On June 13 2016 03:41 Integra wrote: According to Reuters ISIS has claimed responsibility for this event.
There is also confirmation that Mateen called 911 and swore allegiance with ISIS prior to the murders.
There's no reason ISIS shouldn't. The group understands the value of brand recognition and it's not like this will hurt their "relationship" with Western governments (maybe with other terrorist sects, but that's a different topic altogether). It's doubtful that ISIS was logistically involved in any capacity, but claiming responsibility increases their perceived influence.
In this case though the shooter himself called into 911 swearing allegiance to ISIS. So...
So what? ISIS actively encourages people to carry out acts in their name. This is explicitly aimed at people who will not be officially incorporated into their organization. They know these people want to believe their outlashes represent something bigger than themselves. But ISIS doesn't care if this guy was really "one of them" and again, I doubt they assisted him in any capacity. None of those facts matter though. More than anything else, it's a media-savvy move on their part.
On June 13 2016 02:44 zeo wrote: Youtube livestream of the address:
This guy. I just cant fathom how he has such high approval ratings. Americans must be crazy. Just look at your countries shambolic state on every front. This guy has led you to this. He has refused to utter the words 'radical islamic terrorism'. What a deceitful, weak-kneed shill!
Its only his gravitas and persona which you guys all lap up along with the paid media. Rather than see behind his word-front, into his massive failiures on EVERY important issue and metric of delivery, you still wish for another term of him(with $hillary). As an outsider I can only watch aghast at how your inanity leads you to implosion as you guys label yourselves as liberals and conservatives rather than realise you have to be one of them on specific-issues rather than politics.
I have always been pro-american for all the human good America and its citizens have done for the world as a whole and I hope one day all of you open your eyes to see the mockery you have made your once great nation.
/rant
Sums it up. Bringing up your political agenda "gun control" while not saying ANYTHING about islamic terrorism is simply disgusting.
He did say it was an act of terrorism. Not defining precisely that it was Islamic terrorism though, how much does it really change? I'm not exactly sure what his motives are, but he is still fighting ISIS abroad and still working on security measures to protect people otherwise (gun laws).
I just don't see what meaningfully changes if he starts to say three words instead of one ('terrorism'). I'm curious why you find it so objectionable.
Look up Maajid Nawaz talking about the Voldemort effect and you will see why it is a problem.
I'll explain anyway. By refusing to use the words radical islamic terrorism, you are not creating a distinction between radical islamists and muslims. It is very harmful to the muslim community. How many times do we have to see a radical islamic terrorist attack and have it described simply as a terrorist attack (whilst also seeing that perpetrator is a muslim) before everyone starts assuming that muslims are terrorists? Answer: Its already happened, and still we can't utter the words. Are we so petrified of these jihadists that we can't even name them? This is the voldemort problem
Thanks for explaining! (Although I also read the transcript on the "big think" website)
While I was reading the transcript I have to admit it felt a bit absurd, because its hard to see how the general public could be that easily confused, that seeing a few attacks from Al Qaeda or ISIS should definitively mean that the (billions?) of muslims living across the world are all equally extreme. It does seem a little patronizing to the general public, in that Maajid thinks they need Obama or the 'leftist' media to explicitly tell them that this is a form of extremism, and that we shouldn't generalize across all Muslims. Are people really that..well..dumb?
To some extent it seems justifiable when you see people like Trump drum up so much fear against Muslims that he wants to ban all of them from entering the US - and many, many people apparently agree. But that's really just playing off the fears of another terrorist attack, which has a higher chance of happening when you admit people from majority Muslim countries, not that all Muslims are terrorists.
And to some extent you can legitimately argue that a sizeable minority or small majority of Muslims have deeply problematic attitudes in other areas (women's rights, gay rights, etc.), which are clearly causing problems in Europe (significantly higher incidences of rape against women, for example). But even so, even with those problems, I don't think that the general public is so easily confused that they will think that literally every Muslim follows ISIS.
Maajid does make a good point, but its the kind of thing you only have to worry about if the populations in major western countries have very limited critical thinking skills.
