• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Great news! Over 20 dead in Orlando Night Club!

What doesn't seem to register is that this shooter was the product of the society in which he lived. I am not making excuses for him or denying he had to be shot to stop further violence from being done. By the time he started shooting, the damage that caused the shooting was already fully operative. A lot had to do with the availability of the weapons. More important was the shooter's perception of the society in which he lived and intolerant of his beliefs and tolerant of beliefs and lifestyles that denied his. His calculus...."these people don't deserve to live." Is that thought, perhaps about other people than his targets on this day, something you entertain about those other people. In a nation that is perpetually at war, that thought is promoted for some other people. That seems to license killing in the eyes of those who clearly are "sinful" in one way or another. I am not suggesting that the motives of the shooter were in any way justified, but that it is understandable that people could act as he did given his world view and most of the American people's views.
 
What doesn't seem to register is that this shooter was the product of the society in which he lived. I am not making excuses for him or denying he had to be shot to stop further violence from being done. By the time he started shooting, the damage that caused the shooting was already fully operative. A lot had to do with the availability of the weapons. More important was the shooter's perception of the society in which he lived and intolerant of his beliefs and tolerant of beliefs and lifestyles that denied his. His calculus...."these people don't deserve to live." Is that thought, perhaps about other people than his targets on this day, something you entertain about those other people. In a nation that is perpetually at war, that thought is promoted for some other people. That seems to license killing in the eyes of those who clearly are "sinful" in one way or another. I am not suggesting that the motives of the shooter were in any way justified, but that it is understandable that people could act as he did given his world view and most of the American people's views.

Is this your roundabout way of blaming Bush's invasion of somewhere ?
 
Another bit of the mosaic:

Orlando shooter’s imam is pro-Trump

The imam, who was not identified by name by reporter Meghan McRoberts, said if presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump were president, the anger would shift away from Muslims, according to a WPTV reporter.

“It would have some good effects,” the unnamed imam told WPTV.

Why? Because Trump, having exploited and fanned the anti-muslim flames as high as possible before the election would declare the situation resolved? By fiat, of course.

This situation is not unlike when certain people manufactured a certain hostage situation and kept that going in order to alter the outcome of another presidential election...
 
If Islam is being used as a technique to convince younger Muslims to kill people via the Internet (it is), one of the ways of preventing this violence is to drown out the online propaganda and expose it for what it truly is (which is something that is being attempted).

ISIS and such groups don't promote themselves by saying "Join ISIS, we like to destroy ancient antiquities!"
OK, and this would stop Adam Lanza? Dylann Roof?
No. They suffered from mental health issues, something that only happens to White people. It is the cost of White Privilege. ;)
I'm not suggesting your suggestion isn't valid, but why is this a "first step" to stopping mass killings in the U.S.?
Well, I wouldn't consider it a "first step", rather another avenue that must be used in conjunction with other avenues. When dealing with Islamic inspired extremism, it makes sense to fight back against extremist propaganda.
 
What doesn't seem to register is that this shooter was the product of the society in which he lived. I am not making excuses for him or denying he had to be shot to stop further violence from being done. By the time he started shooting, the damage that caused the shooting was already fully operative. A lot had to do with the availability of the weapons. More important was the shooter's perception of the society in which he lived and intolerant of his beliefs and tolerant of beliefs and lifestyles that denied his. His calculus...."these people don't deserve to live." Is that thought, perhaps about other people than his targets on this day, something you entertain about those other people. In a nation that is perpetually at war, that thought is promoted for some other people. That seems to license killing in the eyes of those who clearly are "sinful" in one way or another. I am not suggesting that the motives of the shooter were in any way justified, but that it is understandable that people could act as he did given his world view and most of the American people's views.

Is this your roundabout way of blaming Bush's invasion of somewhere ?

No! It is pointing to a mindset that has gripped our population since the founding of our country. Bush's invasion was an example of it, but we have had the disease for a very long time and it appears it isn't going to be even slightly ameliorated in this election cycle. Why fight to take the legislature away from the Republicans only to seat Democrats who would do the same thing? The number was 50 dead, not 20 and the guy could not have done that with a knife. So we have the mindset of stand your ground...so did the terrorist. I am trying to show you the Catch 22-ness of the situation and I must admit I lack the power to tell you how to stop it...just saying that this mindset appears pretty locked in...and it is self regenerating on both sides.
 
OK, and this would stop Adam Lanza? Dylann Roof?
No. They suffered from mental health issues, something that only happens to White people. It is the cost of White Privilege. ;)
I'm not suggesting your suggestion isn't valid, but why is this a "first step" to stopping mass killings in the U.S.?
Well, I wouldn't consider it a "first step", rather another avenue that must be used in conjunction with other avenues. When dealing with Islamic inspired extremism, it makes sense to fight back against extremist propaganda.

