Amaq News, a Syrian news agency with close ties to the Islamic State, says the group is responsible for the attack on an Orlando gay club, which has killed 50 people, and left 53 injured.
"The armed attack that targeted a gay night club in the city of Orlando in the American state of Florida which left over 100 people dead or injured was carried out by an Islamic State fighter," Amaq said.
"That has not been confirmed. We'll have to see what those connections are once we get the details," said Florida Senator Bill Nelson.
FBI have also stated Omar Mateen, had proclaimed his loyalty to Islamic State in a 911 call, and mentioned the Tsarnaev brothers, who bombed the Boston Marathon in 2013.
The agency revealed that Mateen had been investigated in 2013, and 2014, over alleged social media threats and contacts with "a known suicide bomber", but that no charges had been brought forward, due to lack of evidence of any wrongdoing.
Last month, the Islamic State spokesman urged Western-based jihadists to execute attacks during holy month of Ramadan, which is now ongoing, "to punish the Crusaders" in a widely-distributed audio tape. www.rt.com
UPDATE 1
Deadliest mass shooting in US history: 50 dead, 53 injured in Orlando gay club massacre
Fifty people have been killed and 53 injured in the Orlando night club shooting, the city mayor said during a press briefing. The shooting is the deadliest in recent US history.
The process of removing the victims from the club continues, according to the Orange county sheriff. Some victims of the shooting are undergoing surgery with a number of them in critical condition, hospital officials told journalists during the briefing, Reuters reports.
Fifty people plus the shooter have been killed and 53 more injured in the Orlando night club shooting, the city mayor Buddy Dyer said during the press briefing on Sunday.
"Today we're dealing with something that we never imagined and is unimaginable," Dyer said. "It is with great sadness I share that we not have 20 but 50 casualties (dead), in addition to the shooter. There are another 53 ...hospitalized."
With 50 people dead, the Orlando shooting has become the deadliest massacre in US history, eclipsing the 2007 massacre at Virginia Tech University, which left 32 dead.
Both the Florida governor and the city of Orlando has declared a state of emergency following the deadly shooting.
The suspect behind the shooting has been identified as 29-year-old US citizen Omar Mateen, US media reported. The CBS network added that the FBI is currently checking whether he was linked to extremists.
The shooter was of Afghan descent and had weapons training, Peter King, US congressman and chairman of the House subcommittee on counterterrorism and intelligence, told US media.
Hateful ideology is spreading like a virus at the moment, worldwide. Everyone seems to be anti-something. Its no wonder the more insane people in society end up doing stuff like this. Shocked and saddened again
On June 12 2016 21:14 ForTehDarkseid wrote: Homophobes are proving yet again how disgusting and undeserving they are.
Unless you've read something elsewhere, I think you are jumping to conclusions. Just because a gay club was targeted does not mean the attacker necessarily was homophobic... it may have just been an appealing target for other reasons.
Hope there will be heavy repercussions all around the world after this news.
What do you mean by this?
Anyway, I hope investigators are able to put together why this happened and the information is made available soon.
Hope there will be heavy repercussions all around the world after this news.
What do you mean by this?
LGBT discrimination and hate speeches should be a criminal offense in every respected country. No bullshit like religion, customs or social concern should apply. Those who spread biggotry are nothing more than animals, essentially, and should be dealt accordingly.
On June 12 2016 21:25 ForTehDarkseid wrote: @micronesia, oh come on. The writing is on the wall.
So if the guy was not a homophobe but still wanted to target a gathering of people, he would have gone out of his way to target a specifically non-gay club? Yes, you are jumping to conclusions. Odds are in your favor that you are right, but we should stick to the facts in the immediate aftermath of this tragedy.
LGBT discrimination and hate speeches should be a criminal offense in every respected country. No bullshit like religion, customs or social concern should apply.
LGBT discrimination, in my country, has become more and more restricted recently, which is a good thing. As for hate speeches, to make them a criminal offense (except for some of the most egregious cases perhaps) would require a significant change in law that would affect many other things besides LGBT people.
@micronesia, you can correct me if I am mistaken, but LGBT is a criminal offense in a Muslim countries. In Asia and CIS, those communities are heavily targeted for "propaganding", but in most cases it's just sugar-coating the masses' ignorance and intolerance. Trying to solve the problem the soft way (by education and public restrictions) didn't really help, more strict regulations should be imposed.
I am a strong advocate of removing administrative penalties or fines entirely in a favor of straight jail time for any harm caused on a homophobic basis. As the things stand right now, international courts can't do anything against those corrupted countries, while authorities simply don't give a shit about such nuances, or even worse, support those actions indirectly.
On June 12 2016 21:14 ForTehDarkseid wrote: Homophobes are proving yet again how disgusting and undeserving they are.
Unless you've read something elsewhere, I think you are jumping to conclusions. Just because a gay club was targeted does not mean the attacker necessarily was homophobic... it may have just been an appealing target for other reasons.
As long as Western countries think they can afford to combat jihadism without putting in the necessary effort to fight the ideology behind it, this will keep happening in America, in France, in Belgium, in everywhere. We didn't do things this half-assed way with Soviet communism. We vigorously pushed back against it with a counter-narrative that was more appealing to both our people and the people living in Soviet-communist ruled countries. Today it seems all we do is make lame statements about "perversions" of Islam. Perversions they may be, but they are perversions that are way too popular and we don't seem to be doing shit that is effective at fighting their popularity.
On June 12 2016 21:14 ForTehDarkseid wrote: Homophobes are proving yet again how disgusting and undeserving they are.
Hope there will be heavy repercussions all around the world after this news.
I really hope that acts of a single individual do not create "heavy repercussions" all around the world - and that goes not only for just thus case, but in general. The whole "event X happened, so everyone needs to deal with this now" mentality is childish, leads to unsystemic actions and gets easily abused.
I also disagree with you that "hate speech" should be criminalized - at least in Europe it shouldn't be punished more than it already is. We have already lost so much of our freedom of speech, no step in that direction has any chance of getting my sympathy. I understand how restricting people's right to day "bad" things can be attractive, but that slope is not just slippery, it's actively dragging you down. The very same mechanisms for restricting freedom of speech you adore right now could become a method of oppression the second you will have something to say that the powers to be don't want to hear. I know it may sound theoretical if you are coming from a country with a long history of freedom, but we hadn't had freedom of speech for a bigger part of 20th century and it was very painful and the society has still not recovered.
On the other hand, I would happily subscribe for some notion of western world pushing other countries into accepting some gold standard of human rights and freedoms using political, economical and whatever non-violent means there are and LGBT right would definitely go into this package. However there is still quite of of lot work in the very western world before we can really face the rest of the planet with straight face, sadly.
On June 12 2016 22:15 DeepElemBlues wrote: As long as Western countries think they can afford to combat jihadism without putting in the necessary effort to fight the ideology behind it, this will keep happening in America, in France, in Belgium, in everywhere. We didn't do things this half-assed way with Soviet communism. We vigorously pushed back against it with a counter-narrative that was more appealing to both our people and the people living in Soviet-communist ruled countries. Today it seems all we do is make lame statements about "perversions" of Islam. Perversions they may be, but they are perversions that are way too popular and we don't seem to be doing shit that is effective at fighting their popularity.
This isn't a political stance though this is a religion. Its a whole different ball game.
On June 12 2016 22:15 DeepElemBlues wrote: As long as Western countries think they can afford to combat jihadism without putting in the necessary effort to fight the ideology behind it, this will keep happening in America, in France, in Belgium, in everywhere. We didn't do things this half-assed way with Soviet communism. We vigorously pushed back against it with a counter-narrative that was more appealing to both our people and the people living in Soviet-communist ruled countries. Today it seems all we do is make lame statements about "perversions" of Islam. Perversions they may be, but they are perversions that are way too popular and we don't seem to be doing shit that is effective at fighting their popularity.
I agree with the idea of an appealing counter narrative as the best solution to terrorism. In my mind this means: make lives great, make people feel included and participating in the well-being of society.
The biggest success in the ideological struggle of capitalist west vs authoritarian east during the cold war was the marshall plan and then later the founding of the EG to even out the economic development more.
What on the other hand didn't work so well was napalming vietnamese and laotian villages to the ground for "associating" with the enemy.
To my mind there are 2 components to terrorism: - legitimate gripes, like frustration with living condition, fear of arbitrary treatment/disregard, political/societal powerlessness and foreign occupation - radicalized ideologies decoupling those seed problems from reality so that the frustration can grow unhindered to extremes
we can not tackle this problem by getting rid of radicalized ideologies, as they are arbitrary: it does not matter which narrative is employed to entice frustrated people, the only condition, it has to fulfil, is that it promises "moral value" outside of the imediate societal realm: for example legacy, martyrdom or afterlife furthermore recognition/attention is a powerful multiplier to stick with the ideology
such a belief can be constructed for every distressed people, and as humans are pretty creative, it will spring up in due time, when the need/fertile ground for it is present.
On June 12 2016 22:15 DeepElemBlues wrote: As long as Western countries think they can afford to combat jihadism without putting in the necessary effort to fight the ideology behind it, this will keep happening in America, in France, in Belgium, in everywhere. We didn't do things this half-assed way with Soviet communism. We vigorously pushed back against it with a counter-narrative that was more appealing to both our people and the people living in Soviet-communist ruled countries. Today it seems all we do is make lame statements about "perversions" of Islam. Perversions they may be, but they are perversions that are way too popular and we don't seem to be doing shit that is effective at fighting their popularity.
This isn't a political stance though this is a religion. Its a whole different ball game.
Also the Soviets were a nation that we could deal with and didn't use suicide tactic. Truth be told they were just as terrified of us as we were of them. And we ruining a lot of innocent lives in our fear of "the commies." I am not really sure a hard line stance will benefit us much, since most of our most hard line efforts just lead to more recruitment.
I want to know if they were looking into the shooter, what slowed them down in the investigation.
Edit: puerk has it on point. You can't combat radical Islam with guns and by blowing things up, because every disenfranchised person is a potential follower. Its not something you "win" against.
On June 12 2016 22:15 DeepElemBlues wrote: As long as Western countries think they can afford to combat jihadism without putting in the necessary effort to fight the ideology behind it, this will keep happening in America, in France, in Belgium, in everywhere. We didn't do things this half-assed way with Soviet communism. We vigorously pushed back against it with a counter-narrative that was more appealing to both our people and the people living in Soviet-communist ruled countries. Today it seems all we do is make lame statements about "perversions" of Islam. Perversions they may be, but they are perversions that are way too popular and we don't seem to be doing shit that is effective at fighting their popularity.
This isn't a political stance though this is a religion. Its a whole different ball game.
Why? The west is clearly getting more anti-Islamic every day and the right wings in every country are rising in part because they feel the left is lying about Islam especially not being able to even say 'radical Islamic terrorsm'.
Edit: puerk has it on point. You can't combat radical Islam with guns and by blowing things up, because every disenfranchised person is a potential follower. Its not something you "win" against.
Queue people barging in on how the Nazi-Ideology was eradicated, clearly, and it has to be done again. I said time and time again that if you "blow them up", you'll just make the "next in line" terror organisation stronger. It's just a no-brainer that this approach doesn't work.
Law enforcement sources told CBS News the gunman has been identified as Omar Mateen, a U.S. citizen from Port St. Lucie. Mateen was born to Afghan parents in 1986. CBS News reports Mateen has no apparent criminal history and that authorities are investigating whether he had ties to Islamic terrorism.
CBS News reports that authorities are “leaning towards Islamic terrorism” as a motive. Law enforcement sources said the shooting had similarities to the terror attacks in Paris and Brussels.
On June 12 2016 21:38 ForTehDarkseid wrote: @micronesia, you can correct me if I am mistaken, but LGBT is a criminal offense in a Muslim countries. In Asia and CIS, those communities are heavily targeted for "propaganding", but in most cases it's just sugar-coating the masses' ignorance and intolerance. Trying to solve the problem the soft way (by education and public restrictions) didn't really help, more strict regulations should be imposed.
I am a strong advocate of removing administrative penalties or fines entirely in a favor of straight jail time for any harm caused on a homophobic basis. As the things stand right now, international courts can't do anything against those corrupted countries, while authorities simply don't give a shit about such nuances, or even worse, support those actions indirectly.
And what makes LGBT people more special than other minority groups that the people who openly don't like LGBT deserve special, harsher punishment than if those people, say, openly don't like Asian people?
It's ironic and slightly disturbing how in the US some liberal people seem to think that if people can't be convinced to be liberal the soft way, the state should just enforce it manu militari. For advocating tolerance, US liberals seem very intolerant of people who do not share their views.
On June 12 2016 22:15 DeepElemBlues wrote: As long as Western countries think they can afford to combat jihadism without putting in the necessary effort to fight the ideology behind it, this will keep happening in America, in France, in Belgium, in everywhere. We didn't do things this half-assed way with Soviet communism. We vigorously pushed back against it with a counter-narrative that was more appealing to both our people and the people living in Soviet-communist ruled countries. Today it seems all we do is make lame statements about "perversions" of Islam. Perversions they may be, but they are perversions that are way too popular and we don't seem to be doing shit that is effective at fighting their popularity.
This isn't a political stance though this is a religion. Its a whole different ball game.
Why? The west is clearly getting more anti-Islamic every day and the right wings in every country are rising in part because they feel the left is lying about Islam especially not being able to even say 'radical Islamic terrorsm'.
I'm totally agreed but getting rid of a religious belief is harder than getting rid of a political stance. Also its more complex than building an anti islamic world. Forces such as Trump are taking advantage of exactly the same tribalism and lack of education as ISIS, except that ISIS combines the hatred with deeply ingrained religious belief. Its about combatting the violent, hateful ideologies that are the root of this kind of problem.
Edit: puerk has it on point. You can't combat radical Islam with guns and by blowing things up, because every disenfranchised person is a potential follower. Its not something you "win" against.
Queue people barging in on how the Nazi-Ideology was eradicated, clearly, and it has to be done again. I said time and time again that if you "blow them up", you'll just make the "next in line" terror organisation stronger. It's just a no-brainer that this approach doesn't work.
there are to my mind several points those people miss who are always employing this false argument (xdaunt does it for many years now, several times on this forum stating that only the genocide of the islamic arabs can solve the middle eastern conflict favorably for the west)
1. perception of symmetry of conflict: ww2 was a grand struggle of "equal" nations, all "relevant" participants were nice, white, european and respectful killing each other to prove national supremacy 2. perception of cultural scope: the motivation to fight was seen as a very small part of cultural identity and there was no fear from germans losing their cultural identity, if they lose the war. they feared retribution for the atrocities they commited (mostly in eastern europe) but the french german wars and ww1 showed: life goes on, there are bigger things than those (almost regularly scheduled) national comparison contests 3. the proposed counter narrative (capitalism with a strong government constituted via a representative democracy and imbued with seperation of powers) was not a new (or even worse) foreign concept, it was the norm most of the time, and only failed in exceptional times of hardship -- the aftermath of the war was just considered slowly going back to normal
On June 12 2016 21:14 ForTehDarkseid wrote: Homophobes are proving yet again how disgusting and undeserving they are.
Hope there will be heavy repercussions all around the world after this news.
I really hope that acts of a single individual do not create "heavy repercussions" all around the world - and that goes not only for just thus case, but in general. The whole "event X happened, so everyone needs to deal with this now" mentality is childish, leads to unsystemic actions and gets easily abused.
I also disagree with you that "hate speech" should be criminalized - at least in Europe it shouldn't be punished more than it already is. We have already lost so much of our freedom of speech, no step in that direction has any chance of getting my sympathy. I understand how restricting people's right to day "bad" things can be attractive, but that slope is not just slippery, it's actively dragging you down. The very same mechanisms for restricting freedom of speech you adore right now could become a method of oppression the second you will have something to say that the powers to be don't want to hear. I know it may sound theoretical if you are coming from a country with a long history of freedom, but we hadn't had freedom of speech for a bigger part of 20th century and it was very painful and the society has still not recovered.
On the other hand, I would happily subscribe for some notion of western world pushing other countries into accepting some gold standard of human rights and freedoms using political, economical and whatever non-violent means there are and LGBT right would definitely go into this package. However there is still quite of of lot work in the very western world before we can really face the rest of the planet with straight face, sadly.
I agree 100% with this. It's important to highlight the contradiction within the liberal narrative. We should further restrict free speech in our western countries to protect "LGBT rights" while at the same time we should be "softer" and more tolerant with other more intolerant cultures (muslim countries) who actually target the LGBT people.
Let's not jump to conclusions, guys. Just because the guy had an Arabic name and killed gay people for religious reasons, let's not assume it's Muslim terrorism.
On June 12 2016 23:39 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Nothing is more dangerous than a broke and desperate government, when it comes to your money. And no government has ever owed more than America does today.
Seems like an epic police failure. What kind of Hostage Situation results in 50 deaths. Either they failed bad or Hostage Situation isn't exactly accurate.
Also, I'm still not sold on 50 deaths. The Police person said 50 casualties. The Mayor said 50 deaths. I can easily see how a civilian would hear 50 casualties and assume that means deaths and as a result give misinformation. Of course it is possible, but I'll wait for more confirmation than these two contradictory lines.
On June 12 2016 23:43 On_Slaught wrote: Seems like an epic police failure. What kind of Hostage Situation results in 50 deaths. Either they failed bad or Hostage Situation isn't exactly accurate.
id wager it wasnt a hostage situation given the shooter's religion
i must once again tip my hat to Brett Sperry the man who coined the phrase "RTS". he predicted that when the Soviet Union fell that the US government would have to invent a new boogey-man. That boogey-man was "terrorism". In his C&C games the terrorist organization was the brotherhood of Nod.
Even with this violent act ... murders are way, way, way, way down in the USA. Reporting, fear mongering, hysteria are way, way up.
In 1990... 3,000+ people were murdered in NYC. Sry guys, but this is child's play compared to late 80s and early 90s NYC.
On June 12 2016 23:43 On_Slaught wrote: Seems like an epic police failure. What kind of Hostage Situation results in 50 deaths. Either they failed bad or Hostage Situation isn't exactly accurate.
Also, I'm still not sold on 50 deaths. The Police person said 50 casualties. The Mayor said 50 deaths. I can easily see how a civilian would hear 50 casualties and assume that means deaths and as a result give misinformation. Of course it is possible, but I'll wait for more confirmation than these two contradictory lines.
On June 12 2016 23:43 On_Slaught wrote: Seems like an epic police failure. What kind of Hostage Situation results in 50 deaths. Either they failed bad or Hostage Situation isn't exactly accurate.
Also, I'm still not sold on 50 deaths. The Police person said 50 casualties. The Mayor said 50 deaths. I can easily see how a civilian would hear 50 casualties and assume that means deaths and as a result give misinformation. Of course it is possible, but I'll wait for more confirmation than these two contradictory lines.
An Assault Rifle does that.
Especially in the only place guarantied to not have anyone with a concealed carry.
Yeah, its confirmed the worst mass shooting in US history
On June 12 2016 21:38 ForTehDarkseid wrote: @micronesia, you can correct me if I am mistaken, but LGBT is a criminal offense in a Muslim countries. In Asia and CIS, those communities are heavily targeted for "propaganding", but in most cases it's just sugar-coating the masses' ignorance and intolerance. Trying to solve the problem the soft way (by education and public restrictions) didn't really help, more strict regulations should be imposed.
I am a strong advocate of removing administrative penalties or fines entirely in a favor of straight jail time for any harm caused on a homophobic basis. As the things stand right now, international courts can't do anything against those corrupted countries, while authorities simply don't give a shit about such nuances, or even worse, support those actions indirectly.
And what makes LGBT people more special than other minority groups that the people who openly don't like LGBT deserve special, harsher punishment than if those people, say, openly don't like Asian people?
It's ironic and slightly disturbing how in the US some liberal people seem to think that if people can't be convinced to be liberal the soft way, the state should just enforce it manu militari. For advocating tolerance, US liberals seem very intolerant of people who do not share their views.
When animals misbehave, some measures must be issued.
Last time I checked, racism didn't tie into religion or social propaganda nor does it really prevalent across the globe. Anti-nationalism is mostly entirely different thing.
On June 12 2016 23:43 On_Slaught wrote: Seems like an epic police failure. What kind of Hostage Situation results in 50 deaths. Either they failed bad or Hostage Situation isn't exactly accurate.
Also, I'm still not sold on 50 deaths. The Police person said 50 casualties. The Mayor said 50 deaths. I can easily see how a civilian would hear 50 casualties and assume that means deaths and as a result give misinformation. Of course it is possible, but I'll wait for more confirmation than these two contradictory lines.
An Assault Rifle does that.
Especially in the only place guarantied to not have anyone with a concealed carry.
Yeah, its confirmed the worst mass shooting in US history
I really don't want this to come out snarky, but learning that 50 dead is the worst mass shooting in US history was a little surprising to me. I guess I am a victim to the media portrayal of US as a place where shootings are relatively common and huge.
One question I'd like to know if anyone finds out at osme point: were the bouncer(s) armed? and what happened with them? Any club that size will have bouncers. If someone opens up on them wiht automatic weapons I woudln't really expect them to stop them anyways; I'm just wondering.
On June 12 2016 21:38 ForTehDarkseid wrote: @micronesia, you can correct me if I am mistaken, but LGBT is a criminal offense in a Muslim countries. In Asia and CIS, those communities are heavily targeted for "propaganding", but in most cases it's just sugar-coating the masses' ignorance and intolerance. Trying to solve the problem the soft way (by education and public restrictions) didn't really help, more strict regulations should be imposed.
I am a strong advocate of removing administrative penalties or fines entirely in a favor of straight jail time for any harm caused on a homophobic basis. As the things stand right now, international courts can't do anything against those corrupted countries, while authorities simply don't give a shit about such nuances, or even worse, support those actions indirectly.
And what makes LGBT people more special than other minority groups that the people who openly don't like LGBT deserve special, harsher punishment than if those people, say, openly don't like Asian people?
It's ironic and slightly disturbing how in the US some liberal people seem to think that if people can't be convinced to be liberal the soft way, the state should just enforce it manu militari. For advocating tolerance, US liberals seem very intolerant of people who do not share their views.
When animals misbehave, some measures must be issued.
Last time I checked, racism didn't tie into religion or social propaganda nor does it really prevalent across the globe.
What? Racism ties into many religions or more exactly religion-based agendas (see Israel, a state built on institutionalized racism disguised as religion) and you must be kindding to say it's not prevalent. Most of eastern Asia is racist as fuck, beyond any imagination we have, often legally, big chunks of Africa are still racially segregated and so on... it just doesn't come up so often in world news, because it's so common.
On June 12 2016 23:43 On_Slaught wrote: Seems like an epic police failure. What kind of Hostage Situation results in 50 deaths. Either they failed bad or Hostage Situation isn't exactly accurate.
Also, I'm still not sold on 50 deaths. The Police person said 50 casualties. The Mayor said 50 deaths. I can easily see how a civilian would hear 50 casualties and assume that means deaths and as a result give misinformation. Of course it is possible, but I'll wait for more confirmation than these two contradictory lines.
An Assault Rifle does that.
Especially in the only place guarantied to not have anyone with a concealed carry.
Yeah, its confirmed the worst mass shooting in US history
I really don't want this to come out snarky, but learning that 50 dead is the worst mass shooting in US history was a little surprising to me. I guess I am a victim to the media portrayal of US as a place where shootings are relatively common and huge.
Shootings are very common in the US, although i too are surprised about this being the worst one in the country given how often they do happen.
Fighting terrorism makes more terrorists (which isn't true but whatever, fighting terrorism and not winning is what makes more terrorists)
Not fighting terrorism makes more terrorists as the winning side is the attractive side
Well gentlemen if those are the options looks like there's nothing we can do which seems not correct to me
(xdaunt does it for many years now, several times on this forum stating that only the genocide of the islamic arabs can solve the middle eastern conflict favorably for the west)
I highly highly doubt that xdaunt has ever said anything about killing a large proportion of the world's Arab Muslim population
there are to my mind several points those people miss who are always employing this false argument
it's not a false argument though
it's just one you don't like
for 99% of human history it was the truest argument in existence, it worked time and time again
but today we think we're better because we don't sack cities, kill everybody or sell them into slavery, and sow the fields with salt
there are ways to fight that don't involve leveling cities that could be as effective as what we did to nazism but they involve larger amounts of time, money, and men than we are willing to expend
1. perception of symmetry of conflict: ww2 was a grand struggle of "equal" nations, all "relevant" participants were nice, white, european and respectful killing each other to prove national supremacy
well that's not accurate at all. japan says hello for one.
2. perception of cultural scope: the motivation to fight was seen as a very small part of cultural identity and there was no fear from germans losing their cultural identity, if they lose the war. they feared retribution for the atrocities they commited (mostly in eastern europe) but the french german wars and ww1 showed: life goes on, there are bigger things than those (almost regularly scheduled) national comparison contests
that's not accurate either, cultural identity was a huge factor in both germany and japan. the aryan race concept was huge in late 19th century and early 20th century germany, cultural militarism was just as huge in japan at the same time. if they were small parts of german and japanese cultural identity the second world war would not have happened the way it did if it happened at all. the diminishing of their importance to german and japanese cultural identity is directly linked to the material destruction of their societies in the war. nothing focuses the attention on what you fucked up than getting your ass kicked within an inch of your life. but most people don't want to do that to muslims and rightly so, firstly because jihadism is not the dominant ideology of muslims the way aryan supremacism was for germans (yes, it was) or cultural militarism for japanese. so another way must be found to cause muslims attracted to jihadism to reconsider their worldview.
the way it was done with the USSR was to live better than they did, and let their people know it, and the weight of the system collapsed on itself eventually. both sides had similar views on what constituted living well. it was a materialistic contest at heart, the west was better at materialism for the masses than the USSR. but there is more divergence between what a westerner thinks of as living well and what a jihadi thinks of as living well. it is not a materialistic contest at heart.
perhaps the only solution is to let jihadis run wild in muslim countries and simply try to quarantine them there, during the last 15 years worldwide muslim support for terrorism has gone way down because the main victims of jihadis have been other muslims, not americans or other western non-muslims. jihadis seem to have big trouble ruling territory through any way but force and fear, eventually the people being ruled that way are through with putting up with that and rebel.
On June 12 2016 21:38 ForTehDarkseid wrote: @micronesia, you can correct me if I am mistaken, but LGBT is a criminal offense in a Muslim countries. In Asia and CIS, those communities are heavily targeted for "propaganding", but in most cases it's just sugar-coating the masses' ignorance and intolerance. Trying to solve the problem the soft way (by education and public restrictions) didn't really help, more strict regulations should be imposed.
I am a strong advocate of removing administrative penalties or fines entirely in a favor of straight jail time for any harm caused on a homophobic basis. As the things stand right now, international courts can't do anything against those corrupted countries, while authorities simply don't give a shit about such nuances, or even worse, support those actions indirectly.
And what makes LGBT people more special than other minority groups that the people who openly don't like LGBT deserve special, harsher punishment than if those people, say, openly don't like Asian people?
It's ironic and slightly disturbing how in the US some liberal people seem to think that if people can't be convinced to be liberal the soft way, the state should just enforce it manu militari. For advocating tolerance, US liberals seem very intolerant of people who do not share their views.
When animals misbehave, some measures must be issued.
Last time I checked, racism didn't tie into religion or social propaganda nor does it really prevalent across the globe.
What? Racism ties into many religions or more exactly religion-based agendas (see Israel, a state built on institutionalized racism disguised as religion) and you must be kindding to say it's not prevalent.
That's a rather bold claim, mind you.
Most of eastern Asia is racist as fuck, beyond any imagination we have, often legally, big chunks of Africa are still racially segregated and so on... it just doesn't come up so often in world news, because it's so common.
Well, I am a firmer believer that the so-called racism has economic and social reasoning futhermost, therefore it's better to call it anti-nationalism, anti-globalism or something like that. It's harder to deal with it, because it has deeper roots and special place in history of those countries, but at least politics and economics can change people minds for better with time. Religions can't.
What I find disgusting is r/news locking their thread the moment its was first implied by the FBI that there might be a connection between radical islam and the shooting.
On June 13 2016 00:07 zeo wrote: What I find disgusting is r/news locking their thread the moment its was first implied by the FBI that there might be a connection between radical islam and the shooting.
On June 12 2016 23:57 DeepElemBlues wrote: Fighting terrorism makes more terrorists (which isn't true but whatever, fighting terrorism and not winning is what makes more terrorists)
Not fighting terrorism makes more terrorists as the winning side is the attractive side
Well gentlemen if those are the options looks like there's nothing we can do which seems not correct to me
(xdaunt does it for many years now, several times on this forum stating that only the genocide of the islamic arabs can solve the middle eastern conflict favorably for the west)
I highly highly doubt that xdaunt has ever said anything about killing a large proportion of the world's Arab Muslim population
there are to my mind several points those people miss who are always employing this false argument
it's not a false argument though
it's just one you don't like
for 99% of human history it was the truest argument in existence, it worked time and time again
but today we think we're better because we don't sack cities, kill everybody or sell them into slavery, and sow the fields with salt
there are ways to fight that don't involve leveling cities that could be as effective as what we did to nazism but they involve larger amounts of time, money, and men than we are willing to expend
1. perception of symmetry of conflict: ww2 was a grand struggle of "equal" nations, all "relevant" participants were nice, white, european and respectful killing each other to prove national supremacy
well that's not accurate at all. japan says hello for one.
2. perception of cultural scope: the motivation to fight was seen as a very small part of cultural identity and there was no fear from germans losing their cultural identity, if they lose the war. they feared retribution for the atrocities they commited (mostly in eastern europe) but the french german wars and ww1 showed: life goes on, there are bigger things than those (almost regularly scheduled) national comparison contests
that's not accurate either, cultural identity was a huge factor in both germany and japan. the aryan race concept was huge in late 19th century and early 20th century germany, cultural militarism was just as huge in japan at the same time. if they were small parts of german and japanese cultural identity the second world war would not have happened the way it did if it happened at all. the diminishing of their importance to german and japanese cultural identity is directly linked to the material destruction of their societies in the war. nothing focuses the attention on what you fucked up than getting your ass kicked within an inch of your life. but most people don't want to do that to muslims and rightly so, firstly because jihadism is not the dominant ideology of muslims the way aryan supremacism was for germans (yes, it was) or cultural militarism for japanese. so another way must be found to cause muslims attracted to jihadism to reconsider their worldview.
the way it was done with the USSR was to live better than they did, and let their people know it, and the weight of the system collapsed on itself eventually. both sides had similar views on what constituted living well. it was a materialistic contest at heart, the west was better at materialism for the masses than the USSR. but there is more divergence between what a westerner thinks of as living well and what a jihadi thinks of as living well. it is not a materialistic contest at heart.
perhaps the only solution is to let jihadis run wild in muslim countries and simply try to quarantine them there, during the last 15 years worldwide muslim support for terrorism has gone way down because the main victims of jihadis have been other muslims, not americans or other western non-muslims. jihadis seem to have big trouble ruling territory through any way but force and fear, eventually the people being ruled that way are through with putting up with that and rebel.
The problem with the big picture is that it overlooks the small people. At the end, communism (or more precisely the Soviet dominion, which was not very related to any communist ideas during its late years anyway) essentially defeated itself by failing to form a functional society. In that sense, it was a "victory" for the West. But at what cost? Millions of people were killed (mainly at Stalin times, but killings went on with less ferocity later), many more were stripped of any chance to realize their dreams and lives, imprisoned for life in a system which actively fought other qualities than sucking up to the system. I am aware that this is not even the prevailing view in the former eastern bloc, but I am not the only way who is a little salty that the "West" didn't do much to help us out of the prison. The Soviet army occupied my country for 22 years and nobody blinked an eye. Ironically, the occupation came exactly 30 years after we were forced to surrender to Hitler without any help from the very same West ...
I am personally very unsure what the right course of action would be. On one hand, open war could lead to terrible things and the enemy isn't even clear (it's definitely not just the ISIS ...) and a lot of things can probably be fixed by the "isolate and wait" approach, but in the meantime, there are actual human beings getting their lives ruined and ended in the affected areas.
On June 13 2016 00:07 zeo wrote: What I find disgusting is r/news locking their thread the moment its was first implied by the FBI that there might be a connection between radical islam and the shooting.
On June 13 2016 00:07 zeo wrote: What I find disgusting is r/news locking their thread the moment its was first implied by the FBI that there might be a connection between radical islam and the shooting.