EDIT: Aah you know what thinking about it a little I think there is a lot of propaganda out there that can really confuse people. Sam Harris for example has basically endorsed the view that it is extremely difficult for a Muslim to not be violent. So...maybe Maajid is right .
Maajid does make a good point, but its the kind of thing you only have to worry about if the populations in major western countries have very limited critical thinking skills.
This guy. I just cant fathom how he has such high approval ratings. Americans must be crazy. Just look at your countries shambolic state on every front. This guy has led you to this. He has refused to utter the words 'radical islamic terrorism'. What a deceitful, weak-kneed shill!
Its only his gravitas and persona which you guys all lap up along with the paid media. Rather than see behind his word-front, into his massive failiures on EVERY important issue and metric of delivery, you still wish for another term of him(with $hillary). As an outsider I can only watch aghast at how your inanity leads you to implosion as you guys label yourselves as liberals and conservatives rather than realise you have to be one of them on specific-issues rather than politics.
I have always been pro-american for all the human good America and its citizens have done for the world as a whole and I hope one day all of you open your eyes to see the mockery you have made your once great nation.
/rant
Sums it up. Bringing up your political agenda "gun control" while not saying ANYTHING about islamic terrorism is simply disgusting.
He did say it was an act of terrorism. Not defining precisely that it was Islamic terrorism though, how much does it really change? I'm not exactly sure what his motives are, but he is still fighting ISIS abroad and still working on security measures to protect people otherwise (gun laws).
I just don't see what meaningfully changes if he starts to say three words instead of one ('terrorism'). I'm curious why you find it so objectionable.
Look up Maajid Nawaz talking about the Voldemort effect and you will see why it is a problem.
I'll explain anyway. By refusing to use the words radical islamic terrorism, you are not creating a distinction between radical islamists and muslims. It is very harmful to the muslim community. How many times do we have to see a radical islamic terrorist attack and have it described simply as a terrorist attack (whilst also seeing that perpetrator is a muslim) before everyone starts assuming that muslims are terrorists? Answer: Its already happened, and still we can't utter the words. Are we so petrified of these jihadists that we can't even name them? This is the voldemort problem
Thanks for explaining! (Although I also read the transcript on the "big think" website)
While I was reading the transcript I have to admit it felt a bit absurd, because its hard to see how the general public could be that easily confused, that seeing a few attacks from Al Qaeda or ISIS should definitively mean that the (billions?) of muslims living across the world are all equally extreme. It does seem a little patronizing to the general public, in that Maajid thinks they need Obama or the 'leftist' media to explicitly tell them that this is a form of extremism, and that we shouldn't generalize across all Muslims. Are people really that..well..dumb?
To some extent it seems justifiable when you see people like Trump drum up so much fear against Muslims that he wants to ban all of them from entering the US - and many, many people apparently agree. But that's really just playing off the fears of another terrorist attack, which has a higher chance of happening when you admit people from majority Muslim countries, not that all Muslims are terrorists.
And to some extent you can legitimately argue that a sizeable minority or small majority of Muslims have deeply problematic attitudes in other areas (women's rights, gay rights, etc.), which are clearly causing problems in Europe (significantly higher incidences of rape against women, for example). But even so, even with those problems, I don't think that the general public is so easily confused that they will think that literally every Muslim follows ISIS.
Maajid does make a good point, but its the kind of thing you only have to worry about if the populations in major western countries have very limited critical thinking skills.
EDIT: Aah you know what thinking about it a little I think there is a lot of propaganda out there that can really confuse people. Sam Harris for example has basically endorsed the view that it is extremely difficult for a Muslim to not be violent. So...maybe Maajid is right .
I take it back lol.
Sam Harris has changed his views somewhat since he got together with Nawaz and wrote a book. He has now started speaking of Islamists and Jihadists instead of muslims in general which makes his ideas a bit less unpalatable. I still disagree with him a fair amount but I also have some sympathy for him based on what he is up against in terms of constantly being branded a racist etc.
Either way, there is no need to avoid calling islamic terrorism what it is. Its a kind of avoidance that will never look good and will raise suspicions.