I don't disagree... and better mental health help for those privileged white fucktards. Let's battle back against christian extremism too.

But let's stop sales of AR-15's and/or strengthen back-ground checks to keep guns out of hands of killers while those other measures are needing time to work.
 
Is this your roundabout way of blaming Bush's invasion of somewhere ?

No! It is pointing to a mindset that has gripped our population since the founding of our country. Bush's invasion was an example of it, but we have had the disease for a very long time and it appears it isn't going to be even slightly ameliorated in this election cycle. Why fight to take the legislature away from the Republicans only to seat Democrats who would do the same thing?
Gore would have invaded Iraq?
The number was 50 dead, not 20 and the guy could not have done that with a knife. So we have the mindset of stand your ground...so did the terrorist. I am trying to show you the Catch 22-ness of the situation and I must admit I lack the power to tell you how to stop it...just saying that this mindset appears pretty locked in...and it is self regenerating on both sides.
Most Americans aren't slaughtering each other.
 
OK, and this would stop Adam Lanza? Dylann Roof?
No. They suffered from mental health issues, something that only happens to White people. It is the cost of White Privilege. ;)
I'm not suggesting your suggestion isn't valid, but why is this a "first step" to stopping mass killings in the U.S.?
Well, I wouldn't consider it a "first step", rather another avenue that must be used in conjunction with other avenues. When dealing with Islamic inspired extremism, it makes sense to fight back against extremist propaganda.

I'm still going for the long-term here. Science and other education, helping nations to be self-sustaining and secure. The more technology they want, the more scientific and educated they will have to be. The more science they have, the more flexible they have to be with their holy books because they are not real. Bombing them constantly and involving ourselves in temporary military alliances with Muslim nations and groups, only makes us worse off in the long-term, like a larger Israel where these kinds of incidents will happen every year.
 
No. They suffered from mental health issues, something that only happens to White people. It is the cost of White Privilege. ;)
I'm not suggesting your suggestion isn't valid, but why is this a "first step" to stopping mass killings in the U.S.?
Well, I wouldn't consider it a "first step", rather another avenue that must be used in conjunction with other avenues. When dealing with Islamic inspired extremism, it makes sense to fight back against extremist propaganda.

I don't disagree... and better mental health help for those privileged white fucktards. Let's battle back against christian extremism too.
We are trying, and with any luck we'll destroy it on election day.

But let's stop sales of AR-15's and/or strengthen back-ground checks to keep guns out of hands of killers while those other measures are needing time to work.
That'd be great, but that would also be like trying to put toothpaste back in the tube. The NRA won.

- - - Updated - - -

No. They suffered from mental health issues, something that only happens to White people. It is the cost of White Privilege. ;)
I'm not suggesting your suggestion isn't valid, but why is this a "first step" to stopping mass killings in the U.S.?
Well, I wouldn't consider it a "first step", rather another avenue that must be used in conjunction with other avenues. When dealing with Islamic inspired extremism, it makes sense to fight back against extremist propaganda.

I'm still going for the long-term here. Science and other education, helping nations to be self-sustaining and secure. The more technology they want, the more scientific and educated they will have to be. The more science they have, the more flexible they have to be with their holy books because they are not real. Bombing them constantly and involving ourselves in temporary alliances with Muslim nations and groups, only makes us worse off in the long-term, like a larger Israel where these kinds of incidents will happen every year.
That'd be great, but the lunacy is in the paranoia some of the Middle Eastern nations have with each other. Such as Saudi Arabia snubbing the US because we are trying to stop Iran from getting a bomb, but they don't trust any dealings with Iran, as in we'd let Iran become a player in the Middle East, larger than Saudi Arabia. Granted, not trusting American foreign interests isn't exactly that undeserved.
 
No. They suffered from mental health issues, something that only happens to White people. It is the cost of White Privilege. ;)
I'm not suggesting your suggestion isn't valid, but why is this a "first step" to stopping mass killings in the U.S.?
Well, I wouldn't consider it a "first step", rather another avenue that must be used in conjunction with other avenues. When dealing with Islamic inspired extremism, it makes sense to fight back against extremist propaganda.

I don't disagree... and better mental health help for those privileged white fucktards. Let's battle back against christian extremism too.

But let's stop sales of AR-15's and/or strengthen back-ground checks to keep guns out of hands of killers while those other measures are needing time to work.

We should also stop sale of gasoline: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

Fertilizer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing

And knifes: http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/asia/china-railway-attack/

Oh, and guns, too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks
 
barbos said:
You forgot Ronald RaygunLeonid Brezhnev Ronald Raygun contribution. He is the one who started Afghan War...
FIFY
I am sorry but I have to correct your correction, you were clearly misinformed there.