On June 13 2016 00:07 zeo wrote: What I find disgusting is r/news locking their thread the moment its was first implied by the FBI that there might be a connection between radical islam and the shooting.
Complete shutdown of all discussion on r/news r/politics ect.
it's their site if they deem necessary to lock a thread why not?
Yeah, removing unconsensual upskrit shots took months, but news are getting deleted in minutes. Really a course of action worthy of defense ...
Although, I am not sure you understand how reddit works - the moderators are just normal users who somehow convinced another moderator to give them the rights and then climb the ranks by seniority. I find it unlikely that this was a reddit admin action, it's just the main subreddits are sometimes being modded by a very ... special sort of people. I don't think they would stop you from making r/OrlandoShootingPortugalOpinions ...
When i read stuff news like this i am reminded that people are awful. Can't they just mind their own business and not involve people who are not doing anything to them.
zeo that's not new. /r/news /r/politics /r/worldnews /r/europe among others like Twitter/Facebook have always censored especially when it comes to Islamic violence. It's a great deal of why Europe got angrier and angrier at the migrant crisis. Right now many are claiming that there are Muslim moderators who try to silence or downplay Islamic violence on reddit. There's quite a few on unreddit & in archives that show blatant censorship hence the mass jokes of [deleted] on reddit. And we're not talking about actual hate speech meant to inflame, but just valid comments that were censored which leaves people confused and angry.
The fact that it's happening by politicians, media, and the police is even worse. Police told to stand down / not get involved when they are clearly needed. You have a betrayal of the local populace by the people who are supposed to be on their side and protect them. It's been shown in: Germany, the UK (rotherham / arrests made over twitter comments. Some hate speech, others clearly not), Sweden (sexual harassment and violence) specifically.
During a time where Islamic groups such as ISIS have declared Ramadan will be especially bloody this year (though they are always clamoring about something). So the last 4-5 large scale death events have been Islamic Terrorism with a lot of other 'minor' incidents including single / double deaths & attempts on peoples lives. Paris, San Bernardino, Paris, Brussels, Orlando? With the exception of the first paris attack, all this happened in the last year. Do we include the horrific Turkey bombings in there as well?
On June 13 2016 00:07 zeo wrote: What I find disgusting is r/news locking their thread the moment its was first implied by the FBI that there might be a connection between radical islam and the shooting.
On June 12 2016 23:57 DeepElemBlues wrote: Fighting terrorism makes more terrorists (which isn't true but whatever, fighting terrorism and not winning is what makes more terrorists)
Not fighting terrorism makes more terrorists as the winning side is the attractive side
Well gentlemen if those are the options looks like there's nothing we can do which seems not correct to me
what do you even consider "winning"? escalating a conflict will radicalize more people.
(xdaunt does it for many years now, several times on this forum stating that only the genocide of the islamic arabs can solve the middle eastern conflict favorably for the west)
I highly highly doubt that xdaunt has ever said anything about killing a large proportion of the world's Arab Muslim population
you are right, he insisted on calling it "total warfare" instead of genocide he directly stated that the "destruction of the civilian population is generally a prerequisite to victory in modern warfare", directly attributed to the war on islamic terror
there are to my mind several points those people miss who are always employing this false argument
it's not a false argument though
people with no clue about german history saying the US won an ideological war by exterminating the civilian population is simply wrong, which makes it a false argument.
On June 12 2016 23:57 DeepElemBlues wrote: for 99% of human history it was the truest argument in existence, it worked time and time again
in your shallow interpretation of history, there were always more factors at play other than who could kill the most "opponents"
On June 12 2016 23:57 DeepElemBlues wrote: but today we think we're better because we don't sack cities, kill everybody or sell them into slavery, and sow the fields with salt
there are ways to fight that don't involve leveling cities that could be as effective as what we did to nazism but they involve larger amounts of time, money, and men than we are willing to expend
you still don't seem to grasp that nazism in germany is something completely different than terrorism
1. perception of symmetry of conflict: ww2 was a grand struggle of "equal" nations, all "relevant" participants were nice, white, european and respectful killing each other to prove national supremacy
well that's not accurate at all. japan says hello for one.
japan is irrelevant for the question if total war was the reason nazism got replaced by a relatively peaceful stable democratic system, japan had 0 influence of the european theater of war, and even if it were: the perception of symmetry of conflict extended to japen aswell, it was a sovereign nation state, with a form of government accepted by all other state actors, there were diplomatic channels and general "likeness" of combat
2. perception of cultural scope: the motivation to fight was seen as a very small part of cultural identity and there was no fear from germans losing their cultural identity, if they lose the war. they feared retribution for the atrocities they commited (mostly in eastern europe) but the french german wars and ww1 showed: life goes on, there are bigger things than those (almost regularly scheduled) national comparison contests
that's not accurate either, cultural identity was a huge factor in both germany and japan. the aryan race concept was huge in late 19th century and early 20th century germany, cultural militarism was just as huge in japan at the same time. if they were small parts of german and japanese cultural identity the second world war would not have happened the way it did if it happened at all. the diminishing of their importance to german and japanese cultural identity is directly linked to the material destruction of their societies in the war. nothing focuses the attention on what you fucked up than getting your ass kicked within an inch of your life. but most people don't want to do that to muslims and rightly so, firstly because jihadism is not the dominant ideology of muslims the way aryan supremacism was for germans (yes, it was) or cultural militarism for japanese. so another way must be found to cause muslims attracted to jihadism to reconsider their worldview.
the way it was done with the USSR was to live better than they did, and let their people know it, and the weight of the system collapsed on itself eventually. both sides had similar views on what constituted living well. it was a materialistic contest at heart, the west was better at materialism for the masses than the USSR. but there is more divergence between what a westerner thinks of as living well and what a jihadi thinks of as living well. it is not a materialistic contest at heart.
perhaps the only solution is to let jihadis run wild in muslim countries and simply try to quarantine them there, during the last 15 years worldwide muslim support for terrorism has gone way down because the main victims of jihadis have been other muslims, not americans or other western non-muslims. jihadis seem to have big trouble ruling territory through any way but force and fear, eventually the people being ruled that way are through with putting up with that and rebel.
No the aryan race concept was not a huge factor, otherwise people like Göbbels Himmler and Hitler would have never had any say in anything. It was a shallow facade, nothing more. Cultural militarism was not that big, it had culminated in a peak at the outset of WW1 and underwent a revival in WW2 but it was focussed on "duty"/"obedience to authority/chain of command" and national exceptionalism, not on bloodlust for fights, per se.
The big reason for WW2 was versailles and how WW1 had scratched the ego of the nation.
Aryan supremacism was the de jure ideology but not in fact. National exceptionalism was more important to the day to day war effort motivation than any race concept, that is why japanese, mongolese, arabs and north africans (revolting against british and french occupation) were pragmatically included in the war effort: making germany great was the bigger motivator for the fighting men in practice than racism.
On June 12 2016 21:38 ForTehDarkseid wrote: @micronesia, you can correct me if I am mistaken, but LGBT is a criminal offense in a Muslim countries. In Asia and CIS, those communities are heavily targeted for "propaganding", but in most cases it's just sugar-coating the masses' ignorance and intolerance. Trying to solve the problem the soft way (by education and public restrictions) didn't really help, more strict regulations should be imposed.
I am a strong advocate of removing administrative penalties or fines entirely in a favor of straight jail time for any harm caused on a homophobic basis. As the things stand right now, international courts can't do anything against those corrupted countries, while authorities simply don't give a shit about such nuances, or even worse, support those actions indirectly.
And what makes LGBT people more special than other minority groups that the people who openly don't like LGBT deserve special, harsher punishment than if those people, say, openly don't like Asian people?
It's ironic and slightly disturbing how in the US some liberal people seem to think that if people can't be convinced to be liberal the soft way, the state should just enforce it manu militari. For advocating tolerance, US liberals seem very intolerant of people who do not share their views.
When animals misbehave, some measures must be issued.
Last time I checked, racism didn't tie into religion or social propaganda nor does it really prevalent across the globe. Anti-nationalism is mostly entirely different thing.
"People who do not agree with my world view are animals who should be subject to punishment for not sharing my world view". This is essentially what you're saying.
Racism not prevalent across the globe? You need to travel more. Western tolerance and multiculturalism is the exception. Most countries are quite openly racist.
It opened 21min ago. There was a complete blanket ban on any news for 4 hours.
Look at the posts in the thread.
PhysicsVanAwesome [score hidden] 16 minutes ago You know whats crazy? I live in Orlando and I had no idea this was going on. I depend on reddit for my news 100% since it can rapidly deliver news from many sources that I can validate or discard. I have literally been up all night on Reddit and due to the apparent thread lockings and deletions, this story took 9 hours to make it to me -- I probably live within thirty minutes of this place. Unbelievable.
On June 13 2016 00:22 opisska wrote: Haha, it's because they have a fucking MEGATHREAD. How ironic to see people bitching about that on TL )
In this case I'm not going to point to censorship (though I'm of the opinion that they almost always do it on Islamic violence or sexual crimes atm) because I quite frankly don't know. But this is a result of people complaining and getting angrier at reddit. They went mass censorship mode when Cologne happened and people kept asking why it wasn't 'worldnews' or part of 'europe' or part of all those reddits. They just kept silencing the links brought up about Cologne and removing every single one for decent period of time. The Cologne one was an especially bad case. But there were others such as the "sexual emergency" and the "molestations at pools near refugee centers" etc.
Case in point. This type of censorship has been happening for a very long time. + Show Spoiler +
Reddit mods will claim this, but they're blatantly lying as there's plenty of archived reddit threads & unreddits that show the opposite on major events. + Show Spoiler +
On June 12 2016 21:38 ForTehDarkseid wrote: @micronesia, you can correct me if I am mistaken, but LGBT is a criminal offense in a Muslim countries. In Asia and CIS, those communities are heavily targeted for "propaganding", but in most cases it's just sugar-coating the masses' ignorance and intolerance. Trying to solve the problem the soft way (by education and public restrictions) didn't really help, more strict regulations should be imposed.
I am a strong advocate of removing administrative penalties or fines entirely in a favor of straight jail time for any harm caused on a homophobic basis. As the things stand right now, international courts can't do anything against those corrupted countries, while authorities simply don't give a shit about such nuances, or even worse, support those actions indirectly.
And what makes LGBT people more special than other minority groups that the people who openly don't like LGBT deserve special, harsher punishment than if those people, say, openly don't like Asian people?
It's ironic and slightly disturbing how in the US some liberal people seem to think that if people can't be convinced to be liberal the soft way, the state should just enforce it manu militari. For advocating tolerance, US liberals seem very intolerant of people who do not share their views.
When animals misbehave, some measures must be issued.
Last time I checked, racism didn't tie into religion or social propaganda nor does it really prevalent across the globe. Anti-nationalism is mostly entirely different thing.
"People who do not agree with my world view are animals who should be subject to punishment for not sharing my world view". This is essentially what you're saying.
I am saying LGBT-haters are animals. When it comes down to bigotry, there isn't a thing like a different world view for any civilized being. I am feeling that Muslim lobby has already won when people claim that there could be another opinion on this matter.
OK guys sorry, I didn't know about the fact that the megathread wasn't up for most of the time, I was falsely indulging in the irony as I went on a small rant against megathreads on TL recently and now it seemed that the concept of megathreads backfired conveniently. So I want to retrace to the previous comment about how this is modded by people who got there by a dubious selection process and should be taken as such.
On June 13 2016 00:07 zeo wrote: What I find disgusting is r/news locking their thread the moment its was first implied by the FBI that there might be a connection between radical islam and the shooting.
On June 12 2016 21:38 ForTehDarkseid wrote: @micronesia, you can correct me if I am mistaken, but LGBT is a criminal offense in a Muslim countries. In Asia and CIS, those communities are heavily targeted for "propaganding", but in most cases it's just sugar-coating the masses' ignorance and intolerance. Trying to solve the problem the soft way (by education and public restrictions) didn't really help, more strict regulations should be imposed.
I am a strong advocate of removing administrative penalties or fines entirely in a favor of straight jail time for any harm caused on a homophobic basis. As the things stand right now, international courts can't do anything against those corrupted countries, while authorities simply don't give a shit about such nuances, or even worse, support those actions indirectly.
And what makes LGBT people more special than other minority groups that the people who openly don't like LGBT deserve special, harsher punishment than if those people, say, openly don't like Asian people?
It's ironic and slightly disturbing how in the US some liberal people seem to think that if people can't be convinced to be liberal the soft way, the state should just enforce it manu militari. For advocating tolerance, US liberals seem very intolerant of people who do not share their views.
When animals misbehave, some measures must be issued.
Last time I checked, racism didn't tie into religion or social propaganda nor does it really prevalent across the globe. Anti-nationalism is mostly entirely different thing.
"People who do not agree with my world view are animals who should be subject to punishment for not sharing my world view". This is essentially what you're saying.
I am saying LGBT-haters are animals. When it comes down to bigotry, there isn't a thing like a different world view for any civilized being. I am feeling that Muslim lobby has already won when people claim that there could be another opinion on this matter.
So you consider pretty much all muslims and a large portion of christians to be animals?
On June 13 2016 00:30 opisska wrote: OK guys sorry, I didn't know about the fact that the megathread wasn't up for most of the time, I was falsely indulging in the irony as I went on a small rant against megathreads on TL recently and now it seemed that the concept of megathreads backfired conveniently. So I want to retrace to the previous comment about how this is modded by people who got there by a dubious selection process and should be taken as such.
Looks like Kwark was a prophet. Imagine what the US politics thread would look like right now. At least this thread has a topic it can contain itself to without going into long-winded discussions about which presidential candidate is to blame for this tragedy.
I read the OP but not this entire thread yet... has it been established that this is a hate crime/ that the club was targeted because it was a gay nightclub, or is there a chance that that part is a coincidence? I fear that it was targeted on purpose but I'm not sure
NRA: "See what happens if you are a liberal LGBT-Supporter and anti-Guns ? No one in the club stopped the attacker. This could never have happend in a Texas sport's bar ! Vote Trump !"
Seriouly your US-guys are NUTS.
And to all the ideologists...fucking stop caring about WHO has been murdered. It were 50 People, not 50 icarnations of gay-jesus christ. 50 people, 50 too many.
Stop labeling this stuff as hatecrime. If you don't stop marking people as "diffrent" from the norm, and force everyone to accept them.......being gay will never be accepted as normal. It's fucking sad, don't let it be political.
On June 12 2016 21:38 ForTehDarkseid wrote: @micronesia, you can correct me if I am mistaken, but LGBT is a criminal offense in a Muslim countries. In Asia and CIS, those communities are heavily targeted for "propaganding", but in most cases it's just sugar-coating the masses' ignorance and intolerance. Trying to solve the problem the soft way (by education and public restrictions) didn't really help, more strict regulations should be imposed.
I am a strong advocate of removing administrative penalties or fines entirely in a favor of straight jail time for any harm caused on a homophobic basis. As the things stand right now, international courts can't do anything against those corrupted countries, while authorities simply don't give a shit about such nuances, or even worse, support those actions indirectly.
And what makes LGBT people more special than other minority groups that the people who openly don't like LGBT deserve special, harsher punishment than if those people, say, openly don't like Asian people?
It's ironic and slightly disturbing how in the US some liberal people seem to think that if people can't be convinced to be liberal the soft way, the state should just enforce it manu militari. For advocating tolerance, US liberals seem very intolerant of people who do not share their views.
When animals misbehave, some measures must be issued.
Last time I checked, racism didn't tie into religion or social propaganda nor does it really prevalent across the globe. Anti-nationalism is mostly entirely different thing.
"People who do not agree with my world view are animals who should be subject to punishment for not sharing my world view". This is essentially what you're saying.
I am saying LGBT-haters are animals. When it comes down to bigotry, there isn't a thing like a different world view for any civilized being. I am feeling that Muslim lobby has already won when people claim that there could be another opinion on this matter.
So you consider pretty much all muslims and a large portion of christians to be animals?
i would say so. either use your brain or dont do anything at all and keep away from less primitive folk.
On June 13 2016 00:07 zeo wrote: What I find disgusting is r/news locking their thread the moment its was first implied by the FBI that there might be a connection between radical islam and the shooting.
This reddit censorship ordeal is quite disturbing. This is a really big deal. I just cant accept the argumentation that reason for censoring islamic related stuff is to not provoke anti-islam ideas in people. I dont think are leaders are that noble.
Speaking of reddit, they have now this nice little feature where people can make a LR of the world - I don't know how useful it is when it seems to be limited to a couple of contributors, but might be worth watching if you are interested in these events:
On June 13 2016 00:07 zeo wrote: What I find disgusting is r/news locking their thread the moment its was first implied by the FBI that there might be a connection between radical islam and the shooting.
OK, I've just updated the OP. I made this thread because no one was talking about it here and because I've never made a thread before I kind of forgot that people read the OP for the general information.
If anything new comes up and it should be in the OP, PM me or maybe a mod should just go ahead and change it.
On June 12 2016 21:38 ForTehDarkseid wrote: @micronesia, you can correct me if I am mistaken, but LGBT is a criminal offense in a Muslim countries. In Asia and CIS, those communities are heavily targeted for "propaganding", but in most cases it's just sugar-coating the masses' ignorance and intolerance. Trying to solve the problem the soft way (by education and public restrictions) didn't really help, more strict regulations should be imposed.
I am a strong advocate of removing administrative penalties or fines entirely in a favor of straight jail time for any harm caused on a homophobic basis. As the things stand right now, international courts can't do anything against those corrupted countries, while authorities simply don't give a shit about such nuances, or even worse, support those actions indirectly.
And what makes LGBT people more special than other minority groups that the people who openly don't like LGBT deserve special, harsher punishment than if those people, say, openly don't like Asian people?
It's ironic and slightly disturbing how in the US some liberal people seem to think that if people can't be convinced to be liberal the soft way, the state should just enforce it manu militari. For advocating tolerance, US liberals seem very intolerant of people who do not share their views.
When animals misbehave, some measures must be issued.
Last time I checked, racism didn't tie into religion or social propaganda nor does it really prevalent across the globe. Anti-nationalism is mostly entirely different thing.
"People who do not agree with my world view are animals who should be subject to punishment for not sharing my world view". This is essentially what you're saying.
I am saying LGBT-haters are animals. When it comes down to bigotry, there isn't a thing like a different world view for any civilized being. I am feeling that Muslim lobby has already won when people claim that there could be another opinion on this matter.
So you consider pretty much all muslims and a large portion of christians to be animals?
What kind of arguement this was supposed to mean? If you hate homosexuals silently, you are fine. If you cause harm actively, you are an animal. The problem with religion afaik is that in some Muslim countries LGBT is illegal with grave consequences carried by the state up to execution. If you support this, you are an animal.
On June 13 2016 00:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I read the OP but not this entire thread yet... has it been established that this is a hate crime/ that the club was targeted because it was a gay nightclub, or is there a chance that that part is a coincidence? I fear that it was targeted on purpose but I'm not sure
First of all i want to emphasize that the attacker was muslim, if you missed that. Second, apparently the father of the attacker said that his son was very angered by two men kissing in front of him and his familly during some festival. I dont know how long before the attacking that took place.
On June 12 2016 21:38 ForTehDarkseid wrote: @micronesia, you can correct me if I am mistaken, but LGBT is a criminal offense in a Muslim countries. In Asia and CIS, those communities are heavily targeted for "propaganding", but in most cases it's just sugar-coating the masses' ignorance and intolerance. Trying to solve the problem the soft way (by education and public restrictions) didn't really help, more strict regulations should be imposed.
I am a strong advocate of removing administrative penalties or fines entirely in a favor of straight jail time for any harm caused on a homophobic basis. As the things stand right now, international courts can't do anything against those corrupted countries, while authorities simply don't give a shit about such nuances, or even worse, support those actions indirectly.
And what makes LGBT people more special than other minority groups that the people who openly don't like LGBT deserve special, harsher punishment than if those people, say, openly don't like Asian people?
It's ironic and slightly disturbing how in the US some liberal people seem to think that if people can't be convinced to be liberal the soft way, the state should just enforce it manu militari. For advocating tolerance, US liberals seem very intolerant of people who do not share their views.
When animals misbehave, some measures must be issued.
Last time I checked, racism didn't tie into religion or social propaganda nor does it really prevalent across the globe. Anti-nationalism is mostly entirely different thing.
"People who do not agree with my world view are animals who should be subject to punishment for not sharing my world view". This is essentially what you're saying.
I am saying LGBT-haters are animals. When it comes down to bigotry, there isn't a thing like a different world view for any civilized being. I am feeling that Muslim lobby has already won when people claim that there could be another opinion on this matter.
So you consider pretty much all muslims and a large portion of christians to be animals?
i would say so. either use your brain or dont do anything at all and keep away from less primitive folk.
I challenge you to travel by yourself in a Muslim country (such as Malaysia or Indonesia) and stay with locals. While you won't agree with many of their views, you'll soon notice that those people by and large want the same things we do: a peaceful existence and jobs that allow them to provide for their family.
What you'll also realise before long is that these people view some of our views the same way as we do some of theirs: as backward. The world would be a lot more peaceful is people stopped viewing their world view as the gold standard the rest of the planet should live up to, and seek to impose it upon others by whatever means necessary.
On June 13 2016 00:40 KT_Elwood wrote: NRA: "See what happens if you are a liberal LGBT-Supporter and anti-Guns ? No one in the club stopped the attacker. This could never have happend in a Texas sport's bar ! Vote Trump !"
Seriouly your US-guys are NUTS.
And to all the ideologists...fucking stop caring about WHO has been murdered. It were 50 People, not 50 icarnations of gay-jesus christ. 50 people, 50 too many.
Stop labeling this stuff as hatecrime. If you don't stop marking people as "diffrent" from the norm, and force everyone to accept them.......being gay will never be accepted as normal. It's fucking sad, don't let it be political.
That's only because the NRA knows the attention span for the average American voter is quite limited. This country is paranoid about everything, and the news media fear mongers everything. The NRA knows by next week most people in the US will forget that AR-15's have been used in mass shootings and being paranoid will think the government is about to take their freedom. Which is stupid. The NRA knows that and gun sales rocket.
On June 13 2016 00:47 opisska wrote: Speaking of reddit, they have now this nice little feature where people can make a LR of the world - I don't know how useful it is when it seems to be limited to a couple of contributors, but might be worth watching if you are interested in these events:
what do you even consider "winning"? escalating a conflict will radicalize more people.
this is true but it's only half the truth. if it were the whole truth no war would ever end. and wars most definitely do end.
you are right, he insisted on calling it "total warfare" instead of genocide he directly stated that the "destruction of the civilian population is generally a prerequisite to victory in modern warfare", directly attributed to the war on islamic terror
well looking at modern history that is an undeniable fact in total war situations
jihadis view themselves as being in a total war
we do not
there is the difference and there is the difficulty
people with no clue about german history saying the US won an ideological war by exterminating the civilian population is simply wrong, which makes it a false argument.
i know quite a bit about german history. what i'm saying is 100% accurate and it's not a judgment on germany today or on you, so there's no need to be so defensive about it.
in your shallow interpretation of history, there were always more factors at play other than who could kill the most "opponents"
there are certain physical realities to conflict that the west, with its current perceived long history of avoiding general warfare on its own soil, has forgotten. you've forgotten it, for example.
there are more factors in play yes, but the deciding factor has almost always been physical domination.
you still don't seem to grasp that nazism in germany is something completely different than terrorism
there are more similarities between nazim and jihadism than there are differences. both are eschatological in nature, both are based on triumphs of the will, both are caste systems, both are predicated on the superiority of violence demonstrating the moral superiority of violence, the similarities go on and on.
No the aryan race concept was not a huge factor, otherwise people like Göbbels Himmler and Hitler would have never had any say in anything. It was a shallow facade, nothing more.
this is simply wrong. and of course aryan race ideology was self-serving to those who rose to power on the back of it.
Cultural militarism was not that big, it had culminated in a peak at the outset of WW1 and underwent a revival in WW2 but it was focussed on "duty"/"obedience to authority/chain of command" and national exceptionalism, not on bloodlust for fights, per se.
this is also simply wrong. cultural militarism dominated japanese society from the sino-japanese wars of the late 19th century restoration to 1945. there was a very brief period in the 1920s where it seemed on the wane, and then it came back stronger than ever.
cultural militarism and bloodlust for fights are not synonyms. cultural militarism is more than bloodlust. in any case the japense empire was at war far more often than not from the period of 1881-1945 and was continuously at war from 1931 to 1945. if it was not lusting for fights it sure seemed to get into a large number of them.
The big reason for WW2 was versailles and how WW1 had scratched the ego of the nation.
and aryan supremacy and the stabbed in the back myth had nothing to do with that ego, with german resentment after WWI?
you're telling half-truths and leaving out the more important half.
Aryan supremacism was the de jure ideology but not in fact.
it could not have become the de jure ideology if it was not in fact agreeable to the society. it was very agreeable. there have been multiple extensive histories written about the influence of aryan supremacism on german culture and society in the 19th and early 20th centuries before 1933.
National exceptionalism was more important to the day to day war effort motivation than any race concept,
germany as the national vehicle for the aryan race. a nation of the race was the concept, the two were inextricably linked.
that is why japanese, mongolese, arabs and north africans (revolting against british and french occupation) were pragmatically included in the war effort: making germany great was the bigger motivator for the fighting men in practice than racism.
the nazis said the japanese were the aryans of asia.
arabs and north africans were viewed as useful tools and future slave labor was to be their reward for siding with germany against france and britain.
making germany great as the rightful aryan ruler of mankind was the motivator. germany deserved to be the ruler of the world because germany was the purest and best bastion of the aryan race.
On June 12 2016 21:38 ForTehDarkseid wrote: @micronesia, you can correct me if I am mistaken, but LGBT is a criminal offense in a Muslim countries. In Asia and CIS, those communities are heavily targeted for "propaganding", but in most cases it's just sugar-coating the masses' ignorance and intolerance. Trying to solve the problem the soft way (by education and public restrictions) didn't really help, more strict regulations should be imposed.
I am a strong advocate of removing administrative penalties or fines entirely in a favor of straight jail time for any harm caused on a homophobic basis. As the things stand right now, international courts can't do anything against those corrupted countries, while authorities simply don't give a shit about such nuances, or even worse, support those actions indirectly.
And what makes LGBT people more special than other minority groups that the people who openly don't like LGBT deserve special, harsher punishment than if those people, say, openly don't like Asian people?
It's ironic and slightly disturbing how in the US some liberal people seem to think that if people can't be convinced to be liberal the soft way, the state should just enforce it manu militari. For advocating tolerance, US liberals seem very intolerant of people who do not share their views.
When animals misbehave, some measures must be issued.
Last time I checked, racism didn't tie into religion or social propaganda nor does it really prevalent across the globe. Anti-nationalism is mostly entirely different thing.
"People who do not agree with my world view are animals who should be subject to punishment for not sharing my world view". This is essentially what you're saying.
I am saying LGBT-haters are animals. When it comes down to bigotry, there isn't a thing like a different world view for any civilized being. I am feeling that Muslim lobby has already won when people claim that there could be another opinion on this matter.
So you consider pretty much all muslims and a large portion of christians to be animals?
i would say so. either use your brain or dont do anything at all and keep away from less primitive folk.
I challenge you to travel by yourself in a Muslim country (such as Malaysia or Indonesia) and stay with locals. While you won't agree with many of their views, you'll soon notice that those people by and large want the same things we do: a peaceful existence and jobs that allow them to provide for their family.
What you'll also realise before long is that these people view some of our views the same way as we do some of theirs: as backward. The world would be a lot more peaceful is people stopped viewing their world view as the gold standard the rest of the planet should live up to, and seek to impose it upon others by whatever means necessary.
well they can have their views, i just want to be anywhere near their views and the relevancy of their views is minimal because they are detrimental to economic and scientific progress. they are poor because their views are inferior. tough luck, better get superior views or suffer in your own filth.
On June 13 2016 00:40 KT_Elwood wrote: NRA: "See what happens if you are a liberal LGBT-Supporter and anti-Guns ? No one in the club stopped the attacker. This could never have happend in a Texas sport's bar ! Vote Trump !"
Seriouly your US-guys are NUTS.
And to all the ideologists...fucking stop caring about WHO has been murdered. It were 50 People, not 50 icarnations of gay-jesus christ. 50 people, 50 too many.
Stop labeling this stuff as hatecrime. If you don't stop marking people as "diffrent" from the norm, and force everyone to accept them.......being gay will never be accepted as normal. It's fucking sad, don't let it be political.
That's only because the NRA knows the attention span for the average American voter is quite limited. This country is paranoid about everything, and the news media fear mongers everything. The NRA knows by next week most people in the US will forget that AR-15's have been used in mass shootings and being paranoid will think the government is about to take their freedom. Which is stupid. The NRA knows that and gun sales rocket.
I think you're confusing "forget" with "disagree with my conclusion on the situation." Until today the most deaths from a gun massacre in the US were not from an AR-15. They were from a handgun at Virginia Tech. In a mass shooting situation where only the shooter(s) has a gun until police arrive, a handgun is just as effective as an AR-15.
Considering their long-held antipathy to the idea of gun confiscation I would suggest that the attention span of the American voter is quite unlimited, and you are once again confusing disagreement with your opinion with something else.
It also doesn't help your argument that Democrats' statements that they don't want gun confiscation are completely unconvincing, in light of their repeated legislative proposals to take guns away from certain classes of people, and numerous other examples that belie assurances that gun confiscation is not the goal.
On June 12 2016 21:38 ForTehDarkseid wrote: @micronesia, you can correct me if I am mistaken, but LGBT is a criminal offense in a Muslim countries. In Asia and CIS, those communities are heavily targeted for "propaganding", but in most cases it's just sugar-coating the masses' ignorance and intolerance. Trying to solve the problem the soft way (by education and public restrictions) didn't really help, more strict regulations should be imposed.
I am a strong advocate of removing administrative penalties or fines entirely in a favor of straight jail time for any harm caused on a homophobic basis. As the things stand right now, international courts can't do anything against those corrupted countries, while authorities simply don't give a shit about such nuances, or even worse, support those actions indirectly.
And what makes LGBT people more special than other minority groups that the people who openly don't like LGBT deserve special, harsher punishment than if those people, say, openly don't like Asian people?
It's ironic and slightly disturbing how in the US some liberal people seem to think that if people can't be convinced to be liberal the soft way, the state should just enforce it manu militari. For advocating tolerance, US liberals seem very intolerant of people who do not share their views.
When animals misbehave, some measures must be issued.
Last time I checked, racism didn't tie into religion or social propaganda nor does it really prevalent across the globe. Anti-nationalism is mostly entirely different thing.
"People who do not agree with my world view are animals who should be subject to punishment for not sharing my world view". This is essentially what you're saying.
I am saying LGBT-haters are animals. When it comes down to bigotry, there isn't a thing like a different world view for any civilized being. I am feeling that Muslim lobby has already won when people claim that there could be another opinion on this matter.
So you consider pretty much all muslims and a large portion of christians to be animals?
i would say so. either use your brain or dont do anything at all and keep away from less primitive folk.
I challenge you to travel by yourself in a Muslim country (such as Malaysia or Indonesia) and stay with locals. While you won't agree with many of their views, you'll soon notice that those people by and large want the same things we do: a peaceful existence and jobs that allow them to provide for their family.
What you'll also realise before long is that these people view some of our views the same way as we do some of theirs: as backward. The world would be a lot more peaceful is people stopped viewing their world view as the gold standard the rest of the planet should live up to, and seek to impose it upon others by whatever means necessary.
well they can have their views, i just want to be anywhere near their views and the relevancy of their views is minimal because they are detrimental to economic and scientific progress. they are poor because their views are inferior. tough luck, better get superior views or suffer in your own filth.
I don't see how a handgun is just as effective as an AR-15, its not as powerful, it doesn't carry as much ammo and it doesn't have a higher fire rate. The majority of the mass shootings that i remember have almost all used an AR-15, that weapon is used for only one thing and that is mass killing, how you can buy that legally i'll never understand.
On June 12 2016 21:38 ForTehDarkseid wrote: @micronesia, you can correct me if I am mistaken, but LGBT is a criminal offense in a Muslim countries. In Asia and CIS, those communities are heavily targeted for "propaganding", but in most cases it's just sugar-coating the masses' ignorance and intolerance. Trying to solve the problem the soft way (by education and public restrictions) didn't really help, more strict regulations should be imposed.