Maajid does make a good point, but its the kind of thing you only have to worry about if the populations in major western countries have very limited critical thinking skills.
Y'know, it's funny you should say that...
LOL . Well I actually thought about it a bit more, and realized that there are some very deceptive and persuasive arguments that otherwise intelligent people can fall for. So I don't know if its really the lack of critical thinking (though that probably plays a role), more so the people who are basically quote-mining the Koran for all of its violent passages, and confusing people into thinking it is purely a religion of violence. Its like a form of propaganda; so I have more sympathy for people in that regard and think Maajid makes a fair point in the end if you look at it from that lens.
This guy. I just cant fathom how he has such high approval ratings. Americans must be crazy. Just look at your countries shambolic state on every front. This guy has led you to this. He has refused to utter the words 'radical islamic terrorism'. What a deceitful, weak-kneed shill!
Its only his gravitas and persona which you guys all lap up along with the paid media. Rather than see behind his word-front, into his massive failiures on EVERY important issue and metric of delivery, you still wish for another term of him(with $hillary). As an outsider I can only watch aghast at how your inanity leads you to implosion as you guys label yourselves as liberals and conservatives rather than realise you have to be one of them on specific-issues rather than politics.
I have always been pro-american for all the human good America and its citizens have done for the world as a whole and I hope one day all of you open your eyes to see the mockery you have made your once great nation.
/rant
Sums it up. Bringing up your political agenda "gun control" while not saying ANYTHING about islamic terrorism is simply disgusting.
He did say it was an act of terrorism. Not defining precisely that it was Islamic terrorism though, how much does it really change? I'm not exactly sure what his motives are, but he is still fighting ISIS abroad and still working on security measures to protect people otherwise (gun laws).
I just don't see what meaningfully changes if he starts to say three words instead of one ('terrorism'). I'm curious why you find it so objectionable.
Look up Maajid Nawaz talking about the Voldemort effect and you will see why it is a problem.
I'll explain anyway. By refusing to use the words radical islamic terrorism, you are not creating a distinction between radical islamists and muslims. It is very harmful to the muslim community. How many times do we have to see a radical islamic terrorist attack and have it described simply as a terrorist attack (whilst also seeing that perpetrator is a muslim) before everyone starts assuming that muslims are terrorists? Answer: Its already happened, and still we can't utter the words. Are we so petrified of these jihadists that we can't even name them? This is the voldemort problem
Thanks for explaining! (Although I also read the transcript on the "big think" website)
While I was reading the transcript I have to admit it felt a bit absurd, because its hard to see how the general public could be that easily confused, that seeing a few attacks from Al Qaeda or ISIS should definitively mean that the (billions?) of muslims living across the world are all equally extreme. It does seem a little patronizing to the general public, in that Maajid thinks they need Obama or the 'leftist' media to explicitly tell them that this is a form of extremism, and that we shouldn't generalize across all Muslims. Are people really that..well..dumb?
To some extent it seems justifiable when you see people like Trump drum up so much fear against Muslims that he wants to ban all of them from entering the US - and many, many people apparently agree. But that's really just playing off the fears of another terrorist attack, which has a higher chance of happening when you admit people from majority Muslim countries, not that all Muslims are terrorists.
And to some extent you can legitimately argue that a sizeable minority or small majority of Muslims have deeply problematic attitudes in other areas (women's rights, gay rights, etc.), which are clearly causing problems in Europe (significantly higher incidences of rape against women, for example). But even so, even with those problems, I don't think that the general public is so easily confused that they will think that literally every Muslim follows ISIS.
Maajid does make a good point, but its the kind of thing you only have to worry about if the populations in major western countries have very limited critical thinking skills.
EDIT: Aah you know what thinking about it a little I think there is a lot of propaganda out there that can really confuse people. Sam Harris for example has basically endorsed the view that it is extremely difficult for a Muslim to not be violent. So...maybe Maajid is right .
I take it back lol.
Sam Harris has changed his views somewhat since he got together with Nawaz and wrote a book. He has now started speaking of Islamists and Jihadists instead of muslims in general which makes his ideas a bit less unpalatable. I still disagree with him a fair amount but I also have some sympathy for him based on what he is up against in terms of constantly being branded a racist etc.