No. The Soviets invade Afghanistan and then the U.S. simply returned the favor the Soviets did for it in Vietnam...
Not according to people in US administration at the time.
:picardfacepalm:

At the time means

"These uprisings, along with internal fighting and coups within the government between the People’s and Banner factions, prompted the Soviets to invade the country on the night of Dec. 24, 1979, sending in some 30,000 troops and toppling the short-lived presidency of People’s leader Hafizullah Amin."​

Dec. 24, 1979 was about ten months before Ronald Raygun was even elected President. So please, by all means, show us evidence that people in the Carter administration said Ronald Raygun started the Afghan War.
 
* Mateen called 911 during the attack to pledge allegiance to ISIS and mentioned the Boston Marathon bombers, according to a U.S. official.

Unless he swore allegiance to the Islamic State apropos of nothing, and happened to dislike gay people for reasons unrelated to what the Koran says about them, this looks like a pretty clear case of religious terrorism.
Sigh. Islam has different interpretations to different Muslims. Swearing allegiance to an organization (even a religious one) is not the same as attributing one's behavior to the religion. I realize that is a fine distinction, but it is an important one.

This is the better question. I don't know what can or should be done, but acknowledging it is certainly a first step.
Why?

- - - Updated - - -

Your first 3 examples have explicit non-violent uses. A better first step (but much more difficult) would be to get many people to improve their critical thinking skills.
 
Sigh. Islam has different interpretations to different Muslims. Swearing allegiance to an organization (even a religious one) is not the same as attributing one's behavior to the religion. I realize that is a fine distinction, but it is an important one.


But we're trying really, really hard to blame this on Islam!

I remember in the first few hours after what is now the 2nd worst terrorist attack in American history, people were rushing to blame the Oklahoma City bombing on Muslim terrorists. When it was discovered that the perpetrator was a white Christian veteran, suddenly all discussion of religion went away.

What was the religion of the Sandy Hook shooter? The Aurora shooter? The Columbine shooters? Virginia Tech? Tucson? Sorry but there's so many mass shootings to choose from...and funny how they're only called "terrorism" when the perpetrator is Muslim.

:thinking:
 
Is this your roundabout way of blaming Bush's invasion of somewhere ?

No! It is pointing to a mindset that has gripped our population since the founding of our country.

It's not something I have picked up on.

The number was 50 dead, not 20 and the guy could not have done that with a knife. So we have the mindset of stand your ground...so did the terrorist. I am trying to show you the Catch 22-ness of the situation and I must admit I lack the power to tell you how to stop it...just saying that this mindset appears pretty locked in...and it is self regenerating on both sides.

I disagree there is a mind set behind this. Mass shootings like these are by deranged mental cases.
 
This could have all been avoided if only the killer listened to his father who wisely said, "God himself will punish those involved in homosexuality."
 
True, but the fact he wanted to hitch his wagon to the ISIS star does not make him a Muslim either.

I don't think there is any question he was Muslim, but I don't think that has anything to do with anything in and of itself. It doesn't appear (so far) that he was overtly fundamentalist or "radicalized" - at least not when he was married.

It sounds like religion probably had something to do with what he did as he expressed outrage at seeing 2 men kiss while he was in Miami. But that is not the same as saying he is "ISIS" or even "ISIS inspired"

But his marriage falling apart might very well have lead to his radicalization.

The basic formula is to find people whose lives aren't going well, get their confidence and explain that those failings are due to the actions of the hated group and the proper course of action is to lash out at that group.

Short of the cops finding evidence linking him to ISIS we don't know if he really was encouraged by them or simply a nutter who claimed an affiliation. Since we generally find links to the Islamists the former is more likely.
 
I don't think there is any question he was Muslim, but I don't think that has anything to do with anything in and of itself. It doesn't appear (so far) that he was overtly fundamentalist or "radicalized" - at least not when he was married.

It sounds like religion probably had something to do with what he did as he expressed outrage at seeing 2 men kiss while he was in Miami. But that is not the same as saying he is "ISIS" or even "ISIS inspired"

But his marriage falling apart might very well have lead to his radicalization.

The basic formula is to find people whose lives aren't going well, get their confidence and explain that those failings are due to the actions of the hated group and the proper course of action is to lash out at that group.

Short of the cops finding evidence linking him to ISIS we don't know if he really was encouraged by them or simply a nutter who claimed an affiliation. Since we generally find links to the Islamists the former is more likely.

I thought I read he got married again and had a kid.

So...
 
Back
Top Bottom