I am a strong advocate of removing administrative penalties or fines entirely in a favor of straight jail time for any harm caused on a homophobic basis. As the things stand right now, international courts can't do anything against those corrupted countries, while authorities simply don't give a shit about such nuances, or even worse, support those actions indirectly.
And what makes LGBT people more special than other minority groups that the people who openly don't like LGBT deserve special, harsher punishment than if those people, say, openly don't like Asian people?
It's ironic and slightly disturbing how in the US some liberal people seem to think that if people can't be convinced to be liberal the soft way, the state should just enforce it manu militari. For advocating tolerance, US liberals seem very intolerant of people who do not share their views.
When animals misbehave, some measures must be issued.
Last time I checked, racism didn't tie into religion or social propaganda nor does it really prevalent across the globe. Anti-nationalism is mostly entirely different thing.
"People who do not agree with my world view are animals who should be subject to punishment for not sharing my world view". This is essentially what you're saying.
I am saying LGBT-haters are animals. When it comes down to bigotry, there isn't a thing like a different world view for any civilized being. I am feeling that Muslim lobby has already won when people claim that there could be another opinion on this matter.
So you consider pretty much all muslims and a large portion of christians to be animals?
i would say so. either use your brain or dont do anything at all and keep away from less primitive folk.
I challenge you to travel by yourself in a Muslim country (such as Malaysia or Indonesia) and stay with locals. While you won't agree with many of their views, you'll soon notice that those people by and large want the same things we do: a peaceful existence and jobs that allow them to provide for their family.
What you'll also realise before long is that these people view some of our views the same way as we do some of theirs: as backward. The world would be a lot more peaceful is people stopped viewing their world view as the gold standard the rest of the planet should live up to, and seek to impose it upon others by whatever means necessary.
well they can have their views, i just want to be anywhere near their views and the relevancy of their views is minimal because they are detrimental to economic and scientific progress. they are poor because their views are inferior. tough luck, better get superior views or suffer in your own filth.
Do you call yourself a liberal?
i am the ultimate liberal. everyone can do whatever he wants as long as he doesnt forcefully press his worldview onto others. this includes children btw. guess how far you get when you cant indoctrinate your children or do a bit of fear mongering with a funnily explicit description of "hell".
On June 12 2016 21:38 ForTehDarkseid wrote: @micronesia, you can correct me if I am mistaken, but LGBT is a criminal offense in a Muslim countries. In Asia and CIS, those communities are heavily targeted for "propaganding", but in most cases it's just sugar-coating the masses' ignorance and intolerance. Trying to solve the problem the soft way (by education and public restrictions) didn't really help, more strict regulations should be imposed.
I am a strong advocate of removing administrative penalties or fines entirely in a favor of straight jail time for any harm caused on a homophobic basis. As the things stand right now, international courts can't do anything against those corrupted countries, while authorities simply don't give a shit about such nuances, or even worse, support those actions indirectly.
And what makes LGBT people more special than other minority groups that the people who openly don't like LGBT deserve special, harsher punishment than if those people, say, openly don't like Asian people?
It's ironic and slightly disturbing how in the US some liberal people seem to think that if people can't be convinced to be liberal the soft way, the state should just enforce it manu militari. For advocating tolerance, US liberals seem very intolerant of people who do not share their views.
When animals misbehave, some measures must be issued.
Last time I checked, racism didn't tie into religion or social propaganda nor does it really prevalent across the globe. Anti-nationalism is mostly entirely different thing.
"People who do not agree with my world view are animals who should be subject to punishment for not sharing my world view". This is essentially what you're saying.
I am saying LGBT-haters are animals. When it comes down to bigotry, there isn't a thing like a different world view for any civilized being. I am feeling that Muslim lobby has already won when people claim that there could be another opinion on this matter.
So you consider pretty much all muslims and a large portion of christians to be animals?
i would say so. either use your brain or dont do anything at all and keep away from less primitive folk.
I challenge you to travel by yourself in a Muslim country (such as Malaysia or Indonesia) and stay with locals. While you won't agree with many of their views, you'll soon notice that those people by and large want the same things we do: a peaceful existence and jobs that allow them to provide for their family.
What you'll also realise before long is that these people view some of our views the same way as we do some of theirs: as backward. The world would be a lot more peaceful is people stopped viewing their world view as the gold standard the rest of the planet should live up to, and seek to impose it upon others by whatever means necessary.
well they can have their views, i just want to be anywhere near their views and the relevancy of their views is minimal because they are detrimental to economic and scientific progress. they are poor because their views are inferior. tough luck, better get superior views or suffer in your own filth.
The "views" that people have are very strongly formed by the culture where they were raised. I could tell you that even if I hadn't been reading any research about that - just look around you and you will find that people in our countries hold a huge set of views that are completely irrational and founded only in tradition that has been passed on them during their lifetimes. It seems to be worse with older people, but it's only because their set of absurd views is more different from yours. If you want a universal starter on this, I can suggest for example trying to talk with people about incest between two consenting adults (and doing so with an open mind). Or you can just sit down and investigate which view you hold are completely irrational. You might be up for a great surprise, but only if you really get into it with an open mind.
Other things I would like to mention is, that the reality in Muslim countries is both better and worse than many people thing. It's better in that not only most of Muslim's are just normal people like you and me, but many Muslim societies have a culture that is very friendly, caring about their relatives and neighbourhs and in general very peaceful. I don't think it's anyhow deeply related to Islam itself, it just happens that Islam is dominant in places with such culture. Then, on the other hand, the same ordinary folks in many Muslim countries do hold these extremely medieval views of things - that's the worse part. They are not going around and burning rainbow flags, because there simply aren't any openly gay people in their village, but they would be sternly against their children engaging in any of that. And many other things work there very differently from what we would consider acceptable, to very varied levels ... but it doesn't come up as hate or barbarism, it's just the way their societies work.
On June 12 2016 21:38 ForTehDarkseid wrote: @micronesia, you can correct me if I am mistaken, but LGBT is a criminal offense in a Muslim countries. In Asia and CIS, those communities are heavily targeted for "propaganding", but in most cases it's just sugar-coating the masses' ignorance and intolerance. Trying to solve the problem the soft way (by education and public restrictions) didn't really help, more strict regulations should be imposed.
I am a strong advocate of removing administrative penalties or fines entirely in a favor of straight jail time for any harm caused on a homophobic basis. As the things stand right now, international courts can't do anything against those corrupted countries, while authorities simply don't give a shit about such nuances, or even worse, support those actions indirectly.
And what makes LGBT people more special than other minority groups that the people who openly don't like LGBT deserve special, harsher punishment than if those people, say, openly don't like Asian people?
It's ironic and slightly disturbing how in the US some liberal people seem to think that if people can't be convinced to be liberal the soft way, the state should just enforce it manu militari. For advocating tolerance, US liberals seem very intolerant of people who do not share their views.
When animals misbehave, some measures must be issued.
Last time I checked, racism didn't tie into religion or social propaganda nor does it really prevalent across the globe. Anti-nationalism is mostly entirely different thing.
"People who do not agree with my world view are animals who should be subject to punishment for not sharing my world view". This is essentially what you're saying.
I am saying LGBT-haters are animals. When it comes down to bigotry, there isn't a thing like a different world view for any civilized being. I am feeling that Muslim lobby has already won when people claim that there could be another opinion on this matter.
So you consider pretty much all muslims and a large portion of christians to be animals?
What kind of arguement this was supposed to mean? If you hate homosexuals silently, you are fine. If you cause harm actively, you are an animal. The problem with religion afaik is that in some Muslim countries LGBT is illegal with grave consequences carried by the state up to execution. If you support this, you are an animal.
Exactly, I hate this reinforcement that people have to stress that this doesn't represent all Muslims. While I do not argue that all Muslims are extremists and violent people, most Muslims however, condone the actions and hate homosexuals and women. It is the culture and the religious views that helps facilitate these extreme individuals.
Instead of safeguarding Muslims after every radical Islamic attack, we should hold more "moderate" Muslims accountable. Moderate Muslims need to be pillars of their communities to shift and reform their religion to Western standards in order to conform with the civilized world.
Islam simply has not been through the reforms and strife that the other Judaic religions have. Even the Catholic Church has made great strides in recent years in order to become more acceptable in the modern era. Islam needs to be held more accountable as a religion.
If any country doesn't tolerate modern human rights world-view, we shouldn't tolerate theirs. There shouldn't be any kind of advocates in the open, it's the number one rule of the business. Respect can be only mutual. The problem is when huge money involved, people don't get a slightly fuck about morals and other peoples' lives in general. Only the surge of public awareness can help the things.
Leniency and tolerance just makes it harder to undone.
On June 13 2016 00:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I read the OP but not this entire thread yet... has it been established that this is a hate crime/ that the club was targeted because it was a gay nightclub, or is there a chance that that part is a coincidence? I fear that it was targeted on purpose but I'm not sure
First of all i want to emphasize that the attacker was muslim, if you missed that. Second, apparently the father of the attacker said that his son was very angered by two men kissing in front of him and his familly during some festival. I dont know how long before the attacking that took place.
Okay thanks I'm more upset with the fact that this is probably a hate crime than with the religion of the assailant, considering American hate crimes are committed by all different groups of people. The next ten (and previous ten) anti-gay laws and crimes are committed by Christians and/or wealthy politicians, so prejudice is unfortunately ubiquitous and not restricted to Islam.
On June 12 2016 21:38 ForTehDarkseid wrote: @micronesia, you can correct me if I am mistaken, but LGBT is a criminal offense in a Muslim countries. In Asia and CIS, those communities are heavily targeted for "propaganding", but in most cases it's just sugar-coating the masses' ignorance and intolerance. Trying to solve the problem the soft way (by education and public restrictions) didn't really help, more strict regulations should be imposed.
I am a strong advocate of removing administrative penalties or fines entirely in a favor of straight jail time for any harm caused on a homophobic basis. As the things stand right now, international courts can't do anything against those corrupted countries, while authorities simply don't give a shit about such nuances, or even worse, support those actions indirectly.
And what makes LGBT people more special than other minority groups that the people who openly don't like LGBT deserve special, harsher punishment than if those people, say, openly don't like Asian people?
It's ironic and slightly disturbing how in the US some liberal people seem to think that if people can't be convinced to be liberal the soft way, the state should just enforce it manu militari. For advocating tolerance, US liberals seem very intolerant of people who do not share their views.
When animals misbehave, some measures must be issued.
Last time I checked, racism didn't tie into religion or social propaganda nor does it really prevalent across the globe. Anti-nationalism is mostly entirely different thing.
"People who do not agree with my world view are animals who should be subject to punishment for not sharing my world view". This is essentially what you're saying.
I am saying LGBT-haters are animals. When it comes down to bigotry, there isn't a thing like a different world view for any civilized being. I am feeling that Muslim lobby has already won when people claim that there could be another opinion on this matter.
So you consider pretty much all muslims and a large portion of christians to be animals?
i would say so. either use your brain or dont do anything at all and keep away from less primitive folk.
I challenge you to travel by yourself in a Muslim country (such as Malaysia or Indonesia) and stay with locals. While you won't agree with many of their views, you'll soon notice that those people by and large want the same things we do: a peaceful existence and jobs that allow them to provide for their family.
What you'll also realise before long is that these people view some of our views the same way as we do some of theirs: as backward. The world would be a lot more peaceful is people stopped viewing their world view as the gold standard the rest of the planet should live up to, and seek to impose it upon others by whatever means necessary.
well they can have their views, i just want to be anywhere near their views and the relevancy of their views is minimal because they are detrimental to economic and scientific progress. they are poor because their views are inferior. tough luck, better get superior views or suffer in your own filth.
The "views" that people have are very strongly formed by the culture where they were raised. I could tell you that even if I hadn't been reading any research about that - just look around you and you will find that people in our countries hold a huge set of views that are completely irrational and founded only in tradition that has been passed on them during their lifetimes. It seems to be worse with older people, but it's only because their set of absurd views is more different from yours. If you want a universal starter on this, I can suggest for example trying to talk with people about incest between two consenting adults (and doing so with an open mind). Or you can just sit down and investigate which view you hold are completely irrational. You might be up for a great surprise, but only if you really get into it with an open mind.
Other things I would like to mention is, that the reality in Muslim countries is both better and worse than many people thing. It's better in that not only most of Muslim's are just normal people like you and me, but many Muslim societies have a culture that is very friendly, caring about their relatives and neighbourhs and in general very peaceful. I don't think it's anyhow deeply related to Islam itself, it just happens that Islam is dominant in places with such culture. Then, on the other hand, the same ordinary folks in many Muslim countries do hold these extremely medieval views of things - that's the worse part. They are not going around and burning rainbow flags, because there simply aren't any openly gay people in their village, but they would be sternly against their children engaging in any of that. And many other things work there very differently from what we would consider acceptable, to very varied levels ... but it doesn't come up as hate or barbarism, it's just the way their societies work.
yes its the way their society works and their society works less optimal than ours, thats my whole point. of course we all have some stupidly outdated cultural traits that do no good whatsoever, but our goal has to be to make our cultural habits as fluid as possible, so that we can adapt easily when necessary. we need to understand that culture doesnt stand on its own and doesnt has any merit on its own. its the defining feature of how we deal with all kinds of problems that gets thrown at us, thus we need to be able to get rid of harmful traits and develop or adapt beneficial ones. the problem is we do not know what works ex ante, so my approach is to allow and try everything but heavily limit the way culture gets passed along. basically fighting heavily against all kinds of discrimination, protect children from their parents views in case they try to force them on them and try to break the rigidity and exclusivity of cultural norms as well as fight cultural conservation. then some habits will natural evolve and replace all the shitty things we have now. result will be people with vastly superior ethics than we have now. granted, the goals can be a bit arbitrary, but since everyone should also be able to set his own goals, there most likely exist superior goals as well.
How can it be hard? Jail the hatespeakers and vandals. stop religious propaganda, sanction most barbaric countries, hack extremist sites, track the funding, improve the security in public places. If they don't adapt and compherend human values, they would rot slowly with minimum negative effects. It always was the case in history, and opposing numbers shouldn't be of a concern.
Why people still insist on playing the compassion card and are cautiously optimistic towards violent opinions is beyond me. Religious extremism and terrorism is growing like a cancer and animals mate faster to acquire more resources for the pride.
On June 13 2016 01:45 ForTehDarkseid wrote: How can it be hard? Jail the hatespeakers and vandals. stop religious propaganda, sanction most barbaric countries, hack extremist sites, track the funding, improve the security in public places. If they don't adapt and compherend human values, they would rot slowly with minimum negative effects. It always was the case in history, and numbers shouldn't be a concern.
Why people still insist on playing the compassion card is beyond me.
It's funny that you think governments aren't using things like this to their advantage to fuel some massive (geo)political agenda. They just don't do it, because they much rather have some local, direct (temporary) influence rather than a global, over time (permanent) one. It's the same reason why politicians only care about the NOW and the present (or nearing) elections when they're elected, instead of building a framework for future generations. It's partly because the massas don't have the attention span, nor the insight. Partly because they also want their situation to become better NOW (you don't want to wait 3 generations before your living/work situation becomes better, do you?). It's a fucked situations imo.
On June 13 2016 01:45 ForTehDarkseid wrote: How can it be hard? Jail the hatespeakers and vandals. stop religious propaganda, sanction most barbaric countries, hack extremist sites, track the funding, improve the security in public places. If they don't adapt and compherend human values, they would rot slowly with minimum negative effects. It always was the case in history, and opposing numbers shouldn't be of a concern.
Why people still insist on playing the compassion card and are cautiously optimistic towards violent opinions is beyond me. Religious extremism and terrorism is growing like a cancer and animals mate faster to acquire more resources for the pride.
They try and do that. But the terrorist are adaptive and quickly switch to new venues. That same tactic that all pirate bay to stay active for over a decade are used by terrorist. They are not married or locked it to any specific system of communication.
On June 13 2016 01:45 ForTehDarkseid wrote: How can it be hard? Jail the hatespeakers and vandals. stop religious propaganda, sanction most barbaric countries, hack extremist sites, track the funding, improve the security in public places. If they don't adapt and compherend human values, they would rot slowly with minimum negative effects. It always was the case in history, and opposing numbers shouldn't be of a concern.
Why people still insist on playing the compassion card and are cautiously optimistic towards violent opinions is beyond me. Religious extremism and terrorism is growing like a cancer and animals mate faster to acquire more resources for the pride.
By that metric a large majority of members of the US Republican party as well as their supporters should be jailed.
On June 13 2016 01:45 ForTehDarkseid wrote: How can it be hard? Jail the hatespeakers and vandals. stop religious propaganda, sanction most barbaric countries, hack extremist sites, track the funding, improve the security in public places. If they don't adapt and compherend human values, they would rot slowly with minimum negative effects. It always was the case in history, and opposing numbers shouldn't be of a concern.
Why people still insist on playing the compassion card and are cautiously optimistic towards violent opinions is beyond me. Religious extremism and terrorism is growing like a cancer and animals mate faster to acquire more resources for the pride.
By that metric a large majority of members of the US Republican party as well as their supporters should be jailed.
Don't be ridiculous. The republican party is in no way shape or form comparable to Islam.
On June 13 2016 01:45 ForTehDarkseid wrote: How can it be hard? Jail the hatespeakers and vandals. stop religious propaganda, sanction most barbaric countries, hack extremist sites, track the funding, improve the security in public places. If they don't adapt and compherend human values, they would rot slowly with minimum negative effects. It always was the case in history, and opposing numbers shouldn't be of a concern.
Why people still insist on playing the compassion card and are cautiously optimistic towards violent opinions is beyond me. Religious extremism and terrorism is growing like a cancer and animals mate faster to acquire more resources for the pride.
By that metric a large majority of members of the US Republican party as well as their supporters should be jailed.
Don't be ridiculous. The republican party is in no way shape or form comparable to Islam.
I dunno man, very religious and conservative views. I can definitely see the correlation.
On June 13 2016 01:45 ForTehDarkseid wrote: How can it be hard? Jail the hatespeakers and vandals. stop religious propaganda, sanction most barbaric countries, hack extremist sites, track the funding, improve the security in public places. If they don't adapt and compherend human values, they would rot slowly with minimum negative effects. It always was the case in history, and opposing numbers shouldn't be of a concern.
Why people still insist on playing the compassion card and are cautiously optimistic towards violent opinions is beyond me. Religious extremism and terrorism is growing like a cancer and animals mate faster to acquire more resources for the pride.
By that metric a large majority of members of the US Republican party as well as their supporters should be jailed.
Don't be ridiculous. The republican party is in no way shape or form comparable to Islam.
I dunno man, very religious and conservative views. I can definitely see the correlation.
And very, very few (except maybe some radical Dominionists) are advocating the death penalty for homosexuality.
Look. Don't turn this into the new US Politics thread, where we just take pot shots at the people on the other side of the Great Political Divide of America.
So Trump chose to tweet thanking his supporters for congratulating him about being right about Islam and Terrorism. The Paranoia, fervent religiosity is a toxic mix in this country. Add in a gun culture unparalleled in history.
On June 13 2016 01:45 ForTehDarkseid wrote: How can it be hard? Jail the hatespeakers and vandals. stop religious propaganda, sanction most barbaric countries, hack extremist sites, track the funding, improve the security in public places. If they don't adapt and compherend human values, they would rot slowly with minimum negative effects. It always was the case in history, and opposing numbers shouldn't be of a concern.
Why people still insist on playing the compassion card and are cautiously optimistic towards violent opinions is beyond me. Religious extremism and terrorism is growing like a cancer and animals mate faster to acquire more resources for the pride.
By that metric a large majority of members of the US Republican party as well as their supporters should be jailed.
Don't be ridiculous. The republican party is in no way shape or form comparable to Islam.
Except for all those anti abortion and bathroom laws. A target bathroom was recently bombed after comming out in support of transgender people. And there have been numerous attacks and threats against clinics that preform abortions. All of these are problems, from radical Islam to radical Christians. People with guns who don't value human life.
And Trump. His response to this will be used world wide to recruit and as evidence that the US hates all Mulsims. Just like anti communists propaganda during the Cold War was used by the USSR as proof the Americans were going launch at any time.
On June 13 2016 01:45 ForTehDarkseid wrote: How can it be hard? Jail the hatespeakers and vandals. stop religious propaganda, sanction most barbaric countries, hack extremist sites, track the funding, improve the security in public places. If they don't adapt and compherend human values, they would rot slowly with minimum negative effects. It always was the case in history, and opposing numbers shouldn't be of a concern.
Why people still insist on playing the compassion card and are cautiously optimistic towards violent opinions is beyond me. Religious extremism and terrorism is growing like a cancer and animals mate faster to acquire more resources for the pride.
By that metric a large majority of members of the US Republican party as well as their supporters should be jailed.
Don't be ridiculous. The republican party is in no way shape or form comparable to Islam.
I dunno man, very religious and conservative views. I can definitely see the correlation.
Reminder that the shooter in Orlando was a registered Democrat.
I woke up early to catch the finals to the Manila Major (power went out half way through game 4 so I couldn't even do that), and then I hear about this. Fuckin' downer.
What exactly does this have to do with the topic at hand? Was the shooter at that meeting? Did he speak to the guy in the video?
I agree that the guy giving a speech like that is an asshole and that he should be charged with hatespeech for example, but if it isn't relevant to this thread it shouldn't be here. Its just inciting the whole anti muslim sentiment type stuff ... again.
On June 13 2016 02:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So Trump chose to tweet thanking his supporters for congratulating him about being right about Islam and Terrorism. The Paranoia, fervent religiosity is a toxic mix in this country. Add in a gun culture unparalleled in history.
Why would you blame "gun culture" on this? As I'm a aware a gay bar is as far as an armed place as possible.
Do you think 1 shooter can get away with 50 kills at a rap bar in detroit?
What exactly does this have to do with the topic at hand? Was the shooter at that meeting? Did he speak to the guy in the video?
I agree that the guy giving a speech like that is an asshole and that he should be charged with hatespeech for example, but if it isn't relevant to this thread it shouldn't be here. Its just inciting the whole anti muslim sentiment type stuff ... again.
This guy spoke in Orlando 2 months ago and it was given local news coverage. The shooter started getting upset about gay people kissing 2 months ago (according to his parents). It could be a coincidence but surely it is relevant. Its only going to incite anti-muslim stuff among morons who think that this guy represents the views of all muslims.
On June 13 2016 02:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So Trump chose to tweet thanking his supporters for congratulating him about being right about Islam and Terrorism. The Paranoia, fervent religiosity is a toxic mix in this country. Add in a gun culture unparalleled in history.
Why would you blame "gun culture" on this? As I'm a aware a gay bar is as far as an armed place as possible.
Do you think 1 shooter can get away with 50 kills at a rap bar in detroit?
What the fuck is wrong with the media... "worst shooting in the history of the US"... and then there's a list of shootings with this one at the top and then the other shootings in descending order. 50 here and then 32 and then 27 and then 23 or whatever.
They know they're inciting violence by giving fame and name recognition to the perpetrators, and now they're also including a scoreboard for mass shooters? Maybe they'll start also releasing stats in spreadsheets so you can directly compare the events. How did X asshole fare against Y asshole? Well X had a longer shooting before he killed himself and he wounded more people but Y killed more in a shorter amount of time! Maybe we'll get an overall score at the end too. 100 points for a kill, 50 for someone who's crippled for life, 20 for a flesh wound.
This is horrifying. Stay strong 'Merica and my condolences to the families of the victims
On June 13 2016 02:50 Djzapz wrote: What the fuck is wrong with the media... "worst shooting in the history of the US"... and then there's a list of shootings with this one at the top and then the other shootings in descending order.
They know they're inciting violence by giving fame and name recognition to the perpetrators, and now they're also including a scoreboard for mass shooters? Maybe they'll start also releasing stats in spreadsheets so you can directly compare the events. How did X asshole fare against Y asshole? Well X had a longer shooting before he killed himself and he wounded more people but Y killed more in a shorter amount of time! Maybe we'll get an overall score at the end too. 100 points for a kill, 50 for someone who's crippled for life, 20 for a flesh wound.
This is horrifying. Stay strong 'Merica and my condolences to the families of the victims ((
Ratings. The US Media is in competition with reality TV so they need to keep eyes on them so they stoke fear.
On June 13 2016 02:50 Djzapz wrote: What the fuck is wrong with the media... "worst shooting in the history of the US"... and then there's a list of shootings with this one at the top and then the other shootings in descending order. 50 here and then 32 and then 27 and then 23 or whatever.
They know they're inciting violence by giving fame and name recognition to the perpetrators, and now they're also including a scoreboard for mass shooters? Maybe they'll start also releasing stats in spreadsheets so you can directly compare the events. How did X asshole fare against Y asshole? Well X had a longer shooting before he killed himself and he wounded more people but Y killed more in a shorter amount of time! Maybe we'll get an overall score at the end too. 100 points for a kill, 50 for someone who's crippled for life, 20 for a flesh wound.
This is horrifying. Stay strong 'Merica and my condolences to the families of the victims
This has been being pointed out for years now. News stations even run coverage of this story about how evil they are to get more ratings. Give up on this one, its not ever going to change.
On June 13 2016 02:50 Djzapz wrote: What the fuck is wrong with the media... "worst shooting in the history of the US"... and then there's a list of shootings with this one at the top and then the other shootings in descending order. 50 here and then 32 and then 27 and then 23 or whatever.
They know they're inciting violence by giving fame and name recognition to the perpetrators, and now they're also including a scoreboard for mass shooters? Maybe they'll start also releasing stats in spreadsheets so you can directly compare the events. How did X asshole fare against Y asshole? Well X had a longer shooting before he killed himself and he wounded more people but Y killed more in a shorter amount of time! Maybe we'll get an overall score at the end too. 100 points for a kill, 50 for someone who's crippled for life, 20 for a flesh wound.
This is horrifying. Stay strong 'Merica and my condolences to the families of the victims
Its just context no? If you say 'well this is the largest pizza in the World' you usually say how big the last record holder was. Context. There are people out there that don't realize just how big this death toll is compared to previous shootings.
Very very few mass killers went on rampages to beat a highscore, and they would have went on rampages either way
On June 13 2016 00:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I read the OP but not this entire thread yet... has it been established that this is a hate crime/ that the club was targeted because it was a gay nightclub, or is there a chance that that part is a coincidence? I fear that it was targeted on purpose but I'm not sure
First of all i want to emphasize that the attacker was muslim, if you missed that. Second, apparently the father of the attacker said that his son was very angered by two men kissing in front of him and his familly during some festival. I dont know how long before the attacking that took place.
Okay thanks I'm more upset with the fact that this is probably a hate crime than with the religion of the assailant, considering American hate crimes are committed by all different groups of people. The next ten (and previous ten) anti-gay laws and crimes are committed by Christians and/or wealthy politicians, so prejudice is unfortunately ubiquitous and not restricted to Islam.
You can say prejudice is everywhere, but killing 50 people is definitely not common. The worst mass shooting in US history urges some more scrutiny.
What exactly does this have to do with the topic at hand? Was the shooter at that meeting? Did he speak to the guy in the video?
I agree that the guy giving a speech like that is an asshole and that he should be charged with hatespeech for example, but if it isn't relevant to this thread it shouldn't be here. Its just inciting the whole anti muslim sentiment type stuff ... again.
This guy spoke in Orlando 2 months ago and it was given local news coverage. The shooter started getting upset about gay people kissing 2 months ago (according to his parents). It could be a coincidence but surely it is relevant. Its only going to incite anti-muslim stuff among morons who think that this guy represents the views of all muslims.
I would say that this guy's views represent the opinions of a lot of muslims worldwide regarding homosexuality. Just have a look at the legal frameworks for homosexuality in countries with a population consisting of muslims mostly... Of course this doesn't tell us anything about the individual, but the opinion "death for gays" is clearly no fringe position.
On June 13 2016 02:50 Djzapz wrote: What the fuck is wrong with the media... "worst shooting in the history of the US"... and then there's a list of shootings with this one at the top and then the other shootings in descending order. 50 here and then 32 and then 27 and then 23 or whatever.
They know they're inciting violence by giving fame and name recognition to the perpetrators, and now they're also including a scoreboard for mass shooters? Maybe they'll start also releasing stats in spreadsheets so you can directly compare the events. How did X asshole fare against Y asshole? Well X had a longer shooting before he killed himself and he wounded more people but Y killed more in a shorter amount of time! Maybe we'll get an overall score at the end too. 100 points for a kill, 50 for someone who's crippled for life, 20 for a flesh wound.
This is horrifying. Stay strong 'Merica and my condolences to the families of the victims
Its just context no? If you say 'well this is the largest pizza in the World' you usually say how big the last record holder was. Context. There are people out there that don't realize just how big this death toll is compared to previous shootings.
Very very few mass killers went on rampages to beat a highscore, and they would have went on rampages either way
I mean disregard what I call the scoreboard here zeo, there are many people who have brought up the concern that some shooters may be influenced by the media coverage because they know that they'll become "famous" for having shot up a public place. Some don't care, but others deeply want to become relevant. With over 300 million americans, you can safely assume that there's a couple of people right now who are thinking "I hate this place and I can do better than 50 and people will remember my name". I find it hard to believe that absolutely no shootings are influenced by the massive spotlight they get from the medias.
Context is fine, information is fine, but here. + Show Spoiler +
What exactly does this have to do with the topic at hand? Was the shooter at that meeting? Did he speak to the guy in the video?
I agree that the guy giving a speech like that is an asshole and that he should be charged with hatespeech for example, but if it isn't relevant to this thread it shouldn't be here. Its just inciting the whole anti muslim sentiment type stuff ... again.
This guy spoke in Orlando 2 months ago and it was given local news coverage. The shooter started getting upset about gay people kissing 2 months ago (according to his parents). It could be a coincidence but surely it is relevant. Its only going to incite anti-muslim stuff among morons who think that this guy represents the views of all muslims.
I would say that this guy's views represent the opinions of a lot of muslims worldwide regarding homosexuality. Just have a look at the legal frameworks for homosexuality in countries with a population consisting of muslims mostly... Of course this doesn't tell us anything about the individual, but the opinion "death for gays" is clearly no fringe position.
And that position is not exclusive to people who follow islam so it bothers me immensely when people draw these lines and point to the religion as the cause and imply that others who follow the same religion will have the same result. There are many countries in this world where being gay is punishable by death and they are not exclusively muslim. Not that long ago it was illegal to be gay in much of the western world by punishment of imprisonment let alone hate crimes on an individual basis against them.
So again, we shouldn't be using this as an opporunity to label an entire religion as being hateful and dangerous. Rather we should be talking about the news, offering condolensces, and if we hate anyone, its extremist opinion of all stripes - not just islamic extremism.
On June 13 2016 03:04 Nedereden wrote: RADICAL. ISLAMIC. TERRORISM. F. U.
Of course Obama takes the obligatory swipe at US gun rights, but fails to utter those words. We should expect nothing less by now.
I thought being so close to the end of his presidency he wouldn't give two shits. Maybe he doesnt want to further solidify people to the defacto republican votes. I can't even begin to imagine how Trump would have reacted to this had he been president. Wouldn't have been anywhere near as graceful.
It was a brief and a misguided statement from Obama to me. What about the ties to ISIS? Perhaps he wasn't properly brief on it or wasn't looking to stoke anything, but mentioning only gun control is short sighted.
On June 13 2016 02:50 Djzapz wrote: What the fuck is wrong with the media... "worst shooting in the history of the US"... and then there's a list of shootings with this one at the top and then the other shootings in descending order. 50 here and then 32 and then 27 and then 23 or whatever.
They know they're inciting violence by giving fame and name recognition to the perpetrators, and now they're also including a scoreboard for mass shooters? Maybe they'll start also releasing stats in spreadsheets so you can directly compare the events. How did X asshole fare against Y asshole? Well X had a longer shooting before he killed himself and he wounded more people but Y killed more in a shorter amount of time! Maybe we'll get an overall score at the end too. 100 points for a kill, 50 for someone who's crippled for life, 20 for a flesh wound.
This is horrifying. Stay strong 'Merica and my condolences to the families of the victims
Its just context no? If you say 'well this is the largest pizza in the World' you usually say how big the last record holder was. Context. There are people out there that don't realize just how big this death toll is compared to previous shootings.