Either way, there is no need to avoid calling islamic terrorism what it is. Its a kind of avoidance that will never look good and will raise suspicions.
Yeah I agree with you there. Though I think Sam still basically endorses the idea that its very hard for someone who is doing an "honest" reading of the Koran to come away with the idea that the religion is peaceful, which I think is the kind of thing that can lead people to believe that "true" Muslims really do roughly agree with ISIS' views on jihad etc.
But the percentage of peaceful Muslims is fairly overwhelming (must be upwards of 97% or so), so its hard to see how his views are really justified by reality. Anyway this is probably a bit of a derail even though its a good discussion so I'm fine leaving it there if you want.
Ex-wife of suspected Orlando shooter: ‘He beat me’
The ex-wife of the 29-year-old man suspected of killing 50 people in a Orlando nightclub early Sunday said that he was violent and mentally unstable and beat her repeatedly while they were married.
The ex-wife said she met Omar Mateen online about eight years ago and decided to move to Florida and marry him.
At first, the marriage was normal, she said, but then he became abusive.
“He was not a stable person,” said the ex-wife, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because she feared for her safety in the wake of the mass shooting. “He beat me. He would just come home and start beating me up because the laundry wasn’t finished or something like that.”
Mateen’s ex-wife said she was having a difficult time when she first met him and decided to move to Florida to be with him. The two married in March 2009 and moved into a 2-bedroom condominium in Fort Pierce, Fla., that Mateen’s family owned.
“He seemed like a normal human being,” she said, adding that he wasn’t very religious and worked out at the gym often. She said in the few months they were married he gave no signs of having fallen under the sway of radical Islam. She said he owned a small-caliber handgun and worked as a guard at a nearby facility for juvenile delinquents.
“He was a very private person,” she said.
The ex-wife said her parents intervened when they learned Mateen had assaulted her. Her father confirmed the account and said that the marriage lasted only a few months.
This guy. I just cant fathom how he has such high approval ratings. Americans must be crazy. Just look at your countries shambolic state on every front. This guy has led you to this. He has refused to utter the words 'radical islamic terrorism'. What a deceitful, weak-kneed shill!
Its only his gravitas and persona which you guys all lap up along with the paid media. Rather than see behind his word-front, into his massive failiures on EVERY important issue and metric of delivery, you still wish for another term of him(with $hillary). As an outsider I can only watch aghast at how your inanity leads you to implosion as you guys label yourselves as liberals and conservatives rather than realise you have to be one of them on specific-issues rather than politics.
I have always been pro-american for all the human good America and its citizens have done for the world as a whole and I hope one day all of you open your eyes to see the mockery you have made your once great nation.
/rant
Sums it up. Bringing up your political agenda "gun control" while not saying ANYTHING about islamic terrorism is simply disgusting.
He did say it was an act of terrorism. Not defining precisely that it was Islamic terrorism though, how much does it really change? I'm not exactly sure what his motives are, but he is still fighting ISIS abroad and still working on security measures to protect people otherwise (gun laws).
I just don't see what meaningfully changes if he starts to say three words instead of one ('terrorism'). I'm curious why you find it so objectionable.
Look up Maajid Nawaz talking about the Voldemort effect and you will see why it is a problem.
I'll explain anyway. By refusing to use the words radical islamic terrorism, you are not creating a distinction between radical islamists and muslims. It is very harmful to the muslim community. How many times do we have to see a radical islamic terrorist attack and have it described simply as a terrorist attack (whilst also seeing that perpetrator is a muslim) before everyone starts assuming that muslims are terrorists? Answer: Its already happened, and still we can't utter the words. Are we so petrified of these jihadists that we can't even name them? This is the voldemort problem
A very absurd position.
The idea that someone who is dumb enough to assume that muslims are terrorists wouldn't do so if people said "radical islamic terrorist attack" instead of "terrorist attack" is intensely ridiculous. What creates this perception is that we are currently at a point in history where radical islam is the motive of a lot of terrorist attacks, not the words we use to describe the situation. And that should be obvious to anyone.
