what circumstances. Not all jurisdictions provide protection to laypersons, instead protecting only trained personnel, such as doctors or nurses and perhaps also emergency services personnel such as trained police, fire and EMS workers

Here, better read all states laws, before thinking your good helping someone out.
https://recreation-law.com/2014/05/28/good-samaritan-laws-by-state/

Nice research. Did you also find out how many people have sued their Florence Nightingale and actually won for leaving bruises during CPR?

For example, this douche would deserve a lawsuit http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/texas-good-guy-with-a-gun-shoots-carjacking-victim-in-head-then-runs-away/