Very very few mass killers went on rampages to beat a highscore, and they would have went on rampages either way
I mean disregard what I call the scoreboard here zeo, there are many people who have brought up the concern that some shooters may be influenced by the media coverage because they know that they'll become "famous" for having shot up a public place. Some don't care, but others deeply want to become relevant. With over 300 million americans, you can safely assume that there's a couple of people right now who are thinking "I hate this place and I can do better than 50 and people will remember my name". I find it hard to believe that absolutely no shootings are influenced by the massive spotlight they get from the medias.
If someone is unstable enough to think something like this is a good idea chances are they would have just found some other excuse to kill people. Of course without these lists we can't make connections that can help us prevent further tragedies like this, or see what we have been doing wrong:
On June 13 2016 03:10 PhoenixVoid wrote: It was a brief and a misguided statement from Obama to me. What about the ties to ISIS? Perhaps he wasn't properly brief on it or wasn't looking to stoke anything, but mentioning only gun control is short sighted.
of course you blame the guns and not the belief system that says gays must be killed (and has been killing them long before guns existed)
On June 13 2016 02:50 Djzapz wrote: What the fuck is wrong with the media... "worst shooting in the history of the US"... and then there's a list of shootings with this one at the top and then the other shootings in descending order. 50 here and then 32 and then 27 and then 23 or whatever.
They know they're inciting violence by giving fame and name recognition to the perpetrators, and now they're also including a scoreboard for mass shooters? Maybe they'll start also releasing stats in spreadsheets so you can directly compare the events. How did X asshole fare against Y asshole? Well X had a longer shooting before he killed himself and he wounded more people but Y killed more in a shorter amount of time! Maybe we'll get an overall score at the end too. 100 points for a kill, 50 for someone who's crippled for life, 20 for a flesh wound.
This is horrifying. Stay strong 'Merica and my condolences to the families of the victims
Its just context no? If you say 'well this is the largest pizza in the World' you usually say how big the last record holder was. Context. There are people out there that don't realize just how big this death toll is compared to previous shootings.
Very very few mass killers went on rampages to beat a highscore, and they would have went on rampages either way
I mean disregard what I call the scoreboard here zeo, there are many people who have brought up the concern that some shooters may be influenced by the media coverage because they know that they'll become "famous" for having shot up a public place. Some don't care, but others deeply want to become relevant. With over 300 million americans, you can safely assume that there's a couple of people right now who are thinking "I hate this place and I can do better than 50 and people will remember my name". I find it hard to believe that absolutely no shootings are influenced by the massive spotlight they get from the medias.
If someone is unstable enough to think something like this is a good idea chances are they would have just found some other excuse to kill people.
On June 13 2016 03:10 PhoenixVoid wrote: It was a brief and a misguided statement from Obama to me. What about the ties to ISIS? Perhaps he wasn't properly brief on it or wasn't looking to stoke anything, but mentioning only gun control is short sighted.
Maybe they dont have enough actual evidence to make a strong claim about his link to ISIS. I could call 911 say something like that then go do something crazy but that doesnt mean I actually have real links to ISIS.
When the president of the US speaks on it, he should have all the information. Not jump to conclusions. He stated the facts, they are looking into it, it appears to be linked to terrorism, specifically what groups if any in particular is not known.
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.
On June 13 2016 03:04 Nedereden wrote: RADICAL. ISLAMIC. TERRORISM. F. U.
Of course Obama takes the obligatory swipe at US gun rights, but fails to utter those words. We should expect nothing less by now.
no surprises there
Man called to 911 beforehand "ISIS etc etc etc" no mention of radical islam
It's actually sad to see the left stumble over themselves when confronted with radical Islamic terror. For Obama to get up and say it's unclear what the motive was, and that it's just an act of generic terror and hate, after we know all of this, I just don't understand.
I wonder exactly what it's going to take for them to actually start speaking coherently about it.
On June 13 2016 02:50 Djzapz wrote: What the fuck is wrong with the media... "worst shooting in the history of the US"... and then there's a list of shootings with this one at the top and then the other shootings in descending order. 50 here and then 32 and then 27 and then 23 or whatever.
They know they're inciting violence by giving fame and name recognition to the perpetrators, and now they're also including a scoreboard for mass shooters? Maybe they'll start also releasing stats in spreadsheets so you can directly compare the events. How did X asshole fare against Y asshole? Well X had a longer shooting before he killed himself and he wounded more people but Y killed more in a shorter amount of time! Maybe we'll get an overall score at the end too. 100 points for a kill, 50 for someone who's crippled for life, 20 for a flesh wound.
This is horrifying. Stay strong 'Merica and my condolences to the families of the victims
Its just context no? If you say 'well this is the largest pizza in the World' you usually say how big the last record holder was. Context. There are people out there that don't realize just how big this death toll is compared to previous shootings.
Very very few mass killers went on rampages to beat a highscore, and they would have went on rampages either way
I mean disregard what I call the scoreboard here zeo, there are many people who have brought up the concern that some shooters may be influenced by the media coverage because they know that they'll become "famous" for having shot up a public place. Some don't care, but others deeply want to become relevant. With over 300 million americans, you can safely assume that there's a couple of people right now who are thinking "I hate this place and I can do better than 50 and people will remember my name". I find it hard to believe that absolutely no shootings are influenced by the massive spotlight they get from the medias.
If someone is unstable enough to think something like this is a good idea chances are they would have just found some other excuse to kill people. Of course without these lists we can't make connections that can help us prevent further tragedies like this, or see what we have been doing wrong:
I dont see how any of these stats can be related to Obama's presidency at all. I am pretty sure mass shootings have been on the rise for a while and unfortunately when you are in office for 8 years, its entirely possible that stats will not be on your side if you look hard enough. I can't think of a single US policy that Obama made which could be seen to have a specific impact on the rise of gun violence tbh
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.
On June 13 2016 03:04 Nedereden wrote: RADICAL. ISLAMIC. TERRORISM. F. U.
Of course Obama takes the obligatory swipe at US gun rights, but fails to utter those words. We should expect nothing less by now.
no surprises there
Man called to 911 beforehand "ISIS etc etc etc" no mention of radical islam
It's actually sad to see the left stumble over themselves when confronted with radical Islamic terror. For Obama to get up and say it's unclear what the motive was, and that it's just an act of generic terror and hate, after we know all of this, I just don't understand.
I wonder exactly what it's going to take for them to actually start speaking coherently about it.
Its gonna take balls... which so far seem in paucity at the white house these days!
On June 13 2016 03:10 PhoenixVoid wrote: It was a brief and a misguided statement from Obama to me. What about the ties to ISIS? Perhaps he wasn't properly brief on it or wasn't looking to stoke anything, but mentioning only gun control is short sighted.
All the findings are speculation at this point. The president normal doesn't address those things until they are 100% confirmed by law enforcement/FBI.
On June 13 2016 03:10 PhoenixVoid wrote: It was a brief and a misguided statement from Obama to me. What about the ties to ISIS? Perhaps he wasn't properly brief on it or wasn't looking to stoke anything, but mentioning only gun control is short sighted.
All the findings are speculation at this point. The president normal doesn't address those things until they are 100% confirmed by law enforcement/FBI.
But he can blame this on gun control because it is confirmed the guns were obtained legally?
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.
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
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.
Politicization.
Its the same reason people from the religious right, who have as elected officials introduced legislation against the LGBT community or opposed legislation which was pro-LGBT are on the news channels speaking out against Muslim religious bigotry.
On June 13 2016 03:33 Jockmcplop wrote: Look up Maajid Nawaz talking about the Voldemort effect and you will see why it is a problem
Ergh, do I have to individually point out all the logical fallacies in his argument? Or that it's a tired rehash of sociopolitical propaganda that stretches back to Egyptian times?
On June 13 2016 01:45 ForTehDarkseid wrote: How can it be hard? Jail the hatespeakers and vandals. stop religious propaganda, sanction most barbaric countries, hack extremist sites, track the funding, improve the security in public places. If they don't adapt and compherend human values, they would rot slowly with minimum negative effects. It always was the case in history, and opposing numbers shouldn't be of a concern.
Why people still insist on playing the compassion card and are cautiously optimistic towards violent opinions is beyond me. Religious extremism and terrorism is growing like a cancer and animals mate faster to acquire more resources for the pride.
By that metric a large majority of members of the US Republican party as well as their supporters should be jailed.
Don't be ridiculous. The republican party is in no way shape or form comparable to Islam.
I dunno man, very religious and conservative views. I can definitely see the correlation.
Reminder that the shooter in Orlando was a registered Democrat.
And? I'm just saying that Republicans and Muslims do share atleast some views
On June 13 2016 01:45 ForTehDarkseid wrote: How can it be hard? Jail the hatespeakers and vandals. stop religious propaganda, sanction most barbaric countries, hack extremist sites, track the funding, improve the security in public places. If they don't adapt and compherend human values, they would rot slowly with minimum negative effects. It always was the case in history, and opposing numbers shouldn't be of a concern.
Why people still insist on playing the compassion card and are cautiously optimistic towards violent opinions is beyond me. Religious extremism and terrorism is growing like a cancer and animals mate faster to acquire more resources for the pride.
By that metric a large majority of members of the US Republican party as well as their supporters should be jailed.
Don't be ridiculous. The republican party is in no way shape or form comparable to Islam.
I dunno man, very religious and conservative views. I can definitely see the correlation.
Reminder that the shooter in Orlando was a registered Democrat.
And? I'm just saying that Republicans and Muslims do share atleast some views
Can we not make blanket statements like this? Its offensive to both republicans and muslims - and not because of the conflation of the two but of the conflation of extremism and each individually.
On June 13 2016 01:45 ForTehDarkseid wrote: How can it be hard? Jail the hatespeakers and vandals. stop religious propaganda, sanction most barbaric countries, hack extremist sites, track the funding, improve the security in public places. If they don't adapt and compherend human values, they would rot slowly with minimum negative effects. It always was the case in history, and opposing numbers shouldn't be of a concern.
Why people still insist on playing the compassion card and are cautiously optimistic towards violent opinions is beyond me. Religious extremism and terrorism is growing like a cancer and animals mate faster to acquire more resources for the pride.
By that metric a large majority of members of the US Republican party as well as their supporters should be jailed.
Don't be ridiculous. The republican party is in no way shape or form comparable to Islam.
I dunno man, very religious and conservative views. I can definitely see the correlation.
Reminder that the shooter in Orlando was a registered Democrat.
And? I'm just saying that Republicans and Muslims do share atleast some views
Can we not make blanket statements like this? Its offensive to both republicans and muslims - and not because of the conflation of the two but of the conflation of extremism and each individually.
Fair enough. I didn't mean in the sense of extremism, but rather in the sense of both being conservative and religious in many places. Sorry if it came out wrong.
On June 13 2016 01:45 ForTehDarkseid wrote: How can it be hard? Jail the hatespeakers and vandals. stop religious propaganda, sanction most barbaric countries, hack extremist sites, track the funding, improve the security in public places. If they don't adapt and compherend human values, they would rot slowly with minimum negative effects. It always was the case in history, and opposing numbers shouldn't be of a concern.
Why people still insist on playing the compassion card and are cautiously optimistic towards violent opinions is beyond me. Religious extremism and terrorism is growing like a cancer and animals mate faster to acquire more resources for the pride.
By that metric a large majority of members of the US Republican party as well as their supporters should be jailed.
Don't be ridiculous. The republican party is in no way shape or form comparable to Islam.
I dunno man, very religious and conservative views. I can definitely see the correlation.
Reminder that the shooter in Orlando was a registered Democrat.
And? I'm just saying that Republicans and Muslims do share atleast some views
Can we not make blanket statements like this? Its offensive to both republicans and muslims - and not because of the conflation of the two but of the conflation of extremism and each individually.
Fair enough. I didn't mean in the sense of extremism, but rather in the sense of both being conservative and religious in many places. Sorry if it came out wrong.
If you are anywhere near Orland, you should go to https://www.oneblood.org/ and find a blood donation clinic near you. The injured could really use it and I am sure the blood clinics will need it.
On June 13 2016 01:45 ForTehDarkseid wrote: How can it be hard? Jail the hatespeakers and vandals. stop religious propaganda, sanction most barbaric countries, hack extremist sites, track the funding, improve the security in public places. If they don't adapt and compherend human values, they would rot slowly with minimum negative effects. It always was the case in history, and opposing numbers shouldn't be of a concern.
Why people still insist on playing the compassion card and are cautiously optimistic towards violent opinions is beyond me. Religious extremism and terrorism is growing like a cancer and animals mate faster to acquire more resources for the pride.
By that metric a large majority of members of the US Republican party as well as their supporters should be jailed.
Don't be ridiculous. The republican party is in no way shape or form comparable to Islam.
I dunno man, very religious and conservative views. I can definitely see the correlation.
Reminder that the shooter in Orlando was a registered Democrat.
And? I'm just saying that Republicans and Muslims do share atleast some views
Can we not make blanket statements like this? Its offensive to both republicans and muslims - and not because of the conflation of the two but of the conflation of extremism and each individually.
Fair enough. I didn't mean in the sense of extremism, but rather in the sense of both being conservative and religious in many places. Sorry if it came out wrong.
On June 13 2016 03:47 SK.Testie wrote: Another man has been arrested on his way to LAPride apparently armed with guns and explosives. No reports yet on race/motive on this one. Source
He's a white guy driving a car with Indiana plates.
On June 13 2016 01:45 ForTehDarkseid wrote: How can it be hard? Jail the hatespeakers and vandals. stop religious propaganda, sanction most barbaric countries, hack extremist sites, track the funding, improve the security in public places. If they don't adapt and compherend human values, they would rot slowly with minimum negative effects. It always was the case in history, and opposing numbers shouldn't be of a concern.
Why people still insist on playing the compassion card and are cautiously optimistic towards violent opinions is beyond me. Religious extremism and terrorism is growing like a cancer and animals mate faster to acquire more resources for the pride.
By that metric a large majority of members of the US Republican party as well as their supporters should be jailed.
Don't be ridiculous. The republican party is in no way shape or form comparable to Islam.
I dunno man, very religious and conservative views. I can definitely see the correlation.
Reminder that the shooter in Orlando was a registered Democrat.
And? I'm just saying that Republicans and Muslims do share atleast some views
Can we not make blanket statements like this? Its offensive to both republicans and muslims - and not because of the conflation of the two but of the conflation of extremism and each individually.
Fair enough. I didn't mean in the sense of extremism, but rather in the sense of both being conservative and religious in many places. Sorry if it came out wrong.
Idk, Democrats seem more religious to me...
And still Republicans are the ones who place their positions on religious beliefs more.
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. Also it gives disenchanted youth permission to carry out acts of terror; they may be squeamish if they recognize their motivation as an individual declaration, but they can mentally reframe their anger as stemming from an ideological war.
I don't think that's related except to the extent that it could conceivably be tied to the terrorist's inspiration.
A pro-Isis group has released a hit list with the names of more than 8,000 peoplemostly Americans.
More than 600-people live in Florida, and one security expert believes that many of those targeted live in Palm Beach County and on the Treasure Coast.
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...
On June 13 2016 03:47 SK.Testie wrote: Another man has been arrested on his way to LAPride apparently armed with guns and explosives. No reports yet on race/motive on this one. Source
He's a white guy driving a car with Indiana plates.
re: zeo and religion/party info. Note that that listing is by sect; rather than by % of population, I know some of those sects have a lot more members than some others.
On June 13 2016 01:45 ForTehDarkseid wrote: How can it be hard? Jail the hatespeakers and vandals. stop religious propaganda, sanction most barbaric countries, hack extremist sites, track the funding, improve the security in public places. If they don't adapt and compherend human values, they would rot slowly with minimum negative effects. It always was the case in history, and opposing numbers shouldn't be of a concern.
Why people still insist on playing the compassion card and are cautiously optimistic towards violent opinions is beyond me. Religious extremism and terrorism is growing like a cancer and animals mate faster to acquire more resources for the pride.
By that metric a large majority of members of the US Republican party as well as their supporters should be jailed.
Don't be ridiculous. The republican party is in no way shape or form comparable to Islam.
I dunno man, very religious and conservative views. I can definitely see the correlation.
Reminder that the shooter in Orlando was a registered Democrat.
And? I'm just saying that Republicans and Muslims do share atleast some views
Can we not make blanket statements like this? Its offensive to both republicans and muslims - and not because of the conflation of the two but of the conflation of extremism and each individually.
Fair enough. I didn't mean in the sense of extremism, but rather in the sense of both being conservative and religious in many places. Sorry if it came out wrong.
Idk, Democrats seem more religious to me...
That is because you don't understand the data you just quoted. From the same study, presenting the data differently:
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.
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
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.
Hmm, I worded that poorly. I meant the reason why those people are attracted to ISIS, etc. in the first place is not the radical ideology and those heads understand this better than the media lets on. It should be telling that so much of their recruitment comes from Westernized Muslim youth who were not especially religious or radical in their youth.
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
Hey man refusing to bake a cake is on the same level as murdering gays senselessly. This isn't just a muslim problem. Republicans have treated gays equally bad.
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.
Hmm, I worded that poorly. I meant the reason why those people are attracted to ISIS, etc. in the first place is not the radical ideology and those heads understand this better than the media lets on. It should be telling that so much of their recruitment comes from Westernized Muslim youth who were not especially religious or radical in their youth.
In the context of how the events will be perceived by people who think all muslims are terrorists, I don't think the distinction is very important. All that is needed is association, and the association is there.
On June 13 2016 05:35 JimmyJRaynor wrote: gay men can't donate blood in Florida? lolz.
i'm sure a mass shooting like this taxes the blood supply.
gays are not allowed to donate blood in many countries. Same as you are not allowed to donate blood in Germany, if you had extended stays in Great Britain during the 80s, you had sex with prostitutes or you had a recent vacation in certain tropical regions. It is just about risk groups...
On June 13 2016 05:35 JimmyJRaynor wrote: gay men can't donate blood in Florida? lolz.
i'm sure a mass shooting like this taxes the blood supply.
gays are not allowed to donate blood in many countries. Same as you are not allowed to donate blood in Germany, if you had extended stays in Great Britain during the 80s, you had sex with prostitutes or you had a recent vacation in certain tropical regions. It is just about risk groups...
the blood supply in Canada is safer than in the US and gay men can donate blood in Canada and have been able to do so for 20 years. its a BS policy.
I think the OP needs to update the post to include the fact that this has now been declared an act of terrorism. The attacker called 911 and declared his allegiance to ISIS before/during the attack:
I think this is a key piece of information to include given the fact that this wasn't just an issue of homophobia, but an issue of radical Islam and Islam in general. Second behind apostasy (leaving Islam), homosexuality is seen as the one of the worst offenses according to their beliefs, both of which the prescribed punishment is death:
For anyone looking for a little insight into how Muslims view the LGBT community, I suggest looking at this and reading the full Pew Research Center study:
On June 13 2016 05:42 mahrgell wrote: if you had extended stays in Great Britain during the 80s
Was this about mad cow disease, or am I spouting nonsense off the top of my head?
yep, it is There are actually certain other events, but this were the ones I remember. I was a regular donor until 3 years ago, so don't remember the entire list of reasons of not being allowed to donate. Could probably find it online.
On June 13 2016 05:43 JimmyJRaynor wrote: its hilarious watching the "lock'em up and throw away the key" law and order gang try to say that the death penalty deters suicides...
On June 13 2016 05:35 JimmyJRaynor wrote: gay men can't donate blood in Florida? lolz.
i'm sure a mass shooting like this taxes the blood supply.
gays are not allowed to donate blood in many countries. Same as you are not allowed to donate blood in Germany, if you had extended stays in Great Britain during the 80s, you had sex with prostitutes or you had a recent vacation in certain tropical regions. It is just about risk groups...
the blood supply in Canada is safer than in the US and gay men can donate blood in Canada and have been able to do so for 20 years. its a BS policy.
Sorry for the slightly off-topic posting, but considering:
[Gay Men] represent about 4% of the male population in the United States, in 2010, MSM accounted for 78% of new HIV infections among males and 63% of all new infections. MSM accounted for 54% of all people living with HIV infection in 2011, the most recent year these data are available.
There may be a viable reason that certain states don't allow it. I don't really have an opinion either way, but to say that its a BS policy when I think they're doing it to keep others safe, is naive.
On June 13 2016 05:58 ClanRH.TV wrote: I think the OP needs to update the post to include the fact that this has now been declared an act of terrorism. The attacker called 911 and declared his allegiance to ISIS before/during the attack:
I think this is a key piece of information to include given the fact that this wasn't just an issue of homophobia, but an issue of radical Islam and Islam in general. Second behind apostasy (leaving Islam), homosexuality is seen as the one of the worst offenses according to their beliefs, both of which the prescribed punishment is death:
For anyone looking for a little insight into how Muslims view the LGBT community, I suggest looking at this and reading the full Pew Research Center study:
On June 13 2016 05:43 JimmyJRaynor wrote: its hilarious watching the "lock'em up and throw away the key" law and order gang try to say that the death penalty deters suicides...
On June 13 2016 05:42 mahrgell wrote:
On June 13 2016 05:35 JimmyJRaynor wrote: gay men can't donate blood in Florida? lolz.
i'm sure a mass shooting like this taxes the blood supply.
gays are not allowed to donate blood in many countries. Same as you are not allowed to donate blood in Germany, if you had extended stays in Great Britain during the 80s, you had sex with prostitutes or you had a recent vacation in certain tropical regions. It is just about risk groups...
the blood supply in Canada is safer than in the US and gay men can donate blood in Canada and have been able to do so for 20 years. its a BS policy.
Sorry for the slightly off-topic posting, but considering:
[Gay Men] represent about 4% of the male population in the United States, in 2010, MSM accounted for 78% of new HIV infections among males and 63% of all new infections. MSM accounted for 54% of all people living with HIV infection in 2011, the most recent year these data are available.
There may be a viable reason that certain states don't allow it. I don't really have an opinion either way, but to say that its a BS policy when I think they're doing it to keep others safe, is naive.
I read recently that their changing it too you can donate if your clean and haven't had sex for 2 years. not sure when that's happening though
On June 13 2016 05:43 JimmyJRaynor wrote: its hilarious watching the "lock'em up and throw away the key" law and order gang try to say that the death penalty deters suicides...
On June 13 2016 05:35 JimmyJRaynor wrote: gay men can't donate blood in Florida? lolz.
i'm sure a mass shooting like this taxes the blood supply.
gays are not allowed to donate blood in many countries. Same as you are not allowed to donate blood in Germany, if you had extended stays in Great Britain during the 80s, you had sex with prostitutes or you had a recent vacation in certain tropical regions. It is just about risk groups...
the blood supply in Canada is safer than in the US and gay men can donate blood in Canada and have been able to do so for 20 years. its a BS policy.
Gay men cannot donate blood in Canada only if they havent had sex in the last 5 years with no history of HIV with testing.
On June 13 2016 05:58 ClanRH.TV wrote: I think the OP needs to update the post to include the fact that this has now been declared an act of terrorism. The attacker called 911 and declared his allegiance to ISIS before/during the attack:
I think this is a key piece of information to include given the fact that this wasn't just an issue of homophobia, but an issue of radical Islam and Islam in general. Second behind apostasy (leaving Islam), homosexuality is seen as the one of the worst offenses according to their beliefs, both of which the prescribed punishment is death:
For anyone looking for a little insight into how Muslims view the LGBT community, I suggest looking at this and reading the full Pew Research Center study:
On June 13 2016 06:20 Jockmcplop wrote: I would like to see that graphic including 'Western' muslims to eliminate geographical/cultural differences.
I feel like Britain has some of the most successful Muslim integration in the world but even then around half of British Muslims believe Homosexuality should be illegal.
I think i saw a graph pointing that out earlier in this thread.
On June 13 2016 06:20 Jockmcplop wrote: I would like to see that graphic including 'Western' muslims to eliminate geographical/cultural differences.
If you are interested about the UK, 40% of British muslims want sharia law in Britain. Also twenty per cent felt sympathy with the July 7 bombers' motives, and 75 per cent did not. One per cent felt the attacks were "right".
On June 13 2016 05:43 JimmyJRaynor wrote: its hilarious watching the "lock'em up and throw away the key" law and order gang try to say that the death penalty deters suicides...
On June 13 2016 05:42 mahrgell wrote:
On June 13 2016 05:35 JimmyJRaynor wrote: gay men can't donate blood in Florida? lolz.
i'm sure a mass shooting like this taxes the blood supply.
gays are not allowed to donate blood in many countries. Same as you are not allowed to donate blood in Germany, if you had extended stays in Great Britain during the 80s, you had sex with prostitutes or you had a recent vacation in certain tropical regions. It is just about risk groups...
the blood supply in Canada is safer than in the US and gay men can donate blood in Canada and have been able to do so for 20 years. its a BS policy.
Gay men cannot donate blood in Canada only if they havent had sex in the last 5 years with no history of HIV with testing. Its not quite so simple as they can in Canada btw
your double negatives make it hard to understand what you are trying to say here. gay men who are HIV- can donate blood in Canada and the blood supply is safe. its ironic that on a day when Florida's blood supply must be under great strains that restrictive policies against gay men exacerbate the problem.
I've seen that poll before zeo and it really doesn't fit with what I would expect. I'm saying its wrong at all but i've seen alot of muslim communities in the UK (I live 1/2 mile from a big one) and I just don't get that sense. Maybe they're the shy ones.
On June 13 2016 05:43 JimmyJRaynor wrote: its hilarious watching the "lock'em up and throw away the key" law and order gang try to say that the death penalty deters suicides...
On June 13 2016 05:42 mahrgell wrote:
On June 13 2016 05:35 JimmyJRaynor wrote: gay men can't donate blood in Florida? lolz.
i'm sure a mass shooting like this taxes the blood supply.
gays are not allowed to donate blood in many countries. Same as you are not allowed to donate blood in Germany, if you had extended stays in Great Britain during the 80s, you had sex with prostitutes or you had a recent vacation in certain tropical regions. It is just about risk groups...
the blood supply in Canada is safer than in the US and gay men can donate blood in Canada and have been able to do so for 20 years. its a BS policy.
Gay men cannot donate blood in Canada only if they havent had sex in the last 5 years with no history of HIV with testing. Its not quite so simple as they can in Canada btw
your double negatives make it hard to understand what you are trying to say here. gay men who are HIV- can donate blood in Canada and the blood supply is safe.
drop the muslim angle, the isis angle, the afghanistan angle, the gay hate angle.
1st and foremost this is a suicide. when a nation manufactures suicidal citizens some of those citizens will inevitably take some people with them. Once they've decided to commit suicide you no longer have any leverage. you can not punish the dead.
no amount of newly built jails, minimum sentences, law enforcement budget increases, military budget increases, restriction of individual rights, changes in gun laws will prevent someone from committing suicide
the only hope of curtailing the 43,000 suicides is to ask what brought these 43,000 people to a suicidal mindset. every one of these people, who is not seriously ill and just wants out of their misery, is dangerous as fuck.
some of those 43,000 suicidal people will take some other citizens with them.
On June 13 2016 06:29 Jockmcplop wrote: I've seen that poll before zeo and it really doesn't fit with what I would expect. I'm saying its wrong at all but i've seen alot of muslim communities in the UK (I live 1/2 mile from a big one) and I just don't get that sense. Maybe they're the shy ones.
This might be of more help, not sure if you have read it already though.
My girlfriends cousin was a firefighter at the scene, he returned home, and locked himself in the room. Hasn't spoken in a while. The scene must of been gruesome, and I don't wish that upon anybody. I hope those people's families can feel at peace in the future. RIP.
On June 13 2016 06:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote: drop the muslim angle, the isis angle, the afghanistan angle, the gay hate angle.
1st and foremost this is a suicide. when a nation manufactures suicidal citizens some of those citizens will inevitably take some people with them. Once they've decided to commit suicide you no longer have any leverage. you can not punish the dead.
no amount of newly built jails, minimum sentences, law enforcement budget increases, military budget increases, restriction of individual rights, changes in gun laws will prevent someone from committing suicide
the only hope of curtailing the 43,000 suicides is to ask what brought these 43,000 people to a suicidal mindset. every one of these people, who is not seriously ill and just wants out of their misery, is dangerous as fuck.
some of those 43,000 suicidal people will take some other citizens with them.
Let's not assume like we know this for sure. Also there are many reasons for this, it's not as simple as you make it sound.
On June 13 2016 05:43 JimmyJRaynor wrote: its hilarious watching the "lock'em up and throw away the key" law and order gang try to say that the death penalty deters suicides...
On June 13 2016 05:42 mahrgell wrote:
On June 13 2016 05:35 JimmyJRaynor wrote: gay men can't donate blood in Florida? lolz.
i'm sure a mass shooting like this taxes the blood supply.
gays are not allowed to donate blood in many countries. Same as you are not allowed to donate blood in Germany, if you had extended stays in Great Britain during the 80s, you had sex with prostitutes or you had a recent vacation in certain tropical regions. It is just about risk groups...
the blood supply in Canada is safer than in the US and gay men can donate blood in Canada and have been able to do so for 20 years. its a BS policy.
Gay men cannot donate blood in Canada only if they havent had sex in the last 5 years with no history of HIV with testing. Its not quite so simple as they can in Canada btw
your double negatives make it hard to understand what you are trying to say here. gay men who are HIV- can donate blood in Canada and the blood supply is safe. its ironic that on a day when Florida's blood supply must be under great strains that restrictive policies against gay men exacerbate the problem.
Lol! FYI 20% of all gay men have HIV in some stage. Less than 50% are aware of it. Because of blood testing policies, especially during emergencies and camps, you will end up wasting more blood than adding to the stock if blood borne pathogen positive risk populaton donate i.e batch testing for blood-borne pathogens. A single positive means discarding the batch of 10-20 bags tested,as per the procedure. Notice its not an antigay sentiment because women are allowed to donate irrespective of whether theyre lesbian or straight.
TL,DR: Stop talking out of your ass when its based in hard science. Hate it when people confuse science for stigma.
Source: Am a doctor. Worked for a year+ in blood banks.
Saying that Muslims are dangerous and they're terrorists is incredibly stupid, but at the same time you can't deny that they do tend to have funky views on sexual freedom that just flat out don't mesh with those in the West. Sure it doesn't lead to terrorism normally but holy shit it's annoying enough on its own.
On June 13 2016 05:43 JimmyJRaynor wrote: its hilarious watching the "lock'em up and throw away the key" law and order gang try to say that the death penalty deters suicides...
On June 13 2016 05:42 mahrgell wrote:
On June 13 2016 05:35 JimmyJRaynor wrote: gay men can't donate blood in Florida? lolz.
i'm sure a mass shooting like this taxes the blood supply.
gays are not allowed to donate blood in many countries. Same as you are not allowed to donate blood in Germany, if you had extended stays in Great Britain during the 80s, you had sex with prostitutes or you had a recent vacation in certain tropical regions. It is just about risk groups...
the blood supply in Canada is safer than in the US and gay men can donate blood in Canada and have been able to do so for 20 years. its a BS policy.
Gay men cannot donate blood in Canada only if they havent had sex in the last 5 years with no history of HIV with testing. Its not quite so simple as they can in Canada btw
your double negatives make it hard to understand what you are trying to say here. gay men who are HIV- can donate blood in Canada and the blood supply is safe. its ironic that on a day when Florida's blood supply must be under great strains that restrictive policies against gay men exacerbate the problem.
The reason gay men cant donate is because of HIV and Hepatitis. Its transimtted much more easily through anal sex than any other way.
Gay men tend to have more anal sex than others and the incidence of hiv/hep is highest in the gay population. In addition the fact that these diseases dont always appear on tests immediately means there are rules.
If youve had anal sex in the past 5 years and are a gay man you cannot donate blood in canada.
On June 13 2016 06:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote: drop the muslim angle, the isis angle, the afghanistan angle, the gay hate angle.
1st and foremost this is a suicide. when a nation manufactures suicidal citizens some of those citizens will inevitably take some people with them. Once they've decided to commit suicide you no longer have any leverage. you can not punish the dead.
no amount of newly built jails, minimum sentences, law enforcement budget increases, military budget increases, restriction of individual rights, changes in gun laws will prevent someone from committing suicide
the only hope of curtailing the 43,000 suicides is to ask what brought these 43,000 people to a suicidal mindset. every one of these people, who is not seriously ill and just wants out of their misery, is dangerous as fuck.
some of those 43,000 suicidal people will take some other citizens with them.