The ex-wife of the 29-year-old man suspected of killing 50 people in a Orlando nightclub early Sunday said that he was violent and mentally unstable and beat her repeatedly while they were married.
The ex-wife said she met Omar Mateen online about eight years ago and decided to move to Florida and marry him.
At first, the marriage was normal, she said, but then he became abusive.
“He was not a stable person,” said the ex-wife, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because she feared for her safety in the wake of the mass shooting. “He beat me. He would just come home and start beating me up because the laundry wasn’t finished or something like that.”
Mateen’s ex-wife said she was having a difficult time when she first met him and decided to move to Florida to be with him. The two married in March 2009 and moved into a 2-bedroom condominium in Fort Pierce, Fla., that Mateen’s family owned.
“He seemed like a normal human being,” she said, adding that he wasn’t very religious and worked out at the gym often. She said in the few months they were married he gave no signs of having fallen under the sway of radical Islam. She said he owned a small-caliber handgun and worked as a guard at a nearby facility for juvenile delinquents.
“He was a very private person,” she said.
The ex-wife said her parents intervened when they learned Mateen had assaulted her. Her father confirmed the account and said that the marriage lasted only a few months.
Ugh, this whole scenario is eerily reminiscent of the Shafia Family murders back in 2009.
On June 13 2016 04:31 Nebuchad wrote: What creates this perception is that we are currently at a point in history where radical islam is the motive of a lot of terrorist attacks, not the words we use to describe the situation. And that should be obvious to anyone.
I would be suspicious of that belief. Radical Islam is the public justification and motivation of those who are not in charge. But among the heads of terrorist organizations, it's hard to know how much of their motivation is ideological.
On June 13 2016 04:30 SK.Testie wrote: Still it's very easy to see that more Muslims identify with ISIS or sympathize with them than say, atheists, christians, agnostics, etc.
Results are 81% yes 19% no with 57k votes on the poll. So it's not a tiny tiny sample size here.
Can we see the polling methodology? Just because the sample size is large enough to be statistically significant doesn't mean the results are reflective of reality.
Mateen purchased multiple guns in the past few days, the FBI spokesman said.
When asked why Mateen was able to purchase a gun given the fact he was on the FBI radar for terror links, the spokesman answer he was able to do so because the investigations were closed.
Mir Seddique, Mateen's father, told NBC News, "this has nothing to do with religion." Seddique said his son got angry when he saw two men kissing in Miami a couple of months ago and thinks that may be related to the shooting.
It had nothing to do with religion, except that the religion told me to hate gays, father says. What an incredible statement.
Mir Seddique, Mateen's father, told NBC News, "this has nothing to do with religion." Seddique said his son got angry when he saw two men kissing in Miami a couple of months ago and thinks that may be related to the shooting.
It had nothing to do with religion, except that the religion told me to hate gays, father says. What an incredible statement.
Mir Seddique, Mateen's father, told NBC News, "this has nothing to do with religion." Seddique said his son got angry when he saw two men kissing in Miami a couple of months ago and thinks that may be related to the shooting.
It had nothing to do with religion, except that the religion told me to hate gays, father says. What an incredible statement.
You're telling me this guy lived in Florida for 8 years and only now discovered the gay scene?
On June 13 2016 04:32 CosmicSpiral wrote: I would be suspicious of that belief. Radical Islam is the public justification and motivation of those who are not in charge. But among the heads of terrorist organizations, it's hard to know how much of their motivation is ideological.
Sure, and those who are in charge are generally not seen committing the attacks, so I think the point stands.
Mir Seddique, Mateen's father, told NBC News, "this has nothing to do with religion." Seddique said his son got angry when he saw two men kissing in Miami a couple of months ago and thinks that may be related to the shooting.
It had nothing to do with religion, except that the religion told me to hate gays, father says. What an incredible statement.
Christianity?
Imagine if the shooter didn't want to bake a cake for those 100+ gays he shot.
Obama would have been all over that radical Christian terrorism
EPT
.![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HGpmt3W.png)
![[image loading]](http://puu.sh/pqhqe/d191546c73.png)