It's rather insulting to say that it was first and foremost a suicide. 50+ people died and it's firstly a suicide? It's first and foremost a mass murder.
You have a good point that you can't leverage someone who's suicidal. (well...you can, but anyway). However there's 43k people committing suicide and who wouldn't dream of harming anyone else. Why is he different? Maybe the fact that the last thing this guy wanted to do before ending his life was murder every gay person he could? Don't you think his cultural/religious whatever background that made him consider that this is the best way to end his life should be scrutinised?
Also you're assuming that the country somehow failed every single one of those people who committed suicide. There are plenty of successful people who had anything you could want and blew their brains out. The human species is imperfect, we produce psychopaths and paedophiles and depressed people and these are probably just be genetic things that have nothing to do with "oh he lost his job so he's depressed", although I guess the game is still open for how much depression can be "cured". I think it's ridiculous to say that "oh it's societies fault he was depressed" because it ignores his personal choices and it ignores the fact that it might just be something he was born with.
So we've established there are a ton of factors beyond our control to some extent (I mean we can treat depression to some extent but it's nothing close to a cure), that could cause people to kill themselves regardless of what society does. Doesn't it then make more sense to examine what caused him to try to eliminate as many gay people as possible instead of spouting some bullshit like "it's societies fault we made him angry nobody else is to blame". Did you think he was born a homophobe, or destined to be one? There could be many more like him with the same feelings and we're going to get some of them being depressed suicidal and this will happen again as long as those feelings exist and you can just buy a gun and murder as many people as you like until the cops show up.
The suicide might have happened whatever we did. If he hadn't thought that he had divine approval to murder as many homosexuals as he could this wouldn't happen. If the best he could get his hands on was a kitchen knife then a couple of buff and fabulous gay dudes could have restrained him and with luck the worse that would happen is a few ER admittance for stab wounds.
It takes a unique kind of north american to take both the left wing and right wing stance to say there's no problem with his cultural and religious background and also that there's absolutely no problem with a complete lack of gun control.
On June 13 2016 05:43 JimmyJRaynor wrote: its hilarious watching the "lock'em up and throw away the key" law and order gang try to say that the death penalty deters suicides...
On June 13 2016 05:42 mahrgell wrote:
On June 13 2016 05:35 JimmyJRaynor wrote: gay men can't donate blood in Florida? lolz.
i'm sure a mass shooting like this taxes the blood supply.
gays are not allowed to donate blood in many countries. Same as you are not allowed to donate blood in Germany, if you had extended stays in Great Britain during the 80s, you had sex with prostitutes or you had a recent vacation in certain tropical regions. It is just about risk groups...
the blood supply in Canada is safer than in the US and gay men can donate blood in Canada and have been able to do so for 20 years. its a BS policy.
Gay men cannot donate blood in Canada only if they havent had sex in the last 5 years with no history of HIV with testing. Its not quite so simple as they can in Canada btw
your double negatives make it hard to understand what you are trying to say here. gay men who are HIV- can donate blood in Canada and the blood supply is safe. its ironic that on a day when Florida's blood supply must be under great strains that restrictive policies against gay men exacerbate the problem.
If youve had anal sex in the past 5 years and are a gay man you cannot donate blood in canada.
Lesbians can do whatever they want.
I believe it's just specifically anal sex with a man tho!
On June 13 2016 07:04 DickMcFanny wrote: Do you think we should just have a Muslim terrorism megathread?
How often do they occur that you think that's a good idea for any reason other than to make a snarky post about how bad the muslims are?
The only terrorist organisation we really know about that's hitting the west is a muslim one, doesn't make every other muslim then responsible for their actions.
I realize I may sound contradictory both "attacking" and "defending" muslims in consecutive posts, but part of why politics is such bullshit is the stupid partisan nonsense. Clearly not all terrorists come because of muslim backgrounds and pretty clearly the muslim religion and cultures have some fucked up beliefs. There's a middleground here we should be trying to reach instead of refusing to budge just to let the "other side" gain an inch on you.
It has to do with the prevalence of HIV in the gay men in the US not due to anal sex being exclusive to gay men. I wanna say that in some communities of color (Black males in Baltimore) the prevalence of HIV is around 50%.
On June 13 2016 06:52 Slayer91 wrote: If he hadn't thought that he had divine approval to murder as many homosexuals as he could this wouldn't happen.
If this stemmed from a radical interpretation of Islam, he wouldn't have made the 911 call.
I'm not saying it's 100% the cause or more specifically that it wouldn't be the only factor. But it could be a contribution. There's people chopping gay people's heads off in Saudi Arabia that doesn't just come from nothing.
On June 13 2016 06:52 Slayer91 wrote: If he hadn't thought that he had divine approval to murder as many homosexuals as he could this wouldn't happen.
If this stemmed from a radical interpretation of Islam, he wouldn't have made the 911 call.
What, hold my hand and lead me through your reasoning here
I'm being held back by not knowing the details on this story so what im getting is -He called 911 -Came in guns blazing (automatic weapon?) -Got shot by police
What I'm hearing from this thread is he, like a good citizen called the cops and then maybe accidentally hit a few people in the club while trying to kill himself.
On June 13 2016 06:52 Slayer91 wrote: If he hadn't thought that he had divine approval to murder as many homosexuals as he could this wouldn't happen.
If this stemmed from a radical interpretation of Islam, he wouldn't have made the 911 call.
What, hold my hand and lead me through your reasoning here
I'm being held back by not knowing the details on this story so what im getting is -He called 911 -Came in guns blazing (automatic weapon?) -Got shot by police
What I'm hearing from this thread is he, like a good citizen called the cops and then maybe accidentally hit a few people in the club while trying to kill himself.
Maybe. When I heard he called the cops I thought it was more of a stunt.
How many times do we have to have the media do an in-depth profile of mass murderers before they get the picture that it just encourages more? I know it gets posted every time but here it is again.
On June 13 2016 07:38 Jockmcplop wrote: How many times do we have to have the media do an in-depth profile of mass murderers before they get the picture that it just encourages more? I know it gets posted every time but here it is again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4
Well if you want to be cynical about this, it gets people interested and increases their viewer counts so it's successful in terms of a business move. Even if it makes more of this happen it's a sort of minor contributing factor and the ethics clash with doing their job of trying to cover the news story people want covered.
On June 13 2016 07:38 Jockmcplop wrote: How many times do we have to have the media do an in-depth profile of mass murderers before they get the picture that it just encourages more? I know it gets posted every time but here it is again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4
Well if you want to be cynical about this, it gets people interested and increases their viewer counts so it's successful in terms of a business move. Even if it makes more of this happen it's a sort of minor contributing factor and the ethics clash with doing their job of trying to cover the news story people want covered.
I know there's a cynicism caveat there but this is how people think and I find it so nihilistic that it borders on psychopathy.
I'll be honest I don't think they are intentionally ignoring causing more mass murders, people are inherently interested in what makes "guy X" turn into "mass murderer" and it's hard to fault them for trying to look into this guy. It's fueled from fear and self-preservation I think and it's not as psychopathic as you think. (in my opinion) it's more like they rationalise away even considering they are doing harm by doing this.
Last night, our nation was attacked by a radical Islamic terrorist. It was the worst terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11, and the second of its kind in 6 months. My deepest sympathy and support goes out to the victims, the wounded, and their families.
In his remarks today, President Obama disgracefully refused to even say the words 'Radical Islam'. For that reason alone, he should step down. If Hillary Clinton, after this attack, still cannot say the two words 'Radical Islam' she should get out of this race for the Presidency.
If we do not get tough and smart real fast, we are not going to have a country anymore. Because our leaders are weak, I said this was going to happen – and it is only going to get worse. I am trying to save lives and prevent the next terrorist attack. We can't afford to be politically correct anymore.
The terrorist, Omar Mir Saddique Mateen, is the son of an immigrant from Afghanistan who openly published his support for the Afghanistani Taliban and even tried to run for President of Afghanistan. According to Pew, 99% of people in Afghanistan support oppressive Sharia Law.
We admit more than 100,000 lifetime migrants from the Middle East each year. Since 9/11, hundreds of migrants and their children have been implicated in terrorism in the United States.
Hillary Clinton wants to dramatically increase admissions from the Middle East, bringing in many hundreds of thousands during a first term – and we will have no way to screen them, pay for them, or prevent the second generation from radicalizing.
We need to protect all Americans, of all backgrounds and all beliefs, from Radical Islamic Terrorism - which has no place in an open and tolerant society. Radical Islam advocates hate for women, gays, Jews, Christians and all Americans. I am going to be a President for all Americans, and I am going to protect and defend all Americans. We are going to make America safe again and great again for everyone.
Didn't Obama give his speech before Reuters' confirmed ISIS was claiming responsibility? Or do I have the timeline (mostly based on this thread) mixed up?
Edit: I mean it's not like he hasn't mentioned ISIS before in his speeches, so I think that that at least would have come up in it even if he didn't ascribe it to "radical Islam." I'm also not sure when the 911 call info came in.
So maybe Trump is saying he would have blamed it on ISIS even if they didn't take responsibility?
Edit2: It's also kind of weird that Trump would be more concerned about not blaming it on ISIS despite knowing it was ISIS rather than not saying the words "radical Islam" but I guess that's just him
On June 13 2016 10:09 TheTenthDoc wrote: Didn't Obama give his speech before Reuters' confirmed ISIS was claiming responsibility? Or do I have the timeline (mostly based on this thread) mixed up?
I don''t think it was confirmed at the time although NBCnews did claim that they had sources. not sure when it was officially confirmed but it was either after of immediately before when it's kinda too late to check it or edit the speech.
also Trump seems to be ignoring how comprehensive the US immigration program is. It's obviously not perfect but We don't just let people in without doing comprehensive checks that take up to 2 years.
Last night, our nation was attacked by a radical Islamic terrorist. It was the worst terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11, and the second of its kind in 6 months. My deepest sympathy and support goes out to the victims, the wounded, and their families.
In his remarks today, President Obama disgracefully refused to even say the words 'Radical Islam'. For that reason alone, he should step down. If Hillary Clinton, after this attack, still cannot say the two words 'Radical Islam' she should get out of this race for the Presidency.
If we do not get tough and smart real fast, we are not going to have a country anymore. Because our leaders are weak, I said this was going to happen – and it is only going to get worse. I am trying to save lives and prevent the next terrorist attack. We can't afford to be politically correct anymore.
The terrorist, Omar Mir Saddique Mateen, is the son of an immigrant from Afghanistan who openly published his support for the Afghanistani Taliban and even tried to run for President of Afghanistan. According to Pew, 99% of people in Afghanistan support oppressive Sharia Law.
We admit more than 100,000 lifetime migrants from the Middle East each year. Since 9/11, hundreds of migrants and their children have been implicated in terrorism in the United States.
Hillary Clinton wants to dramatically increase admissions from the Middle East, bringing in many hundreds of thousands during a first term – and we will have no way to screen them, pay for them, or prevent the second generation from radicalizing.
We need to protect all Americans, of all backgrounds and all beliefs, from Radical Islamic Terrorism - which has no place in an open and tolerant society. Radical Islam advocates hate for women, gays, Jews, Christians and all Americans. I am going to be a President for all Americans, and I am going to protect and defend all Americans. We are going to make America safe again and great again for everyone.
hmmm, is anyone a veteran, combat expert, or is currently serving in armed forces? Im curious about how one man managed to gun down 100 people. Would need a shit load of ammo to do it by himself, no? if he did it with an AR, he would have to have reloaded multiple times to continue shooting.
shooting began at 2am, swat wasnt called in until 5. in the interim it was classified as a hostage situation, no officers would have engaged the suspect.
Not to pull a Ben Carson here, but honestly, in a night club that had I'm assuming more than 150 people in it, how does a shooter get to kill that many before they collectively bash his head in?
I'm not saying I would have the courage, or that I wouldn't panic, but I do wonder why you never heard of them getting disarmed and beaten to death by the horde of people they're shooting at.
The conservative fascination with the phrase "Radical Islam" is beyond ridiculous. Sam Harris uses the term "Jihadism", which is vastly more accurate and significantly less inflammatory. The Saudi government is made up of hardcore Islamists, but they aren't Jihadists. However, the USA is in the business of killing Jihadists (see, the last 20 years). We don't kill Radical Islam because that is just an idea. We don't even fight Radical Islam as an idea (outside of the hard-atheists). But we do kill Jihadists because they are men taking definable actions.
On June 13 2016 15:03 DickMcFanny wrote: Not to pull a Ben Carson here, but honestly, in a night club that had I'm assuming more than 150 people in it, how does a shooter get to kill that many before they collectively bash his head in?
I'm not saying I would have the courage, or that I wouldn't panic, but I do wonder why you never heard of them getting disarmed and beaten to death by the horde of people they're shooting at.
Like you say, it is a panic frenzy. It would take a few trained and combat-experienced people to remain calm enough to actually confront a gunman wielding an assault rifle.
On June 13 2016 15:18 JW_DTLA wrote: The conservative fascination with the phrase "Radical Islam" is beyond ridiculous. Sam Harris uses the term "Jihadism", which is vastly more accurate and significantly less inflammatory. The Saudi government is made up of hardcore Islamists, but they aren't Jihadists. However, the USA is in the business of killing Jihadists (see, the last 20 years). We don't kill Radical Islam because that is just an idea. We don't even fight Radical Islam as an idea (outside of the hard-atheists). But we do kill Jihadists because they are men taking definable actions.
Am I understanding you right that your position here is that the House of Saud is not as culpable as the people they finance? There's a reason that a bunch of the 9/11 report was never released. The only reason that the US isn't "fighting" Saudi Arabia is because of geo-political and military industrial complex reasons, not because they aren't some of the most vociferous fomentors of the kind of Islam that the term "Radical Islam" intends to describe (read: Wahhabism, et. al.). I'm also surprised how much the "left" (and I use the quotation marks around terms that I find nebulous and not descriptive, but is nonetheless understood to mean certain things to wider audiences) defends such a barbaric religion while at the same time so often delivering as much or more disdain for Christianity than the "right" does for Islam.
The folks committing terrorism wouldn't have 1/800th the influence and notoriety they do without the House of Saud. They are honestly, the hornets nest. Which if any person is rationally following the Mid-East you'd see how much a cluster-fuck it is since the Ottoman Empire was destroyed and colonialism (UK and US) reared its nasty head. That isn't to diminish however, the extremely illiberal nature of Wahhabism.
Personally, I want all US serviceman to come home and close all foreign bases, stop the wars, the drones, etc., the interventions, the mercantilism, etc. which would do wonders for our security (no one is bombing Switzerland), but our current FP is the worst of both worlds. Far too much interference, droning, playing cutesy geo-politics, etc., but not having the audacity or tenacity to destroy the Wahhabists. Of course though, that was never the goal or the point. Terrorism is the best excuse for the MIC and the Executive war-mongerers / totalitarians ever conceived. As you said, it's never-ending, but if they really wanted to, they could do what they did to the Native Americans, or the Spanish did to South America, etc.
They could assign a guy to pick those up... would ease the burden on the families, it's better to be sure about the death of your close ones than to live in uncertainty. However I can imagine that many people would have trouble doing that job even though I wouldn't ...
On June 13 2016 15:06 Sent. wrote: Nobody wants to go in first
This does not seem the case in other incidents. Many of the surviving victims of the Bataclan attack in Paris reported that a fair number of people tried to attack the gunmen there, but were gunned down before they were able to do so. Also another number of people tried to throw themselves in front, to shield others. The moment people know their death is almost inevitable, many actually do try to at least fend off others. Same as many soldiers, even if not trained to do so, throwselves on grenades they can't evade anymore. Or the passengers of that 9/11 flight, knowing they would not survive this anyway, trying to storm the cockpit, which in the end caused the plane to go down on an empty field instead of Washington DC.
But the attacker probably didn't stand just right in the middle of the dancefloor in handreach of 2 dozen people. And as soon as he has some distance between himself and any "defenders" and preferably some height advantage, good luck rushing him down. Because while people may turn on him, this is no coordinated effort nonetheless. And then this ends like you know from esports when teams lack coordination. Everyone going in 1by1 and fight lost.
On June 13 2016 15:18 JW_DTLA wrote: The conservative fascination with the phrase "Radical Islam" is beyond ridiculous. Sam Harris uses the term "Jihadism", which is vastly more accurate and significantly less inflammatory. The Saudi government is made up of hardcore Islamists, but they aren't Jihadists. However, the USA is in the business of killing Jihadists (see, the last 20 years). We don't kill Radical Islam because that is just an idea. We don't even fight Radical Islam as an idea (outside of the hard-atheists). But we do kill Jihadists because they are men taking definable actions.
Funnily enough the phraseology doesn't matter at all! The word 'jihadi' while in my mind being arguably more incendiary, would do just fine. Radical Islamic TERROR as a phrase is essentially two accurate descriptives for the terrorists in question. Why this is even an issue to bring up is beyond me. You have to use descriptives when classifying a broad group else THAT would be bigotry! However the liberal media has confused the muricans so much they think they are somehow being offensive when all they're doing is just using acceptable lexicon. Speaking about the entity of radical Islamic terror or jihadis or whatever, however is extremely important because calling a spade a spade is the first step to any antiterrorism action plan. If you don't even want to target the specific group attacking you in words how can you be expected to do so in deed?
On June 13 2016 12:24 Parlortricks wrote: the shooter had 3 hours to do his work and one of the exits was barricaded by a fleeing clubgoer
Doesn't make sense to me. Why would that hit barricade door to keep him in with shooter
he and i believe a couple others escaped into an employee only exit in the back and set up barricades to keep what they thought was the gunman from reaching them, and i think logical outcome was that it did more harm than good if you catch my meaning. maybe a reconstruction of the body placement will be produced or a first responder account will confirm my suspicions.
anyway, per some interviews with survivors, i think the reason no one fought back was because he told everyone he was the fourth shooter, that there were snipers on the roofs and even a woman in attendance who wore a suicide vest. in a club of 300+ with who knows how many dead or injured it wouldn't be too far fetched to believe him.
On June 13 2016 12:44 Parlortricks wrote: shooting began at 2am, swat wasnt called in until 5. in the interim it was classified as a hostage situation, no officers would have engaged the suspect.
Also don't get why it took so long, 3 hours? Maybe need a new protocol for hostage situations,even more so when it comes to terror. Storm them asap and get it over with,waiting is not going to help. Don't give them time to slowly clear all possible hiding places.
i'm not law enforcement and so i don't know their protocols. i'm sure there will be plenty of fire coming if the review boards find the police department botched the situation.
Last night, our nation was attacked by a radical Islamic terrorist. It was the worst terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11, and the second of its kind in 6 months. My deepest sympathy and support goes out to the victims, the wounded, and their families.
In his remarks today, President Obama disgracefully refused to even say the words 'Radical Islam'. For that reason alone, he should step down. If Hillary Clinton, after this attack, still cannot say the two words 'Radical Islam' she should get out of this race for the Presidency.
If we do not get tough and smart real fast, we are not going to have a country anymore. Because our leaders are weak, I said this was going to happen – and it is only going to get worse. I am trying to save lives and prevent the next terrorist attack. We can't afford to be politically correct anymore.
The terrorist, Omar Mir Saddique Mateen, is the son of an immigrant from Afghanistan who openly published his support for the Afghanistani Taliban and even tried to run for President of Afghanistan. According to Pew, 99% of people in Afghanistan support oppressive Sharia Law.
We admit more than 100,000 lifetime migrants from the Middle East each year. Since 9/11, hundreds of migrants and their children have been implicated in terrorism in the United States.
Hillary Clinton wants to dramatically increase admissions from the Middle East, bringing in many hundreds of thousands during a first term – and we will have no way to screen them, pay for them, or prevent the second generation from radicalizing.
We need to protect all Americans, of all backgrounds and all beliefs, from Radical Islamic Terrorism - which has no place in an open and tolerant society. Radical Islam advocates hate for women, gays, Jews, Christians and all Americans. I am going to be a President for all Americans, and I am going to protect and defend all Americans. We are going to make America safe again and great again for everyone.
Last night, our nation was attacked by a radical Islamic terrorist. It was the worst terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11, and the second of its kind in 6 months. My deepest sympathy and support goes out to the victims, the wounded, and their families.
In his remarks today, President Obama disgracefully refused to even say the words 'Radical Islam'. For that reason alone, he should step down. If Hillary Clinton, after this attack, still cannot say the two words 'Radical Islam' she should get out of this race for the Presidency.
If we do not get tough and smart real fast, we are not going to have a country anymore. Because our leaders are weak, I said this was going to happen – and it is only going to get worse. I am trying to save lives and prevent the next terrorist attack. We can't afford to be politically correct anymore.
The terrorist, Omar Mir Saddique Mateen, is the son of an immigrant from Afghanistan who openly published his support for the Afghanistani Taliban and even tried to run for President of Afghanistan. According to Pew, 99% of people in Afghanistan support oppressive Sharia Law.
We admit more than 100,000 lifetime migrants from the Middle East each year. Since 9/11, hundreds of migrants and their children have been implicated in terrorism in the United States.
Hillary Clinton wants to dramatically increase admissions from the Middle East, bringing in many hundreds of thousands during a first term – and we will have no way to screen them, pay for them, or prevent the second generation from radicalizing.
We need to protect all Americans, of all backgrounds and all beliefs, from Radical Islamic Terrorism - which has no place in an open and tolerant society. Radical Islam advocates hate for women, gays, Jews, Christians and all Americans. I am going to be a President for all Americans, and I am going to protect and defend all Americans. We are going to make America safe again and great again for everyone.
Islam definitely has a disgusting way of looking at the "non-orthodox" ways of life. You might not share the same view and it is understandable to defend it but it doesn't mean a vast majority of the believers against modern ways of life. Eventually statistically someone with enough "courage" or "zeal" would commit such subhuman act.
I live in a country with a very strong Islamic belief and personally rejected it at some point so I exposed similar stuff more than most of the others here. So moral high ground defense like "religion of peace" etc.. imo is bullshit.
The problem is not some maniac doing a mad case. There is a systematic behind it which is the religion in that case. Holy scripts also encourage jihad and enforce "the way of Islam" very different than modern life we understand. Denying this can be only a sign of personal enlightenment that has nothing to do with the religion itself.
On June 13 2016 21:09 Laserist wrote: My condolences.
Islam definitely has a disgusting way of looking at the "non-orthodox" ways of life. You might not share the same view and it is understandable to defend it but it doesn't mean a vast majority of the believers against modern ways of life. Eventually statistically someone with enough "courage" or "zeal" would commit such subhuman act.
I live in a country with a very strong Islamic belief and personally rejected it at some point so I exposed similar stuff more than most of the others here. So moral high ground defense like "religion of peace" etc.. imo is bullshit.
The problem is not some maniac doing a mad case. There is a systematic behind it which is the religion in that case. Holy scripts also encourage jihad and enforce "the way of Islam" very different than modern life we understand. Denying this can be only a sign of personal enlightenment that has nothing to do with the religion itself.
Funnily enough, in muslims countries they are way more open about this topic than in europe and the US. I had familly in Algeria and they were pretty clear on radical islam : it is a plague. 200 000 people died due to radical islam in Algeria, people don't have the luxury to find excuses, play on words, just to argue that no it's not radical islam but "an homophobe" or something else. People have a hard time understanding that freedom is "saying that two and two equal four".
The problem with talking about radical Islam in the US is that our news media is terrible at it. The way it is addressed on the news is like terrorists are going to come leaping out the local mosque. I am all about a nuanced discussion about it, but not the one that happens on CNN.
On June 13 2016 21:09 Laserist wrote: My condolences.
Islam definitely has a disgusting way of looking at the "non-orthodox" ways of life. You might not share the same view and it is understandable to defend it but it doesn't mean a vast majority of the believers against modern ways of life. Eventually statistically someone with enough "courage" or "zeal" would commit such subhuman act.
I live in a country with a very strong Islamic belief and personally rejected it at some point so I exposed similar stuff more than most of the others here. So moral high ground defense like "religion of peace" etc.. imo is bullshit.
The problem is not some maniac doing a mad case. There is a systematic behind it which is the religion in that case. Holy scripts also encourage jihad and enforce "the way of Islam" very different than modern life we understand. Denying this can be only a sign of personal enlightenment that has nothing to do with the religion itself.
Funnily enough, in muslims countries they are way more open about this topic than in europe and the US. I had familly in Algeria and they were pretty clear on radical islam : it is a plague. 200 000 people died due to radical islam in Algeria, people don't have the luxury to find excuses, play on words, just to argue that no it's not radical islam but "an homophobe" or something else. People have a hard time understanding that freedom is "saying that two and two equal four".
I know this is a bit pedantic but what on Earth does the phrase "two and two equal four" have to do with freedom. Freedom in this case is a buzzword. If you want to make sense, then you should imply that freedom is the ability to say that two plus two equals five if that's what you want to say.
On June 13 2016 21:09 Laserist wrote: My condolences.
Islam definitely has a disgusting way of looking at the "non-orthodox" ways of life. You might not share the same view and it is understandable to defend it but it doesn't mean a vast majority of the believers against modern ways of life. Eventually statistically someone with enough "courage" or "zeal" would commit such subhuman act.
I live in a country with a very strong Islamic belief and personally rejected it at some point so I exposed similar stuff more than most of the others here. So moral high ground defense like "religion of peace" etc.. imo is bullshit.
The problem is not some maniac doing a mad case. There is a systematic behind it which is the religion in that case. Holy scripts also encourage jihad and enforce "the way of Islam" very different than modern life we understand. Denying this can be only a sign of personal enlightenment that has nothing to do with the religion itself.
Funnily enough, in muslims countries they are way more open about this topic than in europe and the US. I had familly in Algeria and they were pretty clear on radical islam : it is a plague. 200 000 people died due to radical islam in Algeria, people don't have the luxury to find excuses, play on words, just to argue that no it's not radical islam but "an homophobe" or something else. People have a hard time understanding that freedom is "saying that two and two equal four".
I know this is a bit pedantic but what on Earth does the phrase "two and two equal four" have to do with freedom. Freedom in this case is a buzzword. If you want to make sense, then you should imply that freedom is the ability to say that two plus two equals five if that's what you want to say.
"Freedom is saying two and two equal four" is a quote from Orwell's 1984 : basically mean that freedom is being able to say the truth. To explain a little more, in 1984 the language has been deprived of its logic, it's a "newspeak" that, through various grammatical change and the idea of "doublethink" (twisting rhetoric like "freedom is slavery"), has lost its capacity to simply express the most basic feelings, argument or assertion. Radical islam is a problem, it's a truth, you don't need to suggarcoat it and argue to death around it : but in modern language, anybody who argue that radical islam is a problem is instantly attacked from both part, from the part of the society that just hate all muslims, and from the liberal/progressive stupidity that does not want to aknowledge simple truth out of some distorted vision of integration and tolerance.
That's just making a nice easy divide of "radical islam" and "happy islam". A bit naive don't you think? Where do we draw the line at "radical christians" the tea party or crusades or..?
On June 14 2016 02:45 Slayer91 wrote: That's just making a nice easy divide of "radical islam" and "happy islam". A bit naive don't you think? Where do we draw the line at "radical christians" the tea party or crusades or..?
I don't understand your point. There are clear and obvious topic that should be adressed and that makes a distinction between radical and not radical islam : the relationship between politics and religion (sharia law), the question of apostates, the question of homosexuality, women, minorities, etc.
On June 14 2016 02:38 Plansix wrote: The problem with talking about radical Islam in the US is that our news media is terrible at it. The way it is addressed on the news is like terrorists are going to come leaping out the local mosque. I am all about a nuanced discussion about it, but not the one that happens on CNN.
Totally true : the best solution is not to talk about muslim, but about islam. People are people, their religion is but one part of their identity. Discuss the actually doctrine of islam, and not the people.
On June 14 2016 02:45 Slayer91 wrote: That's just making a nice easy divide of "radical islam" and "happy islam". A bit naive don't you think? Where do we draw the line at "radical christians" the tea party or crusades or..?
It's a challenge to make that divide, but it is one we must rise to. The only way that we can address radical Islam is through the channels of moderate Islam - otherwise the West will always be a foreign force.
And I wouldn't say the same approach couldn't be taken with other destructive intolerant stances expressed through Christianity for example.
I hardly distinguish majority of the Islam followers from the ones commit jihad actions. Religion clearly encourages violence against the "others" by all means. There is no clear distinction between "Radicals" and "Happies"
On June 14 2016 02:45 Slayer91 wrote: That's just making a nice easy divide of "radical islam" and "happy islam". A bit naive don't you think? Where do we draw the line at "radical christians" the tea party or crusades or..?
It's a challenge to make that divide, but it is one we must rise to. The only way that we can address radical Islam is through the channels of moderate Islam - otherwise the West will always be a foreign force.
And I wouldn't say the same approach couldn't be taken with other destructive intolerant stances expressed through Christianity for example.
I don't think the divide exists.
There is too large of a population that don't openly act on Islamic principles, but push their agenda in subtle ways or just stay out of politics, but their philosophy doesn't change.
In the same way that the people of the US have "lost" their power to vote, because of increasing populations of Mexican (34.6mil) and Black (45.7mil). By no means am I saying that the USA is a White country, but what I am saying, is that originally the US had a very clear identity and belief structure, based on European values. Yet somehow, now every election is decided by the Mexican and Black vote, because they make up 25% of the population, and thus it pushes the agenda of the groups that originally had no power in the country.
Same thing how the European countries are being taken by the muslim population, with countries like France being at 10% already. It really boggles my mind how people in Europe are so open to accept this (being from Slovakia, the views towards immigration are a lot harsher)... Do they not realize that literally over two thousand years of rich history will be completely wiped out by these changes?
Finding this divide between good and bad Islam is in my opinion to a smart idea, because it is next to impossible to distinguish, and what I'd call a half-assed attempt. I am fixated on the idea, that at least in the short term (50-100 years or less), Muslims will not be compatible with western culture, and we're best off not accepting Muslim refugees.
Here are some websites that show how this dislike for Muslims is widespread across Europe, and when around 50% of the population in Western countries thinks that Muslims don't mesh with their culture, maybe we should not try to push it so hard? It's not like a few people are saying this, and we're deciding whether to accommodate them or not. The US can be tolerant to its Islamic allies, but there's no need for them to live inside the country, it's no hard feeling.
Try moving to a country like Russia, and all I can say is... Good luck. It's extremely difficult, because they like keeping their sense of society. The US has just become this broken little thing with 320 million people sharing 320 million different views. No unity or agreement in anything.
edit: Either way, a sad event in US history - though after mourning, people should think about solutions instead of thinking about it for 10 seconds and posting the first thing they think of.
On June 14 2016 02:45 Slayer91 wrote: That's just making a nice easy divide of "radical islam" and "happy islam". A bit naive don't you think? Where do we draw the line at "radical christians" the tea party or crusades or..?
It's a challenge to make that divide, but it is one we must rise to. The only way that we can address radical Islam is through the channels of moderate Islam - otherwise the West will always be a foreign force.
And I wouldn't say the same approach couldn't be taken with other destructive intolerant stances expressed through Christianity for example.
Same thing how the European countries are being taken by the muslim population, with countries like France being at 10% already. It really boggles my mind how people in Europe are so open to accept this (being from Slovakia, the views towards immigration are a lot harsher)... Do they not realize that literally over two thousand years of rich history will be completely wiped out by these changes?
There's nothing we can do about it. We're politically disenfranchised, to almost 100%. When our politicians decided they would accept increased rapes, murders and the death of our culture to help those in need, we weren't asked. And if we had been asked, we likely would have agreed to it.
The EU was faced with a humanitarian crisis, caused by the US, and our leaders decided it would be the best course of action.
Even band-aid solutions like Brexit won't really help, that's like quarantining a patient who's already riddled with cancer.
I'm just glad I don't have any children. I couldn't face the prospect of my daughter growing up in a society in which she would be kettle, or my son in a society that turns him into a brainwashed homophobe, antisemite and science denier.
The white guys only have 75% of the vote and what 99% of the wealth lol, tell me more about how the blacks and mexicans have all the power.
What's the black and mexican agenda? To make better lives for themselves? Do you think the muslims are really much different? The difference is a lot of them come from fucked up places with fucked up people in power and maybe their religion contributed to their fuckupedness but you're roping everyone into the actions of a (relative) few.
Ever stopped and wondered how curious it was that all of your measures against and discussions about "radical islam" just happened to target islam and/or muslims as a whole? It's almost as if you dishonestly hijacked the very obvious position that radical religion is a bad thing and were using it to further points and policies that aren't actually connected to radicalism, but to your opinion of the entire religion. And while you do it, I'm sure it'll be okay pretending that other people are protecting radicalism because they refuse to follow you into those specific opinions that aren't connected to it.
It's a very clever strategy. You're fooling all of us.
On June 14 2016 06:31 Laserist wrote: I hardly distinguish majority of the Islam followers from the ones commit jihad actions. Religion clearly encourages violence against the "others" by all means. There is no clear distinction between "Radicals" and "Happies"
There's not a single line to draw, but people who loosely believe in god no matter what it is are not the same as the ones taking everything literally and blowing themselves up for it.
There's millions upon millions of muslims who are peaceful, violence condoning folk that stand against shootings like this one
On June 14 2016 07:46 Slayer91 wrote: The white guys only have 75% of the vote and what 99% of the wealth lol, tell me more about how the blacks and mexicans have all the power.
What's the black and mexican agenda? To make better lives for themselves? Do you think the muslims are really much different? The difference is a lot of them come from fucked up places with fucked up people in power and maybe their religion contributed to their fuckupedness but you're roping everyone into the actions of a (relative) few.
Firstly, the 75% figure is very misinformed (it's around 63%), what did you do, subtract my 25% number from 100% and exclude every other minority? Okay, that should be the end of the discussion, but I'll rather continue.
Secondly, in the long term, when everyone has the power to vote, current wealth doesn't matter, as long term that will equalize (I could rant about feminism, and how everything is equal here already, only reason CEO's are still mostly male is because it's a lag variable). And yes, when 60% of the white population swings one way, and 40% the other way, and 85% of the minorities swings that way, it does make big impacts on decisions. We see the exact same thing in the US, for better or worse, in almost every poll Donald Trump wins with whites, but he loses 90-10 with Black and 80-20 with Hispanics. So yes, what matters for power is that number of the population of a certain culture (which is often distinguished by race or religion, for better or worse, because other metrics are difficult to extract).
Thirdly, no. I'm not blaming our Muslim issue on a relative few, I'm putting in on the 20-80% of the population who believe in Sharia Law, discrimination of everyone non-Muslim (however subtle), and mostly their entire traditional way of life that I think is compatible only on some very superficial level with our values. I hear this silly argument, everyone just wants a better life for themselves, so we will all get along together. Correct me if I'm wrong, throughout the entire history of the human race, everyone just wanted a better life for themselves, but please look at what that brought up.
If your only goal is tolerance, then sure, possible. If you want community, uh uh, that level of integration doesn't happen in the next 50-100 years unless we put more propaganda into schools, and keep restricting stuff taught in mosques, etc.
On June 14 2016 07:53 Nebuchad wrote: Ever stopped and wondered how curious it was that all of your measures against and discussions about "radical islam" just happened to target islam and/or muslims as a whole? It's almost as if you dishonestly hijacked the very obvious position that radical religion is a bad thing and were using it to further points and policies that aren't actually connected to radicalism, but to your opinion of the entire religion. And while you do it, I'm sure it'll be okay pretending that other people are protecting radicalism because they refuse to follow you into those specific opinions that aren't connected to it.
It's a very clever strategy. You're fooling all of us.
Yes, I'm under the opinion that no modern society can have religion as one of its main pillars (unless it's the one and only religion). And hence, all my policy positions around this issue have that implicit assumption built into them. If you'd like to discuss that position, we'd probably need several 3000-5000 word responses I'm not willing to commit right now.
Anyway, here back home, I'd say were very tolerant towards others, but its easy to see how people fall into groups and choose their friends. While it's easy to have small talk with my Islamic colleagues, and be friends on a wings once in a while kind of friend, even talk about religion... But being able to be true, close, friends, it's really difficult. It's very difficult for me to build that family level of trust with someone like that. I'm White (originally from Slovakia, moved to Canada 12~ years ago), and I have a Chinese girlfriend, I've dated several Christians, a black lady, even went on a few dates with a lady who was half First Nations. I enjoy being surrounded by different ideas and cultures, there is a lot to learn from them, but I've found it extremely difficult to get really close to someone emotionally who has different pillars they base their lives on.
As long as people cannot get to that family level together, which a religion (followed pretty seriously) or no religion, mixed with another one will not be able to do... Then we will never really integrate past the tolerance level.
Don't know if it was posted before, but I've read a report saying Mateen attended the Pulse club around a dozen times before and according to friends, was probably in the closet. He also had accounts on gay dating apps. People who talked to him said he was very awkward and and didn't fit in with groups.
On June 14 2016 12:47 PhoenixVoid wrote: Don't know if it was posted before, but I've read a report saying Mateen attended the Pulse club around a dozen times before and according to friends, was probably in the closet. He also had accounts on gay dating apps. People who talked to him said he was very awkward and and didn't fit in with groups.
Yeah, just a loon. With another background he would probably have "sworn" allegiance to some right wing fringe group, some anarchist syndicate or both... Whatever would make him feel important.
In the same way that the people of the US have "lost" their power to vote, because of increasing populations of Mexican (34.6mil) and Black (45.7mil). By no means am I saying that the USA is a White country, but what I am saying, is that originally the US had a very clear identity and belief structure, based on European values. Yet somehow, now every election is decided by the Mexican and Black vote, because they make up 25% of the population, and thus it pushes the agenda of the groups that originally had no power in the country.
Uhm, you konw... "Hispanics" (which are white) have also a very clear identity and belief structure based on European values (you remember, "we" slaughtered our way thru all the Americas not just NA). So do Blacks because... Slavery forced them to abolish just about everything they had before and take "european" values. In the end it comes down to racial bias and thats about it. Blacks and Hispanics are deciding the vote in the US because one party decided to be not interested in them (and that harbouring racist bigots is fine).
Hope there will be heavy repercussions all around the world after this news.
What do you mean by this?
LGBT discrimination and hate speeches should be a criminal offense in every respected country. No bullshit like religion, customs or social concern should apply. Those who spread biggotry are nothing more than animals, essentially, and should be dealt accordingly.
based off your tone i think you should be dealt with accordingly and required mandatory background checks along with a mental examination. You sound exactly like the bigots you describe. you basically want immunity for those who disagree with the lifestyle of LGBT which just shows how extreme your ideology is. that others who disagree with you maybe "reprimanded" you're just foolish to be honest. how are you any different from the shooter? you wish to enact something that punishes people for free speech and belief, INNOCENT people who have no involvement in the shooting. to be honest i'd rather have security check you out, you're the type if left alone would establish a cult and end up like the shooter for a different opinion.
I can say the exact same thing about you and all those who support lGBT that their belief perspective should be disregarded and handled if they spoke against religion. do you see how this gets no one anywhere? you're looking for blood in the wrong places. What you should be talking about is how you can help prevent tragedies like this without putting the blame on innocent groups of people. But clearly you are an extremist yourself and can't be reasoned with. Isis has killed christians, i don't go and attack my muslim friends, blame them, or go after people who aren't religious. it's beyond stupid and you sir, should educate yourself more. it's often times kids like you who are the loudest on the internet do relatively nothing for anyone in reality. i've met tons of kids like you in business, all talk no action.
This is at the core a heartbreaking and extremely sad story. To have your freedom taken from you, while enjoying yourself and celebrating about being LGBT and hanging out with friends and family, and even more so on a recognized holiday - makes no logic, it's so inhumane, it's senseless. I feel horribly for the families and friends a loved ones of those effective. Things like this shouldn't happen and when they do, I hope the only good that may come from them is greater awareness to the issues so we might, just might have the chance to take more preventative measures to reduce it from happening again (the list of ways goes on...). Very sad TL fan here.
Firstly, the 75% figure is very misinformed (it's around 63%), what did you do, subtract my 25% number from 100% and exclude every other minority? Okay, that should be the end of the discussion, but I'll rather continue.
Yes that's what I did. I didn't bother googling the exact figures because 75:25 and 63:25 are similar things for the poitn I was making.
On June 14 2016 08:48 FiWiFaKi wrote: Secondly, in the long term, when everyone has the power to vote, current wealth doesn't matter, as long term that will equalize (I could rant about feminism, and how everything is equal here already, only reason CEO's are still mostly male is because it's a lag variable). And yes, when 60% of the white population swings one way, and 40% the other way, and 85% of the minorities swings that way, it does make big impacts on decisions. We see the exact same thing in the US, for better or worse, in almost every poll Donald Trump wins with whites, but he loses 90-10 with Black and 80-20 with Hispanics. So yes, what matters for power is that number of the population of a certain culture (which is often distinguished by race or religion, for better or worse, because other metrics are difficult to extract).
Current wealth doesn't matter? It does because we are living in the present. You need so much money to be a serious candidate, lobbyists push a lot of politicians into power. Yes 25% is a lot of power but it's not as much power as 63%. That's why donald trump is the republican nominee when no sane person takes him seriously. The fact that whites swing just means that there is no side of the political spectrum that is blanket best for all of them like what minorities experience. That's pretty much because of wealth too.
On June 14 2016 08:48 FiWiFaKi wrote: Thirdly, no. I'm not blaming our Muslim issue on a relative few, I'm putting in on the 20-80% of the population who believe in Sharia Law, discrimination of everyone non-Muslim (however subtle), and mostly their entire traditional way of life that I think is compatible only on some very superficial level with our values. I hear this silly argument, everyone just wants a better life for themselves, so we will all get along together. Correct me if I'm wrong, throughout the entire history of the human race, everyone just wanted a better life for themselves, but please look at what that brought up.
If your only goal is tolerance, then sure, possible. If you want community, uh uh, that level of integration doesn't happen in the next 50-100 years unless we put more propaganda into schools, and keep restricting stuff taught in mosques, etc.
The thing is most of the people who believe in sharia law aren't causing lots of murders. Unless you think you need a 100 sharia law muslism to charge up one terrorist or something (which I suppose from a statistical point of view probably isn't that crazy). I said people want a better life for themselves, not that we all want to get along together. Selfishness only results mutually beneficial cooperation and that's why we have war. That said, there's barely any war compared to how it used to be, so it's hardly an important factor.
50-100 years? It's pretty much 1 generation (foreign family has kids, those kids have american family) most integration to occur unless they are really segregating themselves inside their own groups.
We didn't have fucking paper cups 100 years ago and now we have the internet and spaceships you think it's going to take 100 years for people to renounce sharia law?
Also the Muslims who believe in sharia law are similar to the Christians to believe in Christian values. They would like that laws and their religion not be in conflict with each other. That does not mean 80% of them are all about stoning people to death. That question about sharia law is misleading because it does not delve into specifics about religious rules that are in conflict with current laws.
You can also poll all Americans about taxes and prove we really don’t like them. And we think murders should be locked away for life or executed. We could take a pool about ejecting every congress member from off and holding special elections and I bet it would get a lot of support.
A poll is not a discussion. Its just a question and one question all alone does not give you a very clear picture.
What you see is the death struggle of Islam not its expansion. They come/flee to europe, the US and they will be assimilated without even knowig it. For the majority their religious believes will be watered down with every generation, the same way it has happened with the christian believes. The younger ones who grew up here are not near as devout as their parents in general. A few desperate lunatics can not slow this down, they only speed it up as the majority will get disinterested in religions associated with death and terror. Their resistance is futile. They will be assimilated.
On June 15 2016 08:07 Holy_AT wrote: What you see is the death struggle of Islam not its expansion. They come/flee to europe, the US and they will be assimilated without even knowig it. For the majority their religious believes will be watered down with every generation, the same way it has happened with the christian believes. The younger ones who grew up here are not near as devout as their parents in general. A few desperate lunatics can not slow this down, they only speed it up as the majority will get disinterested in religions associated with death and terror. Their resistance is futile. They will be assimilated.
On June 15 2016 08:07 Holy_AT wrote: What you see is the death struggle of Islam not its expansion. They come/flee to europe, the US and they will be assimilated without even knowig it. For the majority their religious believes will be watered down with every generation, the same way it has happened with the christian believes. The younger ones who grew up here are not near as devout as their parents in general. A few desperate lunatics can not slow this down, they only speed it up as the majority will get disinterested in religions associated with death and terror. Their resistance is futile. They will be assimilated.
Muslims are in EU and US for several decades. I hardly see an assimilation of them, rather getting even more radical because of the discrimination. Of course some people dissolve in society and some stay as outliers but I couldn't imagine radicals will eventually perish eve if there would be no discrimination.
@saocyn, first thing calm down. "Religion" and "innocent" don't sit with each other well throughout the history, like it or not. When it comes to religious believes, hate speeches given by the preachers and other public personalitiies and open propaganda of the prejudice and discrimination aren't examples of the announced freedom, it's the example of the oppression and enmity.
Need I to say twice civil countries should fight this and zealous fanatics should either update their world-view or got administered because they are potentially dangerous? If the harm has already been caused, the sentence would be in order. The road to hell is paved with a good intentions, after all.
Other than that, you are free to dismiss the struggles of the minorities, if you choose. But I'd like for you to imagine a picture, most radical Islamists are surely incapable of: imagine you were born gay. And just because of your sexual orientation by a word of the almighty loveful God you are sentenced to a brutal death without any dispute. When it comes to a mainstream Christianity, it's not as severe, but it's still disgraceful as fuck.
Does this barbaric culture makes someone happy, makes him feel a little bit special? "Innocent" religious believers if not limited can literally turn anyone's life into a living hell once they believe it's right and try to lobby down their opinion at any "inappropriate" issue seemed fit (be it aborts, science bans, sex and gender issues, the vaguiety of morality, etc). First step in the right direction would be removing the cloak of legal immunity for the Church's "management board" and restricting their influence in a public field.
Simply no one-party hate allowed, that shouldn't be that hard for a decent humant beings.
As a muslin this is so frustrating. My family and friends try to make a decent living not hurting no one. Trying to go one day with out somebody shouting shit as us for been muslin is so hard. It only takes one insane man to make the news and more hate pours from the sky. What im trying to say is that not all that claim to be muslin are muslins. The fact that this insane man was gay is not why im commenting about it. I can care less who he sleep with. Been gay and muslin is a hard life and can be very depressing but no way in hell it means that you can kill someone over it.
What im trying to say is that not all that claim to be muslin are muslins. .
Except that a majority of your religious peers would absolutely disagree with you here and say that you're the one who isn't a real Muslim if you don't condemn gayness.
I think it's a copout to say 'But not all of us think like that!'
If you're part of a group, you have to own what the overwhelming majority of that group believes. If you're in the Nazi party, you don't get to say 'Well don't all paint us with the same brush, a lot of us don't mind the jews!'
And stop it with that 'It's just one man' bullshit. It's like half a billion men.
This is the UN map of LGBT rights:
Countries where there's the death penalty for 'gay acts':
Yemen: death for married men who engage in gay sex Afghanistan: death for any man who engages in gay sex Saudi Arabia: death for any man who engages in gay sex UAE: death penalty de jure, but not de facto (according to UN and Human Rights Watch) Somalia: death penalty in accordance with Sharia law Sudan: death penalty for gay acts after three 'transgressions' Mauritania: death penalty for gay Muslim men only
Care to find the common thread?
Now I don't make any pretense that 'the West' has a great or even reasonable track record of gay rights. Even in my own home country, gay marriage is still not fully equal to traditional marriage and there's a lot of latent and not so latent homophobic shit going on.
But pretending those are the same, and pretending main-stream, not at all extreme, Islam isn't far worse in that regard, is dishonest and dangerous and jeopardises the progress that humanity made in making the world a more welcoming place for gays, transgendereds, bis and whatever else there is that I'm not aware of.
Fact is, in Europe, we've got an enormous number of people who've join a large campaign against LGBTQIA+'s right (la manif pour tous, started in France, then expanding in nearby countries). In Russia, "LGBTQIA+ "propaganda"" has been forbidden, And we've got around... what ? 100 anti-LGBTQIA+'s law in USA ? Friendly reminder that the shooter pledge allegiance to several organisation who're at war witch each other, and that, according to his family, was not at all religious. So... yeah, maybe it's a little bit more complicated. And the fact that this was a racist act of terror seems to be forgotten here too. Those weren't only LGBTQIA+'s people. They were latino's, and it was a latino's party.
Sure, we can use the whole idea of "there are worse country than ours, so we're good" but this doesn't change the fact that we are also responsible for those attack. All the time we act like this is a problem with Islam, we're completely forgetting that for each non-muslim killed by Daesh/al Qaeda/boko Haram, there's 10 muslim. We're forgetting the fact that those organisation only exist because our country are pillaging the others for century, making war all over the world in order to protect our interest, and that only those terrorist organisation have the ability to fight us. Trying to understand Islamism without imperialism of European&USA is missing the point. Religion has never been a reason for the war. It was always an excuse. (see the Crusade for example, for those who don't know, they weren't for the sake of Jerusalem. Their goal was to pacify Europe who had a shitton of war back in those days. In order to do that, they pointed a new ennemy, used religion in order to make people be forced to go to war.)
Queer, Intersex, Asexual/aromantic and + is for other categories. In fact MOGAI (marginalized orientations, gender alignment and intersex) would be really easier to read, but I doubt everyone know this accronym here, so I stayed with the "old" one.
Pretty proud of your own ignorance today, aren't you?
Ah fuck off, how is anyone supposed to keep up with that?
I'm extremely open and accepting of no matter how many letters you add, but you know full well that this is very recent in the public discussion.
Just months ago, everyone was talking about LGBT. I'm sorry I'm not on the bleeding edge of gender-non-binarity.
Until a couple of weeks, I didn't know I was cis-gendered. That doesn't mean I have anything against cis people, it just means I don't now the specialised nomenclature in a language that isn't my own.
To be honest, LGBTQIA+ is a thing since... what.... 10 years ? At least something like that. ^^ But seriously, considere using MOGAI, it's better for a lot of reason. But whatever, that wasn't the point of my post. The point was: we can't act like Islamism is unrelated to Western's imperialism.
Pretty proud of your own ignorance today, aren't you?
Ah fuck off, how is anyone supposed to keep up with that?
I'm extremely open and accepting of no matter how many letters you add, but you know full well that this is very recent in the public discussion.
Just months ago, everyone was talking about LGBT. I'm sorry I'm not on the bleeding edge of gender-non-binarity.
Until a couple of weeks, I didn't know I was cis-gendered. That doesn't mean I have anything against cis people, it just means I don't now the specialised nomenclature in a language that isn't my own.
Instead of attacking it because you didn't know what it was you could have just said nothing and looked it up. But either way, QIA isn't a new thing. They've been around for a while.
Pretty proud of your own ignorance today, aren't you?
Ah fuck off, how is anyone supposed to keep up with that?
I'm extremely open and accepting of no matter how many letters you add, but you know full well that this is very recent in the public discussion.
Just months ago, everyone was talking about LGBT. I'm sorry I'm not on the bleeding edge of gender-non-binarity.
Until a couple of weeks, I didn't know I was cis-gendered. That doesn't mean I have anything against cis people, it just means I don't now the specialised nomenclature in a language that isn't my own.
Instead of attacking it because you didn't know what it was you could have just said nothing and looked it up. But either way, QIA isn't a new thing. They've been around for a while.
I didn't attack it, I genuinely thought the guy was making a (harmless) joke.
Fact is, in Europe, we've got an enormous number of people who've join a large campaign against LGBTQIA+'s right (la manif pour tous, started in France, then expanding in nearby countries). In Russia, "LGBTQIA+ "propaganda"" has been forbidden, And we've got around... what ? 100 anti-LGBTQIA+'s law in USA ? Friendly reminder that the shooter pledge allegiance to several organisation who're at war witch each other, and that, according to his family, was not at all religious. So... yeah, maybe it's a little bit more complicated. And the fact that this was a racist act of terror seems to be forgotten here too. Those weren't only LGBTQIA+'s people. They were latino's, and it was a latino's party.
Sure, we can use the whole idea of "there are worse country than ours, so we're good" but this doesn't change the fact that we are also responsible for those attack. All the time we act like this is a problem with Islam, we're completely forgetting that for each non-muslim killed by Daesh/al Qaeda/boko Haram, there's 10 muslim. We're forgetting the fact that those organisation only exist because our country are pillaging the others for century, making war all over the world in order to protect our interest, and that only those terrorist organisation have the ability to fight us. Trying to understand Islamism without imperialism of European&USA is missing the point. Religion has never been a reason for the war. It was always an excuse. (see the Crusade for example, for those who don't know, they weren't for the sake of Jerusalem. Their goal was to pacify Europe who had a shitton of war back in those days. In order to do that, they pointed a new ennemy, used religion in order to make people be forced to go to war.)
Yeah, lets blame the NRA, Christian right, Republicans, and western civilization for the act of a Muslim, registered Democrat, who TOLD US he was doing it in the name of ISIS. Muslims are perfect and impervious to criticism. it's the west who are the bad guys. Next you're going to tell me the reason why ISIS throws homosexuals off of buildings in Syria is our fault too.
This is exactly what the left does. Everything is about how bad America is or how bad the western world is and how pure and pristine everyone else is.
Here's the facts, he's the son of two Afghani immigrants, his father is pro Taliban and heavily anti-gay, Afghanistan's maximum punishment for homosexuality is the death penalty, over 90% of Muslims in most Muslim countries believe homosexuality is immoral. Most of the countries that have death penalties for homosexuality are Muslim and nearly all Muslim countries have laws to outlaw homosexuality. And you're going to sit there and tell me it's OUR FAULT? That it's OUR CULTURE that radicalized Omar Mateen to kill gays? No, it's not even remotely western civilizations fault. The USA is one of, if not, the absolute most tolerant society on Earth. We did not radicalize him. I hate how the left indicts people that have nothing to do this.
We're forgetting the fact that those organisation only exist because our country are pillaging the others for century, making war all over the world in order to protect our interest
Who is "our"? Because these wars only benefit the military industrial complex who make the weapons and war machinery, the big banks who speculate and the big oil companies that swoop in and get the oil.Ordinary Americans do not benefit, in fact they suffer because they have to pay interest on the debt to pay for these crazy wars.
Pretty proud of your own ignorance today, aren't you?
Ah fuck off, how is anyone supposed to keep up with that?
I'm extremely open and accepting of no matter how many letters you add, but you know full well that this is very recent in the public discussion.
Just months ago, everyone was talking about LGBT. I'm sorry I'm not on the bleeding edge of gender-non-binarity.
Until a couple of weeks, I didn't know I was cis-gendered. That doesn't mean I have anything against cis people, it just means I don't now the specialised nomenclature in a language that isn't my own.
Instead of attacking it because you didn't know what it was you could have just said nothing and looked it up. But either way, QIA isn't a new thing. They've been around for a while.
I didn't attack it, I genuinely thought the guy was making a (harmless) joke.
It's getting a bit ridiculous now, here's the latest acronym.
We're forgetting the fact that those organisation only exist because our country are pillaging the others for century, making war all over the world in order to protect our interest
Who is "our"? Because these wars only benefit the military industrial complex who make the weapons and war machinery, the big banks who speculate and the big oil companies that swoop in and get the oil.Ordinary Americans do not benefit, in fact they suffer because they have to pay interest on the debt to pay for these crazy wars.
It's all a bunch of leftist bullshit. The gunman killed gays, he didn't kill politicians or military personnel. He killed gays because his religion says they're evil infidels and should be killed. It has nothing to do with US-Afghan relations or any other nonsense.
On June 18 2016 15:36 KwarK wrote: I've always been confused by the allies part. I get that they want to feel included but it's not really their thing.
Fact is, in Europe, we've got an enormous number of people who've join a large campaign against LGBTQIA+'s right (la manif pour tous, started in France, then expanding in nearby countries). In Russia, "LGBTQIA+ "propaganda"" has been forbidden, And we've got around... what ? 100 anti-LGBTQIA+'s law in USA ? Friendly reminder that the shooter pledge allegiance to several organisation who're at war witch each other, and that, according to his family, was not at all religious. So... yeah, maybe it's a little bit more complicated. And the fact that this was a racist act of terror seems to be forgotten here too. Those weren't only LGBTQIA+'s people. They were latino's, and it was a latino's party.
Sure, we can use the whole idea of "there are worse country than ours, so we're good" but this doesn't change the fact that we are also responsible for those attack. All the time we act like this is a problem with Islam, we're completely forgetting that for each non-muslim killed by Daesh/al Qaeda/boko Haram, there's 10 muslim. We're forgetting the fact that those organisation only exist because our country are pillaging the others for century, making war all over the world in order to protect our interest, and that only those terrorist organisation have the ability to fight us. Trying to understand Islamism without imperialism of European&USA is missing the point. Religion has never been a reason for the war. It was always an excuse. (see the Crusade for example, for those who don't know, they weren't for the sake of Jerusalem. Their goal was to pacify Europe who had a shitton of war back in those days. In order to do that, they pointed a new ennemy, used religion in order to make people be forced to go to war.)
Yeah, lets blame the NRA, Christian right, Republicans, and western civilization for the act of a Muslim, registered Democrat, who TOLD US he was doing it in the name of ISIS. Muslims are perfect and impervious to criticism. it's the west who are the bad guys. Next you're going to tell me the reason why ISIS throws homosexuals off of buildings in Syria is our fault too.
This is exactly what the left does. Everything is about how bad America is or how bad the western world is and how pure and pristine everyone else is.
Here's the facts, he's the son of two Afghani immigrants, his father is pro Taliban and heavily anti-gay, Afghanistan's maximum punishment for homosexuality is the death penalty, over 90% of Muslims in most Muslim countries believe homosexuality is immoral. Most of the countries that have death penalties for homosexuality are Muslim and nearly all Muslim countries have laws to outlaw homosexuality. And you're going to sit there and tell me it's OUR FAULT? That it's OUR CULTURE that radicalized Omar Mateen to kill gays? No, it's not even remotely western civilizations fault. The USA is one of, if not, the absolute most tolerant society on Earth. We did not radicalize him. I hate how the left indicts people that have nothing to do this.
And to their demise, this is exactly why Trump is so popular.
To their credit,as a terrorist, it must be pretty frustrating to die for your cause in a holy war only for the victims to take the blame and get 0 recognition.
If God exist and his nature is near how is is depicted in the religious books he is a psychopath and not worth following.
Fortunately most religious people are better people than what their own religion dictates them to be, they ignore the most vile parts of their religious books and behave decent.
It is the nutcases that follow the rules to the letter that are the real problem.
On June 19 2016 01:12 MockHamill wrote: If God exist and his nature is near how is is depicted in the religious books he is a psychopath and not worth following.
Fortunately most religious people are better people than what their own religion dictates them to be, they ignore the most vile parts of their religious books and behave decent.
It is the nutcases that follow the rules to the letter that are the real problem.
I mean that is the real difference. Christianity has it's problems but it has been on a linear path of progression and reform for a very long time. Now, most christians are very secular people and do not allow scripture to dictate their ethics and their everyday life. Islam's culture is much more the opposite and they are heavily influenced by scripture whether jihadist or a typical muslim conservative.
This guy was a shitty fucking Muslim with no idea what the hell was going on. Hell, he pledged allegiance to both Sunni and Shia groups at war with each other and probably couldn't have explained why that was a bad idea. It's the equivalent of a Christian having no idea what the differences between Catholic and Protestant are and which one he is.
He was raised in a homophobic household and he was super fucking gay. Gayer than a rainbow cloud that rains glitter. And we should absolutely have a conversation about the relationship between homophobia and Islam culturally because it's probably not a coincidence that his homophobic father was from Afghanistan. But he didn't murder suicide because he was a "good" Muslim, he murder suicided because he was a self hating homosexual American. It wasn't the Muslim stereotype of terrorist attacks that he was following, it was the American example of offing yourself and taking down a load of innocents with you. But if that makes you uncomfortable then feel free to pin it on the religion that he didn't understand and didn't follow.
Pretty proud of your own ignorance today, aren't you?
Ah fuck off, how is anyone supposed to keep up with that?
I'm extremely open and accepting of no matter how many letters you add, but you know full well that this is very recent in the public discussion.
Just months ago, everyone was talking about LGBT. I'm sorry I'm not on the bleeding edge of gender-non-binarity.
Until a couple of weeks, I didn't know I was cis-gendered. That doesn't mean I have anything against cis people, it just means I don't now the specialised nomenclature in a language that isn't my own.
Instead of attacking it because you didn't know what it was you could have just said nothing and looked it up. But either way, QIA isn't a new thing. They've been around for a while.
I didn't attack it, I genuinely thought the guy was making a (harmless) joke.
It's getting a bit ridiculous now, here's the latest acronym.
While different people can tack on as many nuanced and niche names that they want (adding a Q is probably the most common addition), the traditional and universally recognized acronym is LGBT. And either way, the idea is that there exist a spectrum and myriad of gender identities, which still somehow stumps a large number of people who only have experience with cisgender people.
On June 19 2016 01:12 MockHamill wrote: If God exist and his nature is near how is is depicted in the religious books he is a psychopath and not worth following.
Fortunately most religious people are better people than what their own religion dictates them to be, they ignore the most vile parts of their religious books and behave decent.
It is the nutcases that follow the rules to the letter that are the real problem.
I mean that is the real difference. Christianity has it's problems but it has been on a linear path of progression and reform for a very long time. Now, most christians are very secular people and do not allow scripture to dictate their ethics and their everyday life. Islam's culture is much more the opposite and they are heavily influenced by scripture whether jihadist or a typical muslim conservative.
Christianity in Africa strongly disagrees with your "linear path of progression and reform" narrative.
On June 19 2016 02:00 KwarK wrote: This guy was a shitty fucking Muslim with no idea what the hell was going on. Hell, he pledged allegiance to both Sunni and Shia groups at war with each other and probably couldn't have explained why that was a bad idea. It's the equivalent of a Christian having no idea what the differences between Catholic and Protestant are and which one he is.
He was raised in a homophobic household and he was super fucking gay. Gayer than a rainbow cloud that rains glitter. And we should absolutely have a conversation about the relationship between homophobia and Islam culturally because it's probably not a coincidence that his homophobic father was from Afghanistan. But he didn't murder suicide because he was a "good" Muslim, he murder suicided because he was a self hating homosexual American. It wasn't the Muslim stereotype of terrorist attacks that he was following, it was the American example of offing yourself and taking down a load of innocents with you. But if that makes you uncomfortable then feel free to pin it on the religion that he didn't understand and didn't follow.
OH REALLY. Islam had nothing to do with it huh? He was following an American model? He grew up in a homophobic, pro-Taliban, Muslim household, but he hated gays because of America, huh?
Because apparently suicide bombings never happen in Islamic countries I guess. Because when he called 911, the FBI, and the local news station to pledge allegiance to Islamic terrorist groups fulfilling his bayat to Islam and jihad against the infidels.
Yes, to the left it's America's fault. America, one of the most tolerant and accepting places in the world to homosexuals. And it has nothing to do with a pro-Taliban Afghani father who came from a country and supported an organization that executes gays. No, no, it has nothing to do with Islam. How can people support the left when they think these types of things? Want to talk about ridiculous extents of self loathing, talk about the American left. Everything wrong in the world is due to America to these guys.
On June 19 2016 02:00 KwarK wrote: This guy was a shitty fucking Muslim with no idea what the hell was going on. Hell, he pledged allegiance to both Sunni and Shia groups at war with each other and probably couldn't have explained why that was a bad idea. It's the equivalent of a Christian having no idea what the differences between Catholic and Protestant are and which one he is.
He was raised in a homophobic household and he was super fucking gay. Gayer than a rainbow cloud that rains glitter. And we should absolutely have a conversation about the relationship between homophobia and Islam culturally because it's probably not a coincidence that his homophobic father was from Afghanistan. But he didn't murder suicide because he was a "good" Muslim, he murder suicided because he was a self hating homosexual American. It wasn't the Muslim stereotype of terrorist attacks that he was following, it was the American example of offing yourself and taking down a load of innocents with you. But if that makes you uncomfortable then feel free to pin it on the religion that he didn't understand and didn't follow.
OH REALLY. Islam had nothing to do with it huh? He was following an American model? He grew up in a homophobic, pro-Taliban, Muslim household, but he hated gays because of America, huh?
Because apparently suicide bombings never happen in Islamic countries I guess. Because when he called 911, the FBI, and the local news station to pledge allegiance to Islamic terrorist groups fulfilling his bayat to Islam and jihad against the infidels.
Yes, to the left it's America's fault. America, one of the most tolerant and accepting places in the world to homosexuals. And it has nothing to do with a pro-Taliban Afghani father who came from a country and supported an organization that executes gays. No, no, it has nothing to do with Islam. How can people support the left when they think these types of things? Want to talk about ridiculous extents of self loathing, talk about the American left. Everything wrong in the world is due to America to these guys.
You'll look smarter if you take the time to read the post you're responding to before you respond.
On June 19 2016 02:00 KwarK wrote: This guy was a shitty fucking Muslim with no idea what the hell was going on. Hell, he pledged allegiance to both Sunni and Shia groups at war with each other and probably couldn't have explained why that was a bad idea. It's the equivalent of a Christian having no idea what the differences between Catholic and Protestant are and which one he is.
He was raised in a homophobic household and he was super fucking gay. Gayer than a rainbow cloud that rains glitter. And we should absolutely have a conversation about the relationship between homophobia and Islam culturally because it's probably not a coincidence that his homophobic father was from Afghanistan. But he didn't murder suicide because he was a "good" Muslim, he murder suicided because he was a self hating homosexual American. It wasn't the Muslim stereotype of terrorist attacks that he was following, it was the American example of offing yourself and taking down a load of innocents with you. But if that makes you uncomfortable then feel free to pin it on the religion that he didn't understand and didn't follow.
OH REALLY. Islam had nothing to do with it huh? He was following an American model? He grew up in a homophobic, pro-Taliban, Muslim household, but he hated gays because of America, huh?
Because apparently suicide bombings never happen in Islamic countries I guess. Because when he called 911, the FBI, and the local news station to pledge allegiance to Islamic terrorist groups fulfilling his bayat to Islam and jihad against the infidels.
Yes, to the left it's America's fault. America, one of the most tolerant and accepting places in the world to homosexuals. And it has nothing to do with a pro-Taliban Afghani father who came from a country and supported an organization that executes gays. No, no, it has nothing to do with Islam. How can people support the left when they think these types of things? Want to talk about ridiculous extents of self loathing, talk about the American left. Everything wrong in the world is due to America to these guys.
You'll look smarter if you take the time to read the post you're responding to before you respond.
This is a completely dismissive response with a simple statement of superiority over me with absolutely no substance.
Let me be a little more brief, what you're doing in your original post is indicting American values as largely responsible for the shooting while at the same time downplaying/dismissing the Islamic element. This is absolutely ridiculous as I've gone into great detail to explain. You should be ashamed of yourself for your comment.
On June 19 2016 02:00 KwarK wrote: This guy was a shitty fucking Muslim with no idea what the hell was going on. Hell, he pledged allegiance to both Sunni and Shia groups at war with each other and probably couldn't have explained why that was a bad idea. It's the equivalent of a Christian having no idea what the differences between Catholic and Protestant are and which one he is.
He was raised in a homophobic household and he was super fucking gay. Gayer than a rainbow cloud that rains glitter. And we should absolutely have a conversation about the relationship between homophobia and Islam culturally because it's probably not a coincidence that his homophobic father was from Afghanistan. But he didn't murder suicide because he was a "good" Muslim, he murder suicided because he was a self hating homosexual American. It wasn't the Muslim stereotype of terrorist attacks that he was following, it was the American example of offing yourself and taking down a load of innocents with you. But if that makes you uncomfortable then feel free to pin it on the religion that he didn't understand and didn't follow.
OH REALLY. Islam had nothing to do with it huh? He was following an American model? He grew up in a homophobic, pro-Taliban, Muslim household, but he hated gays because of America, huh?
Because apparently suicide bombings never happen in Islamic countries I guess. Because when he called 911, the FBI, and the local news station to pledge allegiance to Islamic terrorist groups fulfilling his bayat to Islam and jihad against the infidels.
Yes, to the left it's America's fault. America, one of the most tolerant and accepting places in the world to homosexuals. And it has nothing to do with a pro-Taliban Afghani father who came from a country and supported an organization that executes gays. No, no, it has nothing to do with Islam. How can people support the left when they think these types of things? Want to talk about ridiculous extents of self loathing, talk about the American left. Everything wrong in the world is due to America to these guys.
You'll look smarter if you take the time to read the post you're responding to before you respond.
This is a completely dismissive response with a simple statement of superiority over me with absolutely no substance.
Let me be a little more brief, what you're doing in your original post is indicting American values as largely responsible for the shooting while at the same time downplaying/dismissing the Islamic element. This is absolutely ridiculous as I've gone into great detail to explain. You should be ashamed of yourself for your comment.
He was homophobic because he was raised in a Muslim household. He did a murder suicide not because he was a Muslim, he was a shitty fucking Muslim (drinking, clubbing, being gay, having no idea who Al Qaeda or ISIS were (they're fighting each other yet he supports both)) but because when Americans feel angry and alienated and hate the world and themselves what they do is murder suicide. You should be proud, he's following a long tradition of Americans who do this. But of course that doesn't agree with your narrative so for you he was an ideologically motivated Muslim who had a clear grasp of why he was doing this and how the United States would be defeated if only he could kill enough of their gays.
I'm not blaming Christianity, the NRA or anything else you seem to think I am. Nor do I hate America. All I'm saying is that this guy was an objectively shitty Muslim, he didn't follow the things you have to do to be a Muslim and he had no fucking clue about the groups he swore allegiance to (again, two of them are currently fighting each other in Syria). That is objectively true. It is also true that Americans, almost alone of the people of the world, respond to feelings of self hate and alienation by shooting up their surroundings and then themselves. Cinemas, churches, schools, universities, there is a long, long history of it that predates Islamic terrorism and has continued since the rise of Islamic terrorism.
So again, my argument is that his homophobic Muslim father raised him to hate gays and therefore himself and his American culture raised him to respond to this situation by shooting shit up. Because fundie Muslims hate gays and self hating Americans shoot shit up. But you'd know all this if you'd taken the time to read my first post and that's why you merited nothing more than a dismissive response because I am entirely certain of my own superiority over you. Hell, I wrote
And we should absolutely have a conversation about the relationship between homophobia and Islam culturally because it's probably not a coincidence that his homophobic father was from Afghanistan.
Pinning his homophobia firmly on Islam and you read
he hated gays because of America, Islam had nothing to do with it
which was the literal opposite of what I wrote
Which would be why I was so dismissive of your intelligence and told you that you'd appear smarter if you'd read the post before getting really angry and making yourself look like an idiot. I was dismissive of you because you deserved to be dismissed. If people treat you like you're an idiot, maybe reflect on that and ask where they're getting that idea from.
I think the murder suicide aspect isn't necessarily something American to do, rather it might be somehting a certain subset of mental cases just act upon as they see this as their only way out. They don't know how to deal with their own self loathing and try to destroy as much of the physical embodiment of their beliefs/selves as possible. The suicidal part may or may not be deliberate though, I'm not sure how clearly you can think once you decide to go rampaging, or even if the decision to go rampaging is a completely "conscious" act. I think it might just be a completete mental breakdown where you're just not able to make sense of anything but the one driving factor that's completely consumed you: (self)hate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525 This is an example why I think it's not something American to do, per se (even though there wasn't any shooting involved, so I would agree that the shooting aspect in these sort of actions are American), but is something that is innate to a very small subset of mentally unstable/broken people.
On June 19 2016 10:31 Uldridge wrote: I think the murder suicide aspect isn't necessarily something American to do, rather it might be somehting a certain subset of mental cases just act upon as they see this as their only way out. They don't know how to deal with their own self loathing and try to destroy as much of the physical embodiment of their beliefs/selves as possible. The suicidal part may or may not be deliberate though, I'm not sure how clearly you can think once you decide to go rampaging, or even if the decision to go rampaging is a completely "conscious" act. I think it might just be a completete mental breakdown where you're just not able to make sense of anything but the one driving factor that's completely consumed you: (self)hate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525 This is an example why I think it's not something American to do, per se (even though there wasn't any shooting involved, so I would agree that the shooting aspect in these sort of actions are American), but is something that is innate to a very small subset of mentally unstable/broken people.
We more or less agree. I said almost alone of the people of the world Americans shoot up their surroundings and then themselves when they get depressed. Obviously not all Americans do it and not all people who do it are American but we seem to agree it's an American thing.
On June 19 2016 02:00 KwarK wrote: This guy was a shitty fucking Muslim with no idea what the hell was going on. Hell, he pledged allegiance to both Sunni and Shia groups at war with each other and probably couldn't have explained why that was a bad idea. It's the equivalent of a Christian having no idea what the differences between Catholic and Protestant are and which one he is.
He was raised in a homophobic household and he was super fucking gay. Gayer than a rainbow cloud that rains glitter. And we should absolutely have a conversation about the relationship between homophobia and Islam culturally because it's probably not a coincidence that his homophobic father was from Afghanistan. But he didn't murder suicide because he was a "good" Muslim, he murder suicided because he was a self hating homosexual American. It wasn't the Muslim stereotype of terrorist attacks that he was following, it was the American example of offing yourself and taking down a load of innocents with you. But if that makes you uncomfortable then feel free to pin it on the religion that he didn't understand and didn't follow.
OH REALLY. Islam had nothing to do with it huh? He was following an American model? He grew up in a homophobic, pro-Taliban, Muslim household, but he hated gays because of America, huh?
Because apparently suicide bombings never happen in Islamic countries I guess. Because when he called 911, the FBI, and the local news station to pledge allegiance to Islamic terrorist groups fulfilling his bayat to Islam and jihad against the infidels.
Yes, to the left it's America's fault. America, one of the most tolerant and accepting places in the world to homosexuals. And it has nothing to do with a pro-Taliban Afghani father who came from a country and supported an organization that executes gays. No, no, it has nothing to do with Islam. How can people support the left when they think these types of things? Want to talk about ridiculous extents of self loathing, talk about the American left. Everything wrong in the world is due to America to these guys.
You'll look smarter if you take the time to read the post you're responding to before you respond.
This is a completely dismissive response with a simple statement of superiority over me with absolutely no substance.
Let me be a little more brief, what you're doing in your original post is indicting American values as largely responsible for the shooting while at the same time downplaying/dismissing the Islamic element. This is absolutely ridiculous as I've gone into great detail to explain. You should be ashamed of yourself for your comment.
He was homophobic because he was raised in a Muslim household. He did a murder suicide not because he was a Muslim, he was a shitty fucking Muslim (drinking, clubbing, being gay, having no idea who Al Qaeda or ISIS were (they're fighting each other yet he supports both)) but because when Americans feel angry and alienated and hate the world and themselves what they do is murder suicide. You should be proud, he's following a long tradition of Americans who do this. But of course that doesn't agree with your narrative so for you he was an ideologically motivated Muslim who had a clear grasp of why he was doing this and how the United States would be defeated if only he could kill enough of their gays.
I'm not blaming Christianity, the NRA or anything else you seem to think I am. Nor do I hate America. All I'm saying is that this guy was an objectively shitty Muslim, he didn't follow the things you have to do to be a Muslim and he had no fucking clue about the groups he swore allegiance to (again, two of them are currently fighting each other in Syria). That is objectively true. It is also true that Americans, almost alone of the people of the world, respond to feelings of self hate and alienation by shooting up their surroundings and then themselves. Cinemas, churches, schools, universities, there is a long, long history of it that predates Islamic terrorism and has continued since the rise of Islamic terrorism.
So again, my argument is that his homophobic Muslim father raised him to hate gays and therefore himself and his American culture raised him to respond to this situation by shooting shit up. Because fundie Muslims hate gays and self hating Americans shoot shit up. But you'd know all this if you'd taken the time to read my first post and that's why you merited nothing more than a dismissive response because I am entirely certain of my own superiority over you. Hell, I wrote
And we should absolutely have a conversation about the relationship between homophobia and Islam culturally because it's probably not a coincidence that his homophobic father was from Afghanistan.
Pinning his homophobia firmly on Islam and you read
he hated gays because of America, Islam had nothing to do with it
which was the literal opposite of what I wrote
Which would be why I was so dismissive of your intelligence and told you that you'd appear smarter if you'd read the post before getting really angry and making yourself look like an idiot. I was dismissive of you because you deserved to be dismissed. If people treat you like you're an idiot, maybe reflect on that and ask where they're getting that idea from.
My apologies. I'm a little up tight seeing posts on facebook, here, and all over blatantly blaming America for radicalizing Mateen to hate homosexuals and downplaying Islam. I must've only skimmed your post.
America isn't the only country have mass shootings and it hasn't been "common" until relatively recently. Off the top of my head, the first mainstream publicized instance of a mass shooting I can remember is when the infamous mail man went 'postal' and shot up his post office in the early 90's. The first instance of radical Islamic terrorism against the west, that I can think of, was the Iran hostage crisis in the last 70's under Carter. While I'm sure you can likely find instances of terrorism perpetrated against Israel earlier and mass shootings taking place earlier. The fact of the matter is, people going psycho isn't a uniquely American phenomenon. And neither is suicide bombings in the Islamic world. If Mateen was born anywhere else on the planet he would've still been hateful, violent, and finding a way to kill infidels. Perhaps in the Middle Eastern Muslim world you can find legal ways to kill infidels.
On June 19 2016 02:00 KwarK wrote: This guy was a shitty fucking Muslim with no idea what the hell was going on. Hell, he pledged allegiance to both Sunni and Shia groups at war with each other and probably couldn't have explained why that was a bad idea. It's the equivalent of a Christian having no idea what the differences between Catholic and Protestant are and which one he is.
He was raised in a homophobic household and he was super fucking gay. Gayer than a rainbow cloud that rains glitter. And we should absolutely have a conversation about the relationship between homophobia and Islam culturally because it's probably not a coincidence that his homophobic father was from Afghanistan. But he didn't murder suicide because he was a "good" Muslim, he murder suicided because he was a self hating homosexual American. It wasn't the Muslim stereotype of terrorist attacks that he was following, it was the American example of offing yourself and taking down a load of innocents with you. But if that makes you uncomfortable then feel free to pin it on the religion that he didn't understand and didn't follow.
OH REALLY. Islam had nothing to do with it huh? He was following an American model? He grew up in a homophobic, pro-Taliban, Muslim household, but he hated gays because of America, huh?
Because apparently suicide bombings never happen in Islamic countries I guess. Because when he called 911, the FBI, and the local news station to pledge allegiance to Islamic terrorist groups fulfilling his bayat to Islam and jihad against the infidels.
Yes, to the left it's America's fault. America, one of the most tolerant and accepting places in the world to homosexuals. And it has nothing to do with a pro-Taliban Afghani father who came from a country and supported an organization that executes gays. No, no, it has nothing to do with Islam. How can people support the left when they think these types of things? Want to talk about ridiculous extents of self loathing, talk about the American left. Everything wrong in the world is due to America to these guys.
You'll look smarter if you take the time to read the post you're responding to before you respond.
This is a completely dismissive response with a simple statement of superiority over me with absolutely no substance.
Let me be a little more brief, what you're doing in your original post is indicting American values as largely responsible for the shooting while at the same time downplaying/dismissing the Islamic element. This is absolutely ridiculous as I've gone into great detail to explain. You should be ashamed of yourself for your comment.
He was homophobic because he was raised in a Muslim household. He did a murder suicide not because he was a Muslim, he was a shitty fucking Muslim (drinking, clubbing, being gay, having no idea who Al Qaeda or ISIS were (they're fighting each other yet he supports both)) but because when Americans feel angry and alienated and hate the world and themselves what they do is murder suicide. You should be proud, he's following a long tradition of Americans who do this. But of course that doesn't agree with your narrative so for you he was an ideologically motivated Muslim who had a clear grasp of why he was doing this and how the United States would be defeated if only he could kill enough of their gays.
I'm not blaming Christianity, the NRA or anything else you seem to think I am. Nor do I hate America. All I'm saying is that this guy was an objectively shitty Muslim, he didn't follow the things you have to do to be a Muslim and he had no fucking clue about the groups he swore allegiance to (again, two of them are currently fighting each other in Syria). That is objectively true. It is also true that Americans, almost alone of the people of the world, respond to feelings of self hate and alienation by shooting up their surroundings and then themselves. Cinemas, churches, schools, universities, there is a long, long history of it that predates Islamic terrorism and has continued since the rise of Islamic terrorism.
So again, my argument is that his homophobic Muslim father raised him to hate gays and therefore himself and his American culture raised him to respond to this situation by shooting shit up. Because fundie Muslims hate gays and self hating Americans shoot shit up. But you'd know all this if you'd taken the time to read my first post and that's why you merited nothing more than a dismissive response because I am entirely certain of my own superiority over you. Hell, I wrote
And we should absolutely have a conversation about the relationship between homophobia and Islam culturally because it's probably not a coincidence that his homophobic father was from Afghanistan.
Pinning his homophobia firmly on Islam and you read
he hated gays because of America, Islam had nothing to do with it
which was the literal opposite of what I wrote
Which would be why I was so dismissive of your intelligence and told you that you'd appear smarter if you'd read the post before getting really angry and making yourself look like an idiot. I was dismissive of you because you deserved to be dismissed. If people treat you like you're an idiot, maybe reflect on that and ask where they're getting that idea from.
My apologies. I'm a little up tight seeing posts on facebook, here, and all over blatantly blaming America for radicalizing Mateen to hate homosexuals and downplaying Islam. I must've only skimmed your post.
America isn't the only country have mass shootings and it hasn't been "common" until relatively recently. Off the top of my head, the first mainstream publicized instance of a mass shooting I can remember is when the infamous mail man went 'postal' and shot up his post office in the early 90's. The first instance of radical Islamic terrorism against the west, that I can think of, was the Iran hostage crisis in the last 70's under Carter. While I'm sure you can likely find instances of terrorism perpetrated against Israel earlier and mass shootings taking place earlier. The fact of the matter is, people going psycho isn't a uniquely American phenomenon. And neither is suicide bombings in the Islamic world. If Mateen was born anywhere else on the planet he would've still been hateful, violent, and finding a way to kill infidels. Perhaps in the Middle Eastern Muslim world you can find legal ways to kill infidels.
Wow, not used to that kind of reaction on an internet forum. Thank you. Sincerely. I'll try to be less of a dick in future because of you.
I think the idea that homophobia in America is worse than other places is silly. There is a lot of homophobia in America still but he'd have been even more of a self hating homosexual had he been born in, say, Saudi Arabia. Furthermore had he not had the background he had I suspect he would probably have been much better adjusted. All hypothetical of course but I'd argue that if he'd been born in a tolerant, liberal family this may not have happened.
However, even with that said, we cannot rule out the America aspect. There are reasons that he felt the way he did and then there are reasons that he did what he did. Islamic homophobia explains why he was a nutjob but not why he then decided to shoot shit up. I'm not saying America necessarily needs to change any laws or cultural aspects, if nothing happened after Sandy Hook then the American people have decided that the occasional massacre is worth the 2nd amendment and so be it. What I will say is that in many other nations he may have just offed himself quietly. Again, this is all conjecture but I think it is undeniable that America has a unique cultural problem with mass murder suicide shooters that goes far beyond Islamic extremism. He wasn't an immigrant, he was born here in the US and while Islam explains the hate it doesn't explain the actions that were born of that hate.
After 9/11 nobody blamed planes, we blamed Al Qaeda, but we still talked about how to change air travel so it couldn't happen again. Nobody isn't blaming Mateen, he pulled the trigger, but that doesn't mean we have to ignore other relevant factors.
People aren't perfect, there're omophobics, schizofrenics, terrorists, simply idiots. So "back in the days" some wise men decided there should be something able to prevent the individual will of an idiot to make disaster, and law has come, to prevent idiots having guns (but not in America). Some time later, someone decided that having personal weapons wasn't the best idea to give protection to the population, so someone invented police, so people couldn't claim to "need" a weapon (but not in America). Fellows Americans, you can either climb down the throne and learn from European countries how to regulate weapons, or just continue to be the joke of western civilization and help Obama to write the next speech. He looked reeeally helpless, like "what the fu** they need to understand?" You cannot blame islam when who armed that guy was you. An idiot is like a child, there should be someone around to make sure he doesn't hurt himself or the others, it's called governement. But what about a governement, parents of an idiot child, who give him a flamethrower? I know who I will blame, the child or the parents, i'm pretty sure. Because blaming the single child with 300million brothers isn't bringing the problem a single step ahead.
On June 19 2016 02:00 KwarK wrote: This guy was a shitty fucking Muslim with no idea what the hell was going on. Hell, he pledged allegiance to both Sunni and Shia groups at war with each other and probably couldn't have explained why that was a bad idea. It's the equivalent of a Christian having no idea what the differences between Catholic and Protestant are and which one he is.
He was raised in a homophobic household and he was super fucking gay. Gayer than a rainbow cloud that rains glitter. And we should absolutely have a conversation about the relationship between homophobia and Islam culturally because it's probably not a coincidence that his homophobic father was from Afghanistan. But he didn't murder suicide because he was a "good" Muslim, he murder suicided because he was a self hating homosexual American. It wasn't the Muslim stereotype of terrorist attacks that he was following, it was the American example of offing yourself and taking down a load of innocents with you. But if that makes you uncomfortable then feel free to pin it on the religion that he didn't understand and didn't follow.
Don't want to respond to everything you said, but the notion that he didn't understand the faith fully doesn't matter at all tbh. Did all the SS Soldiers fully understand Hitlers Racial Beliefs? Probably not. He got the idea that Homosexuals need to die from his religion. Regardless of how good of a Muslim he was or wasn't. This is entirely on religion and I say this as someone who thinks strong gun control is good. But what good did gun control do in Paris, January and November 2015?
He was dedicated to killing gays. He would have found a way to get weapons or explosives anyways. At the end of the day he was inspired by his religion and this is obviously a systemic issue. Out of 57 Muslim Countries, homosexuality is only legal in 20. And in many it is still punishable by death.
On June 19 2016 16:18 InVerno wrote: People aren't perfect, there're omophobics, schizofrenics, terrorists, simply idiots. So "back in the days" some wise men decided there should be something able to prevent the individual will of an idiot to make disaster, and law has come, to prevent idiots having guns (but not in America). Some time later, someone decided that having personal weapons wasn't the best idea to give protection to the population, so someone invented police, so people couldn't claim to "need" a weapon (but not in America). Fellows Americans, you can either climb down the throne and learn from European countries how to regulate weapons, or just continue to be the joke of western civilization and help Obama to write the next speech. He looked reeeally helpless, like "what the fu** they need to understand?" You cannot blame islam when who armed that guy was you. An idiot is like a child, there should be someone around to make sure he doesn't hurt himself or the others, it's called governement. But what about a governement, parents of an idiot child, who give him a flamethrower? I know who I will blame, the child or the parents, i'm pretty sure. Because blaming the single child with 300million brothers isn't bringing the problem a single step ahead.
I also have to ask you, what good did gun control do in Paris? You are obscuring the problem here. This isn't a regular citizen who lost his mind like the one who shot Christina Grimme. This is someone who did it out of his conviction. The problem is Islam here, not gun control.
Gun control did a lot in Paris. Just this week a lone jihadist suicide murderer in Paris apparently couldn't get a gun, so he had to make due with a knife. Death count: 2 vs 49 last week in Orlando.
On June 19 2016 02:00 KwarK wrote: This guy was a shitty fucking Muslim with no idea what the hell was going on. Hell, he pledged allegiance to both Sunni and Shia groups at war with each other and probably couldn't have explained why that was a bad idea. It's the equivalent of a Christian having no idea what the differences between Catholic and Protestant are and which one he is.
He was raised in a homophobic household and he was super fucking gay. Gayer than a rainbow cloud that rains glitter. And we should absolutely have a conversation about the relationship between homophobia and Islam culturally because it's probably not a coincidence that his homophobic father was from Afghanistan. But he didn't murder suicide because he was a "good" Muslim, he murder suicided because he was a self hating homosexual American. It wasn't the Muslim stereotype of terrorist attacks that he was following, it was the American example of offing yourself and taking down a load of innocents with you. But if that makes you uncomfortable then feel free to pin it on the religion that he didn't understand and didn't follow.
Don't want to respond to everything you said, but the notion that he didn't understand the faith fully doesn't matter at all tbh. Did all the SS Soldiers fully understand Hitlers Racial Beliefs? Probably not.
It makes him an extremely poor spokesman for Islam which is what many people are trying to claim he is. You wouldn't learn about the Second World War from someone who thought the USSR and the Nazis were basically the same group because both have socialist in the name. He was that level of stupid.
As investigators probe the background of Omar Mateen, whose attack on Pulse nightclub in Orlando left 49 people dead, they say he bore few warning signs of radicalization.
Mateen had allegedly pledged allegiance to ISIS in a 911 call during the attack, as The Two-Way has reported. But as further details emerge about the shooter, investigators say Mateen's profile is more like that of a "typical mass shooter" than an individual radicalized by ISIS, as NPR's Dina Temple-Raston reports.
In fact, intelligence officials and investigators say they're "becoming increasingly convinced that the motive for this attack had very little — or maybe nothing — to do with ISIS."
On June 19 2016 02:00 KwarK wrote: This guy was a shitty fucking Muslim with no idea what the hell was going on. Hell, he pledged allegiance to both Sunni and Shia groups at war with each other and probably couldn't have explained why that was a bad idea. It's the equivalent of a Christian having no idea what the differences between Catholic and Protestant are and which one he is.
He was raised in a homophobic household and he was super fucking gay. Gayer than a rainbow cloud that rains glitter. And we should absolutely have a conversation about the relationship between homophobia and Islam culturally because it's probably not a coincidence that his homophobic father was from Afghanistan. But he didn't murder suicide because he was a "good" Muslim, he murder suicided because he was a self hating homosexual American. It wasn't the Muslim stereotype of terrorist attacks that he was following, it was the American example of offing yourself and taking down a load of innocents with you. But if that makes you uncomfortable then feel free to pin it on the religion that he didn't understand and didn't follow.
Don't want to respond to everything you said, but the notion that he didn't understand the faith fully doesn't matter at all tbh. Did all the SS Soldiers fully understand Hitlers Racial Beliefs? Probably not.
It makes him an extremely poor spokesman for Islam which is what many people are trying to claim he is. You wouldn't learn about the Second World War from someone who thought the USSR and the Nazis were basically the same group because both have socialist in the name. He was that level of stupid.
Sure he didn't know shit about the situation in the middle-east like a standard American (lol), but calling murder suicide an American culture thing is.. what? I'm not saying it's a muslim culture thing... but when you cover that shit on the news it's probably the same as covering suicide on the news - gives depressed people some kind of approval or something to make them more likely to do it themselves.
On June 19 2016 02:00 KwarK wrote: This guy was a shitty fucking Muslim with no idea what the hell was going on. Hell, he pledged allegiance to both Sunni and Shia groups at war with each other and probably couldn't have explained why that was a bad idea. It's the equivalent of a Christian having no idea what the differences between Catholic and Protestant are and which one he is.
He was raised in a homophobic household and he was super fucking gay. Gayer than a rainbow cloud that rains glitter. And we should absolutely have a conversation about the relationship between homophobia and Islam culturally because it's probably not a coincidence that his homophobic father was from Afghanistan. But he didn't murder suicide because he was a "good" Muslim, he murder suicided because he was a self hating homosexual American. It wasn't the Muslim stereotype of terrorist attacks that he was following, it was the American example of offing yourself and taking down a load of innocents with you. But if that makes you uncomfortable then feel free to pin it on the religion that he didn't understand and didn't follow.
OH REALLY. Islam had nothing to do with it huh? He was following an American model? He grew up in a homophobic, pro-Taliban, Muslim household, but he hated gays because of America, huh?
Because apparently suicide bombings never happen in Islamic countries I guess. Because when he called 911, the FBI, and the local news station to pledge allegiance to Islamic terrorist groups fulfilling his bayat to Islam and jihad against the infidels.
Yes, to the left it's America's fault. America, one of the most tolerant and accepting places in the world to homosexuals. And it has nothing to do with a pro-Taliban Afghani father who came from a country and supported an organization that executes gays. No, no, it has nothing to do with Islam. How can people support the left when they think these types of things? Want to talk about ridiculous extents of self loathing, talk about the American left. Everything wrong in the world is due to America to these guys.
You'll look smarter if you take the time to read the post you're responding to before you respond.
This is a completely dismissive response with a simple statement of superiority over me with absolutely no substance.
Let me be a little more brief, what you're doing in your original post is indicting American values as largely responsible for the shooting while at the same time downplaying/dismissing the Islamic element. This is absolutely ridiculous as I've gone into great detail to explain. You should be ashamed of yourself for your comment.
He was homophobic because he was raised in a Muslim household. He did a murder suicide not because he was a Muslim, he was a shitty fucking Muslim (drinking, clubbing, being gay, having no idea who Al Qaeda or ISIS were (they're fighting each other yet he supports both)) but because when Americans feel angry and alienated and hate the world and themselves what they do is murder suicide. You should be proud, he's following a long tradition of Americans who do this. But of course that doesn't agree with your narrative so for you he was an ideologically motivated Muslim who had a clear grasp of why he was doing this and how the United States would be defeated if only he could kill enough of their gays.
I'm not blaming Christianity, the NRA or anything else you seem to think I am. Nor do I hate America. All I'm saying is that this guy was an objectively shitty Muslim, he didn't follow the things you have to do to be a Muslim and he had no fucking clue about the groups he swore allegiance to (again, two of them are currently fighting each other in Syria). That is objectively true. It is also true that Americans, almost alone of the people of the world, respond to feelings of self hate and alienation by shooting up their surroundings and then themselves. Cinemas, churches, schools, universities, there is a long, long history of it that predates Islamic terrorism and has continued since the rise of Islamic terrorism.
So again, my argument is that his homophobic Muslim father raised him to hate gays and therefore himself and his American culture raised him to respond to this situation by shooting shit up. Because fundie Muslims hate gays and self hating Americans shoot shit up. But you'd know all this if you'd taken the time to read my first post and that's why you merited nothing more than a dismissive response because I am entirely certain of my own superiority over you. Hell, I wrote
And we should absolutely have a conversation about the relationship between homophobia and Islam culturally because it's probably not a coincidence that his homophobic father was from Afghanistan.
Pinning his homophobia firmly on Islam and you read
he hated gays because of America, Islam had nothing to do with it
which was the literal opposite of what I wrote
Which would be why I was so dismissive of your intelligence and told you that you'd appear smarter if you'd read the post before getting really angry and making yourself look like an idiot. I was dismissive of you because you deserved to be dismissed. If people treat you like you're an idiot, maybe reflect on that and ask where they're getting that idea from.
My apologies. I'm a little up tight seeing posts on facebook, here, and all over blatantly blaming America for radicalizing Mateen to hate homosexuals and downplaying Islam. I must've only skimmed your post.
America isn't the only country have mass shootings and it hasn't been "common" until relatively recently. Off the top of my head, the first mainstream publicized instance of a mass shooting I can remember is when the infamous mail man went 'postal' and shot up his post office in the early 90's. The first instance of radical Islamic terrorism against the west, that I can think of, was the Iran hostage crisis in the last 70's under Carter. While I'm sure you can likely find instances of terrorism perpetrated against Israel earlier and mass shootings taking place earlier. The fact of the matter is, people going psycho isn't a uniquely American phenomenon. And neither is suicide bombings in the Islamic world. If Mateen was born anywhere else on the planet he would've still been hateful, violent, and finding a way to kill infidels. Perhaps in the Middle Eastern Muslim world you can find legal ways to kill infidels.
Wow, not used to that kind of reaction on an internet forum. Thank you. Sincerely. I'll try to be less of a dick in future because of you.
I think the idea that homophobia in America is worse than other places is silly. There is a lot of homophobia in America still but he'd have been even more of a self hating homosexual had he been born in, say, Saudi Arabia. Furthermore had he not had the background he had I suspect he would probably have been much better adjusted. All hypothetical of course but I'd argue that if he'd been born in a tolerant, liberal family this may not have happened.
However, even with that said, we cannot rule out the America aspect. There are reasons that he felt the way he did and then there are reasons that he did what he did. Islamic homophobia explains why he was a nutjob but not why he then decided to shoot shit up. I'm not saying America necessarily needs to change any laws or cultural aspects, if nothing happened after Sandy Hook then the American people have decided that the occasional massacre is worth the 2nd amendment and so be it. What I will say is that in many other nations he may have just offed himself quietly. Again, this is all conjecture but I think it is undeniable that America has a unique cultural problem with mass murder suicide shooters that goes far beyond Islamic extremism.
There's a lot of homophobia in the USA in comparison to what? In comparison to 0 people hating gays? The USA is easily one of, if not, the most tolerant and accepting society on Earth.
I don't think if Mateen was born in a specifically liberal family it would make a difference. By stating 'tolerant liberal' you make a distinction that a 'tolerant conservative' family would've made no difference. I disagree, the only thing that matters is how tolerant they are.
However, even with that said, we cannot rule out the America aspect.
There you go again. America isn't the only place in the world where massacres or murder suicides happen. In fact, it was originally thought Mateen was wearing a suicide vest in the club. Gun control isn't an effective way to stop massacres from happening. If they don't use guns they'll use bombs. In fact, taking guns away from law abiding citizens makes them less safe against the criminals who aren't obligated to follow the law. France has heavy gun regulation and an assault weapon ban, but that didn't stop the Paris shooting.
The only effective way I've ever heard of to stop massacres from happening is mental health treatment.
He wasn't an immigrant, he was born here in the US and while Islam explains the hate it doesn't explain the actions that were born of that hate.
It's worth noting Muslims make up 1% of the US population and Muslims have caused 10% of the terrorist attacks against the USA since 9/11. It's worse for homegrown terrorists. Of the 28 homegrown terrorist attacks since 9/11, 10 were committed by Muslims, that's over 33%. Of the people killed from homegrown terrorist attacks 66% were killed by Muslims. So Muslims are massively over represented among those accountable for terrorist attacks on the USA. It's bizarre and ridiculous to me when people suggest this is America's fault. We have a common group of people that are vastly over represented causing terrorist attacks, citing Islamic reasons as the reason they're attacking, and they're being encouraged and radicalized by similar radical religious groups to kill people here in the USA for the same reasons they commonly kill people over in the Middle East.
It makes no sense to me when you say the violent Islamic aspect is American, when Americans don't commonly kill people for moral disagreements, but they do commonly kill people for these things in many Islamic countries. In fact, in many countries it's law to kill people for religious moral disagreements, like homosexuality.
Almost all of these radical Islamic killers in the USA cite those foreign Islamic terrorist organizations as inspirations or as being directly involved with them.
After 9/11 nobody blamed planes, we blamed Al Qaeda, but we still talked about how to change air travel so it couldn't happen again. Nobody isn't blaming Mateen, he pulled the trigger, but that doesn't mean we have to ignore other relevant factors.
The major reason terrorists have been successful thwarted at airports and planes since 9/11 is due to actionable intelligence and air marshals. Not the TSA screeners and the things they screen for. When put to the test TSA screeners failed to find weapons and explosive 95% of the time[1]. There's also no evidence that they've ever stopped a terrorist attack[2]. Some people call it security theater because it makes people FEEL like they're safe to see TSA screeners, but in reality we just gave up our rights for nothing and the less visible precautions are keeping us safe.
On June 20 2016 08:34 esdf wrote: so is this still a terrorism or hate crime case after it was found out that Omar was as gay as it gets?
Terrorism needs to have a political goal I think but for a lot of people these days they just like calling things terrorism. Personally I think it's in the dramatic guns blazing murder suicide box with a healthy dose of "fuck the gays" hate crime but he was a Muslim and he did kill a bunch of innocent people so if for you that equals terrorism then sure, terrorism.
On June 20 2016 03:40 Sonnington wrote: There's a lot of homophobia in the USA in comparison to what? In comparison to 0 people hating gays? The USA is easily one of, if not, the most tolerant and accepting society on Earth.
I think this is a little pink-glassed view of the current state of affairs in the US. There are probably places in the country where this is true - but yet, it's the very same country, where people want to deny services to gay weddings because it's against their (christian) religious views. From what I know about the US, there are simply areas that are extremely fundamentalist in their Christianity as view by European standards. And even worse - from wikipedia, I quote: "In the United States, seven state constitutions include religious tests that would effectively prevent atheists from holding public office, and in some cases being a juror/witness, though these have not generally been enforced since the early twentieth century." Yeah, there is still the second part about not generally enforced, but stuff like that would be completely unacceptable in the majority of Europe (and there is more of things like that to be found in the US). And it's really hard to me to believe that "Christianism" doesn't lend itself to homophobia.
I don't see a reason to doubt, that the religion of his parents was key in his gender oppression, but the society around isn't free if issues either.
Someone elsewhere pointed me to this image; it seemed like it might be of interest to some, apologies if it's been posted, I haven't caugth up on this thread.
it shows a guy, who doesn't look notably armed, and he walks around a bit to show it; but then he pulls everything out, he has some sort of rifle and a handgun, and several extra clips for each of them. It's interesting to see how much weaponry could be hidden (at least from people who don't know how to spot hidden weapons, which I don't) http://9gag.com/gag/aXwb1AD
On June 19 2016 02:00 KwarK wrote: This guy was a shitty fucking Muslim with no idea what the hell was going on. Hell, he pledged allegiance to both Sunni and Shia groups at war with each other and probably couldn't have explained why that was a bad idea. It's the equivalent of a Christian having no idea what the differences between Catholic and Protestant are and which one he is.
He was raised in a homophobic household and he was super fucking gay. Gayer than a rainbow cloud that rains glitter. And we should absolutely have a conversation about the relationship between homophobia and Islam culturally because it's probably not a coincidence that his homophobic father was from Afghanistan. But he didn't murder suicide because he was a "good" Muslim, he murder suicided because he was a self hating homosexual American. It wasn't the Muslim stereotype of terrorist attacks that he was following, it was the American example of offing yourself and taking down a load of innocents with you. But if that makes you uncomfortable then feel free to pin it on the religion that he didn't understand and didn't follow.
OH REALLY. Islam had nothing to do with it huh? He was following an American model? He grew up in a homophobic, pro-Taliban, Muslim household, but he hated gays because of America, huh?
Because apparently suicide bombings never happen in Islamic countries I guess. Because when he called 911, the FBI, and the local news station to pledge allegiance to Islamic terrorist groups fulfilling his bayat to Islam and jihad against the infidels.
Yes, to the left it's America's fault. America, one of the most tolerant and accepting places in the world to homosexuals. And it has nothing to do with a pro-Taliban Afghani father who came from a country and supported an organization that executes gays. No, no, it has nothing to do with Islam. How can people support the left when they think these types of things? Want to talk about ridiculous extents of self loathing, talk about the American left. Everything wrong in the world is due to America to these guys.
You'll look smarter if you take the time to read the post you're responding to before you respond.
This is a completely dismissive response with a simple statement of superiority over me with absolutely no substance.
Let me be a little more brief, what you're doing in your original post is indicting American values as largely responsible for the shooting while at the same time downplaying/dismissing the Islamic element. This is absolutely ridiculous as I've gone into great detail to explain. You should be ashamed of yourself for your comment.
He was homophobic because he was raised in a Muslim household. He did a murder suicide not because he was a Muslim, he was a shitty fucking Muslim (drinking, clubbing, being gay, having no idea who Al Qaeda or ISIS were (they're fighting each other yet he supports both)) but because when Americans feel angry and alienated and hate the world and themselves what they do is murder suicide. You should be proud, he's following a long tradition of Americans who do this. But of course that doesn't agree with your narrative so for you he was an ideologically motivated Muslim who had a clear grasp of why he was doing this and how the United States would be defeated if only he could kill enough of their gays.
I'm not blaming Christianity, the NRA or anything else you seem to think I am. Nor do I hate America. All I'm saying is that this guy was an objectively shitty Muslim, he didn't follow the things you have to do to be a Muslim and he had no fucking clue about the groups he swore allegiance to (again, two of them are currently fighting each other in Syria). That is objectively true. It is also true that Americans, almost alone of the people of the world, respond to feelings of self hate and alienation by shooting up their surroundings and then themselves. Cinemas, churches, schools, universities, there is a long, long history of it that predates Islamic terrorism and has continued since the rise of Islamic terrorism.
So again, my argument is that his homophobic Muslim father raised him to hate gays and therefore himself and his American culture raised him to respond to this situation by shooting shit up. Because fundie Muslims hate gays and self hating Americans shoot shit up. But you'd know all this if you'd taken the time to read my first post and that's why you merited nothing more than a dismissive response because I am entirely certain of my own superiority over you. Hell, I wrote
And we should absolutely have a conversation about the relationship between homophobia and Islam culturally because it's probably not a coincidence that his homophobic father was from Afghanistan.
Pinning his homophobia firmly on Islam and you read
he hated gays because of America, Islam had nothing to do with it
which was the literal opposite of what I wrote
Which would be why I was so dismissive of your intelligence and told you that you'd appear smarter if you'd read the post before getting really angry and making yourself look like an idiot. I was dismissive of you because you deserved to be dismissed. If people treat you like you're an idiot, maybe reflect on that and ask where they're getting that idea from.
My apologies. I'm a little up tight seeing posts on facebook, here, and all over blatantly blaming America for radicalizing Mateen to hate homosexuals and downplaying Islam. I must've only skimmed your post.
America isn't the only country have mass shootings and it hasn't been "common" until relatively recently. Off the top of my head, the first mainstream publicized instance of a mass shooting I can remember is when the infamous mail man went 'postal' and shot up his post office in the early 90's. The first instance of radical Islamic terrorism against the west, that I can think of, was the Iran hostage crisis in the last 70's under Carter. While I'm sure you can likely find instances of terrorism perpetrated against Israel earlier and mass shootings taking place earlier. The fact of the matter is, people going psycho isn't a uniquely American phenomenon. And neither is suicide bombings in the Islamic world. If Mateen was born anywhere else on the planet he would've still been hateful, violent, and finding a way to kill infidels. Perhaps in the Middle Eastern Muslim world you can find legal ways to kill infidels.
Wow, not used to that kind of reaction on an internet forum. Thank you. Sincerely. I'll try to be less of a dick in future because of you.
I think the idea that homophobia in America is worse than other places is silly. There is a lot of homophobia in America still but he'd have been even more of a self hating homosexual had he been born in, say, Saudi Arabia. Furthermore had he not had the background he had I suspect he would probably have been much better adjusted. All hypothetical of course but I'd argue that if he'd been born in a tolerant, liberal family this may not have happened.
However, even with that said, we cannot rule out the America aspect. There are reasons that he felt the way he did and then there are reasons that he did what he did. Islamic homophobia explains why he was a nutjob but not why he then decided to shoot shit up. I'm not saying America necessarily needs to change any laws or cultural aspects, if nothing happened after Sandy Hook then the American people have decided that the occasional massacre is worth the 2nd amendment and so be it. What I will say is that in many other nations he may have just offed himself quietly. Again, this is all conjecture but I think it is undeniable that America has a unique cultural problem with mass murder suicide shooters that goes far beyond Islamic extremism.
There's a lot of homophobia in the USA in comparison to what? In comparison to 0 people hating gays? The USA is easily one of, if not, the most tolerant and accepting society on Earth.
I don't think if Mateen was born in a specifically liberal family it would make a difference. By stating 'tolerant liberal' you make a distinction that a 'tolerant conservative' family would've made no difference. I disagree, the only thing that matters is how tolerant they are.
However, even with that said, we cannot rule out the America aspect.
There you go again. America isn't the only place in the world where massacres or murder suicides happen. In fact, it was originally thought Mateen was wearing a suicide vest in the club. Gun control isn't an effective way to stop massacres from happening. If they don't use guns they'll use bombs. In fact, taking guns away from law abiding citizens makes them less safe against the criminals who aren't obligated to follow the law. France has heavy gun regulation and an assault weapon ban, but that didn't stop the Paris shooting.
The only effective way I've ever heard of to stop massacres from happening is mental health treatment.
He wasn't an immigrant, he was born here in the US and while Islam explains the hate it doesn't explain the actions that were born of that hate.
It's worth noting Muslims make up 1% of the US population and Muslims have caused 10% of the terrorist attacks against the USA since 9/11. It's worse for homegrown terrorists. Of the 28 homegrown terrorist attacks since 9/11, 10 were committed by Muslims, that's over 33%. Of the people killed from homegrown terrorist attacks 66% were killed by Muslims. So Muslims are massively over represented among those accountable for terrorist attacks on the USA. It's bizarre and ridiculous to me when people suggest this is America's fault. We have a common group of people that are vastly over represented causing terrorist attacks, citing Islamic reasons as the reason they're attacking, and they're being encouraged and radicalized by similar radical religious groups to kill people here in the USA for the same reasons they commonly kill people over in the Middle East.
It makes no sense to me when you say the violent Islamic aspect is American, when Americans don't commonly kill people for moral disagreements, but they do commonly kill people for these things in many Islamic countries. In fact, in many countries it's law to kill people for religious moral disagreements, like homosexuality.
Almost all of these radical Islamic killers in the USA cite those foreign Islamic terrorist organizations as inspirations or as being directly involved with them.
After 9/11 nobody blamed planes, we blamed Al Qaeda, but we still talked about how to change air travel so it couldn't happen again. Nobody isn't blaming Mateen, he pulled the trigger, but that doesn't mean we have to ignore other relevant factors.
The major reason terrorists have been successful thwarted at airports and planes since 9/11 is due to actionable intelligence and air marshals. Not the TSA screeners and the things they screen for. When put to the test TSA screeners failed to find weapons and explosive 95% of the time[1]. There's also no evidence that they've ever stopped a terrorist attack[2]. Some people call it security theater because it makes people FEEL like they're safe to see TSA screeners, but in reality we just gave up our rights for nothing and the less visible precautions are keeping us safe.
On June 20 2016 03:40 Sonnington wrote: There's a lot of homophobia in the USA in comparison to what? In comparison to 0 people hating gays? The USA is easily one of, if not, the most tolerant and accepting society on Earth.
I think this is a little pink-glassed view of the current state of affairs in the US. There are probably places in the country where this is true - but yet, it's the very same country, where people want to deny services to gay weddings because it's against their (christian) religious views. From what I know about the US, there are simply areas that are extremely fundamentalist in their Christianity as view by European standards. And even worse - from wikipedia, I quote: "In the United States, seven state constitutions include religious tests that would effectively prevent atheists from holding public office, and in some cases being a juror/witness, though these have not generally been enforced since the early twentieth century." Yeah, there is still the second part about not generally enforced, but stuff like that would be completely unacceptable in the majority of Europe (and there is more of things like that to be found in the US). And it's really hard to me to believe that "Christianism" doesn't lend itself to homophobia.
I don't see a reason to doubt, that the religion of his parents was key in his gender oppression, but the society around isn't free if issues either.
I have to ask again, in comparison to what? In comparison to most Islamic countries in the Middle East and Africa where homosexuality is illegal and/or punishable by death?[1] In comparison to the over 90% of Muslims in most Islamic countries who feel homosexuality is immoral?[2] In comparison to Russia who has a ban on the promotion of homosexuality that's enforced. [3] In comparison to China, Korea and Indonesia where 57% to 93% of people feel homosexuality shouldn't be accepted in society? [4]
According to a Pew poll, nearly 2 out of 3 Americans believe homosexuality should be accepted in society. When you use words like -a lot- or it's accepted -in places-. You make it sound like it's the majority of Americans or the norm when nothing could be further from the truth. That's why I ask in comparison to what?
You bring up the famous bakery that didn't bake a cake for a gay couple. They got their asses sued successfully for that. They didn't get away with it. Now compare that to Syria where ISIS legally throws gays off of tall buildings to their deaths. Are there countries more tolerant to gays than the USA? Sure, but when you talk about America, you're talking about one of the biggest countries in the world with one of the largest and most culturally diverse populations in the world.
On June 20 2016 03:40 Sonnington wrote: There's a lot of homophobia in the USA in comparison to what? In comparison to 0 people hating gays? The USA is easily one of, if not, the most tolerant and accepting society on Earth.
I think this is a little pink-glassed view of the current state of affairs in the US. There are probably places in the country where this is true - but yet, it's the very same country, where people want to deny services to gay weddings because it's against their (christian) religious views. From what I know about the US, there are simply areas that are extremely fundamentalist in their Christianity as view by European standards. And even worse - from wikipedia, I quote: "In the United States, seven state constitutions include religious tests that would effectively prevent atheists from holding public office, and in some cases being a juror/witness, though these have not generally been enforced since the early twentieth century." Yeah, there is still the second part about not generally enforced, but stuff like that would be completely unacceptable in the majority of Europe (and there is more of things like that to be found in the US). And it's really hard to me to believe that "Christianism" doesn't lend itself to homophobia.
I don't see a reason to doubt, that the religion of his parents was key in his gender oppression, but the society around isn't free if issues either.
I have to ask again, in comparison to what?
In comparison to how the US treats heterosexuals of course. The idea isn't to simply treat them better than Saudi Arabia, it is for them to have the same rights and the same basic treatment as their straight brothers and sisters. And the US is far closer to that than most places and is one of the countries leading the charge towards that. But you're insane if you think that means it's close to being achieved. The benchmark for tolerant treatment of homosexuals will always be the treatment of heterosexuals.
The Pew poll just said that 1/3 of Americans do not believe that homosexuality should be accepted. This is not a complex concept. The bar for success isn't be better than the most shitty places in the world to be gay. And it still sucks to be gay in the US. It just sucks less than 20 years ago.
I would like to mention that the vast majority of Muslim Countries have really fucked up/warped views of Islam and Sharia. Sharia allows people of other faiths to live in Muslims lands. Alcohol can be produced, purchased, and sold in Muslim lands according to Sharia. Interest can be used in financial transactions by non muslims in Muslim lands. Zoroastrians (who were far more common during the birth of Islam) are allowed to have brother/sister relations in Muslim lands. People can be homosexual in Muslim lands. So when Saudi kills gays, and Qatar bans alcohol, they aren't practicing Sharia, they are imposing rules on other they themselves believe to be the golden standard. Mateen was fucked up, his dad and his views on homosexuals is fucked up. There is zero justification for murdering an innocent, regardless of sexual orientation/religion etc...
Qatar only bans alcohol sale to Muslims, as do pretty much all Arab countries except Saudi, who ban it altgether.
Really, as far as proper states go, Saudi have the crazy intepretation cornered, with all the other countries falling in somewere on a gradiant from Saudi craziness to somewhat reasonable.
On June 20 2016 03:40 Sonnington wrote: There's a lot of homophobia in the USA in comparison to what? In comparison to 0 people hating gays? The USA is easily one of, if not, the most tolerant and accepting society on Earth.
I think this is a little pink-glassed view of the current state of affairs in the US. There are probably places in the country where this is true - but yet, it's the very same country, where people want to deny services to gay weddings because it's against their (christian) religious views. From what I know about the US, there are simply areas that are extremely fundamentalist in their Christianity as view by European standards. And even worse - from wikipedia, I quote: "In the United States, seven state constitutions include religious tests that would effectively prevent atheists from holding public office, and in some cases being a juror/witness, though these have not generally been enforced since the early twentieth century." Yeah, there is still the second part about not generally enforced, but stuff like that would be completely unacceptable in the majority of Europe (and there is more of things like that to be found in the US). And it's really hard to me to believe that "Christianism" doesn't lend itself to homophobia.
I don't see a reason to doubt, that the religion of his parents was key in his gender oppression, but the society around isn't free if issues either.
I have to ask again, in comparison to what? In comparison to most Islamic countries in the Middle East and Africa where homosexuality is illegal and/or punishable by death?[1] In comparison to the over 90% of Muslims in most Islamic countries who feel homosexuality is immoral?[2] In comparison to Russia who has a ban on the promotion of homosexuality that's enforced. [3] In comparison to China, Korea and Indonesia where 57% to 93% of people feel homosexuality shouldn't be accepted in society? [4]
According to a Pew poll, nearly 2 out of 3 Americans believe homosexuality should be accepted in society. When you use words like -a lot- or it's accepted -in places-. You make it sound like it's the majority of Americans or the norm when nothing could be further from the truth. That's why I ask in comparison to what?
You bring up the famous bakery that didn't bake a cake for a gay couple. They got their asses sued successfully for that. They didn't get away with it. Now compare that to Syria where ISIS legally throws gays off of tall buildings to their deaths. Are there countries more tolerant to gays than the USA? Sure, but when you talk about America, you're talking about one of the biggest countries in the world with one of the largest and most culturally diverse populations in the world.
I still think it is okay for the balery people to not have a gay wedding at their bakery if they don't want to. Btw my sister is gay and I don't have anything against gays.
I don't think some people truly comprehend the severity of Mateen's crime. By swearing allegiance to ISIS he was guilty of treason against the United States.
On June 23 2016 19:40 Ravianna26 wrote: I don't think some people truly comprehend the severity of Mateen's crime. By swearing allegiance to ISIS he was guilty of treason against the United States.
That's literally the least bad part about his crime. Who gives a shit about treason when he slaughtered 49 people just because they were gay?
On June 23 2016 19:40 Ravianna26 wrote: I don't think some people truly comprehend the severity of Mateen's crime. By swearing allegiance to ISIS he was guilty of treason against the United States.
That's literally the least bad part about his crime. Who gives a shit about treason when he slaughtered 49 people just because they were gay?
This. Who cares if a dead man committed treason? Especially given the fact he'd apparently swear his allegiance to a toaster oven if he could and he thought it would make him edgy. All of that pales in comparison to the slaying of innocent people.
I'm fine with calling it both. Separating out how much % is which seems unnecessary for a dead man; at least for most of us. Obviously it's of some use to the FBI and people figuring out in detail countermeasures.
On June 23 2016 22:44 Incognoto wrote: So now we're fighting on whether or not this is a hate crime or a terrorist attack.
hmm
Can't we just say "both" ?
I agree. I don't see how those terms- hate crime and terrorist attack- must be mutually exclusive. I'm thinking Venn diagram with a sizable overlap, tbh.
On June 22 2016 12:50 Plansix wrote: The Pew poll just said that 1/3 of Americans do not believe that homosexuality should be accepted. This is not a complex concept. The bar for success isn't be better than the most shitty places in the world to be gay. And it still sucks to be gay in the US. It just sucks less than 20 years ago.
Yeah, it must suck so bad here for gays. They only make more money and have higher levels of education than straight people[1]. And they basically all live in the most tolerant parts of the country. We're such monsters.
So to say it sucks to be gay in America is absolutely ridiculous. The vast majority of gays have it very good. Now imagine if someone said Muslims hold fucked up values. The only response a liberal can give is that not -all- of them can. They can't source you statistics and give you specific reasons why that's not a fair assessment because the majority of Muslims practice their religion in a fucked up way and hold fucked up anti-western values.
On June 23 2016 20:59 farvacola wrote: And, as has already been said, he didn't even pledge allegiance in a coherent fashion...
You're talking about how the FBI says Mateen had pledged to several different competing groups, I'm assuming. I don't blame you for believing the way you do on this. If you look deeper into this point you'll find that Mateen pledged allegiance to ISIS and only ISIS during the shootings. The investigation on Mateen was ongoing for years and he told the FBI he was involved with other groups in that time period, but the way articles have been written about it make it seem like he said, "I pledge alegiance to ISIS and Al Qaeda." During the shooting, which he did not.
On June 20 2016 03:40 Sonnington wrote: There's a lot of homophobia in the USA in comparison to what? In comparison to 0 people hating gays? The USA is easily one of, if not, the most tolerant and accepting society on Earth.
I think this is a little pink-glassed view of the current state of affairs in the US. There are probably places in the country where this is true - but yet, it's the very same country, where people want to deny services to gay weddings because it's against their (christian) religious views. From what I know about the US, there are simply areas that are extremely fundamentalist in their Christianity as view by European standards. And even worse - from wikipedia, I quote: "In the United States, seven state constitutions include religious tests that would effectively prevent atheists from holding public office, and in some cases being a juror/witness, though these have not generally been enforced since the early twentieth century." Yeah, there is still the second part about not generally enforced, but stuff like that would be completely unacceptable in the majority of Europe (and there is more of things like that to be found in the US). And it's really hard to me to believe that "Christianism" doesn't lend itself to homophobia.
I don't see a reason to doubt, that the religion of his parents was key in his gender oppression, but the society around isn't free if issues either.
I have to ask again, in comparison to what?
In comparison to how the US treats heterosexuals of course. The idea isn't to simply treat them better than Saudi Arabia, it is for them to have the same rights and the same basic treatment as their straight brothers and sisters. And the US is far closer to that than most places and is one of the countries leading the charge towards that. But you're insane if you think that means it's close to being achieved. The benchmark for tolerant treatment of homosexuals will always be the treatment of heterosexuals.
Yeah, it must suck so bad here for gays. They only make more money and have higher levels of education than straight people[1].
I don't think anybody was saying it sucks because they make less money or are less educated. You are making a straw man argument. The reasons why it sucks to be gay are totally different. I'm not even gay and the gay-bashing I (and my classmates) experienced in my childhood was nearly traumatizing (and I didn't grow up an ass-backwards corner of the nation). Granted, things are getting better.
And they basically all live in the most tolerant parts of the country. We're such monsters.
Putting aside whether I agree with your specific point or not, how would you feel if you could only live in certain pockets of the country to avoid being horribly discriminated against?
So to say it sucks to be gay in America is absolutely ridiculous. The vast majority of gays have it very good.
On June 27 2016 04:15 KwarK wrote: Sonnington if you don't start reading the posts that you're responding to I'll simply stop responding to you.
My mistake, I read through the thread and accidentally quoted you instead of Plansix. I should probably get glasses... Your comment is fair. In fact, there's a lot of reasonable comments in this thread, but a lot of comments are completely off base. I went back and fixed it.
@micronesia
Your argument that gays have it bad is an anecdote from the time you grew up? That's it? I'm quoting reputable sources and statistics on how good gays have it in this country and all you can say is, "My mates and I were mean to gays growing up... and we're not hill billies." Why should I take this seriously?
You guys can use words like "pockets of the country" "horribly discriminated against" "There are probably places in the country where this is true" but it doesn't make it true.
The inverse is true. The vast majority of the country is accepting or even over compensating towards gays. Furthermore, it's basically all of the best places of the country are like that. So if you want to say we're not perfect, that's fine, if you're going to give me this bullshit that the USA is like Nazi Germany for gays, get off the space shuttle.
If it sucks to be gay in america (or europe I guess), how would you qualify...well being gay everywhere else ? Perhaps 30% of american think homosexuality should not be accepted (I kinda would like a source on that, I doubt it's phrased like that, but let's say it is), but when they think this, they think it in our democratic way. They don't like it, but they won't oppress gays because of it. They won't discriminate them. Which is illegal, by the way, in most of the west. For instance, I often see religious groups in the US with "gay is bad" or whatever signs, but that's what they do, protest, in a democratic way. They don't go around shooting gay people. Try being gay anywhere in the muslim world and tell us how being gay in the west suck after that.
On June 27 2016 07:51 MrCon wrote: If it sucks to be gay in america (or europe I guess), how would you qualify...well being gay everywhere else ? Perhaps 30% of american think homosexuality should not be accepted (I kinda would like a source on that, I doubt it's phrased like that, but let's say it is), but when they think this, they think it in our democratic way. They don't like it, but they won't oppress gays because of it. They won't discriminate them. Which is illegal, by the way, in most of the west.
For instance, I often see religious groups in the US with "gay is bad" or whatever signs, but that's what they do, protest, in a democratic way. They don't go around shooting gay people. Try being gay anywhere in the muslim world and tell us how being gay in the west suck after that.
Good point. The 30% in the USA might yell at a gay guy if they hit on them. Or verbally protest at worst. Rarely will it ever get violent. In Syria they legally throw you off of tall buildings.
At this point you're debating as to whether the term "sucks" is relative, or absolute, with regards to being a homosexual. Good job gentlemen. I'd make a joke about the irony of using the term "sucks" with this particular topic but I wouldn't want to drag down the intellectual level of conversation.
On June 27 2016 07:41 Sonnington wrote: @micronesia
Your argument that gays have it bad is an anecdote from the time you grew up? That's it? I'm quoting reputable sources and statistics on how good gays have it in this country and all you can say is, "My mates and I were mean to gays growing up... and we're not hill billies." Why should I take this seriously?
Because my argument is not what you just stated. The reason why I pointed out my anecdotal example is to show why I was interested in pointing out how wrong you are (which you are). However, if you intend to point out how "good gays have it" in the USA compared to many other countries, I won't argue there because that is probably true. Note that your claim that you are using reputable sources and statistics does not refute that your argument is a straw man.
It's actually difficult for two people who have not experienced being gay in the country (I'm guessing here) to argue and prove to each other whether or not gays have it difficult... but you must be pretty insulated from the whole thing or somehow have incredible blinders to spew the crap you are saying about how life isn't much harder to be gay overall. When some people (in the USA) argue that people choose to be gay, I have to ask why the heck people would choose to be gay when it makes life so much harder. We might just have to agree to disagree on this topic.
The inverse is true. The vast majority of the country is accepting or even over compensating towards gays.
Overcompensating for what? Perhaps, for all the crap the gay people already had to put up with before some people decided to be decent and treat their fellow humans like fellow humans? Walk a mile in a man's shoes before you claim to understand what did or did not make his life difficult (I realize that's not practical in this case though).
Furthermore, it's basically all of the best places of the country are like that. So if you want to say we're not perfect, that's fine, if you're going to give me this bullshit like the USA is like Nazi Germany for gays, get off the space shuttle.
You seem to really like straw men... maybe you have more first-hand experience with this than I realized.
On June 27 2016 07:51 MrCon wrote: If it sucks to be gay in america (or europe I guess), how would you qualify...well being gay everywhere else ? Perhaps 30% of american think homosexuality should not be accepted (I kinda would like a source on that, I doubt it's phrased like that, but let's say it is), but when they think this, they think it in our democratic way. They don't like it, but they won't oppress gays because of it. They won't discriminate them. Which is illegal, by the way, in most of the west.
For instance, I often see religious groups in the US with "gay is bad" or whatever signs, but that's what they do, protest, in a democratic way. They don't go around shooting gay people. Try being gay anywhere in the muslim world and tell us how being gay in the west suck after that.
Good point. The 30% in the USA might yell at a gay guy if they hit on them. Or verbally protest at worst. Rarely will it ever get violent. In Syria they legally throw you off of tall buildings.
I know, it wasn't you who used this stat unless I'm mistaken =)
I wrote a big post then deleted it because whatever, but Micronesia you have a really outdated view of this stuff. Or I don't know, perhaps it's that different between europe and USA and it's me who think it's the same. (and if it is, it won't be for long, with europe being more and more muslim, things are indeed grim for the future of gays)
On June 27 2016 08:27 MrCon wrote: I wrote a big post then deleted it because whatever, but Micronesia you have a really outdated view of this stuff. Or I don't know, perhaps it's that different between europe and USA and it's me who think it's the same. (and if it is, it won't be for long, with europe being more and more muslim, things are indeed grim for the future of gays)
I did say things have been improving, and I admit I don't know what it's like to be gay in Europe. Since my perspective is limited to just my country, I might be more sensitive than the average reader from another part of the world, but it very much upsets me when people claim gays have it so great when my experience, and those of people I associate with has been very much the opposite.
He took that from my 4th citation. About 60% accept gays, 30% don't accept gays.
On June 27 2016 08:06 Slayer91 wrote: At this point you're debating as to whether the term "sucks" is relative, or absolute, with regards to being a homosexual. Good job gentlemen. I'd make a joke about the irony of using the term "sucks" with this particular topic but I wouldn't want to drag down the intellectual level of conversation.
I'm not sure what it's like in Ireland, but in the states we have an extremely rich and powerful LGBT lobby that is in constant need to push a the narrative that their ever expanding group of misfits are being treated like Jim Crow south blacks were. They constantly push this narrative that gays have it so bad in the USA. Really though, you can't blame people for believing it when they hear it all the time. But someone has to say, "Hey, that's not true and this is why."
FBI investigators have so far found no reason to believe Mateen was gay. Which makes sense. I think the reason he was at the gay bar was to scope the place out before the shooting.
I don't think homosexual people face the same hardships as they do in non-western culture. However, being discriminated by a significant portion of society is still having it hard and not at all being treated equally. This is a story of nuance, experience and geosociopolitic nature. The world, not even your country or region where your live is not dichotomous.
Well you're right by saying gays don't have it great, but I would say they have it...normal ? Not great not bad, like every average people basically. As I said, perhaps it's different in the US with all those evangelists group things, but I'd say overall gays aren't discriminated, or even marginalized in most places but the very rural towns (and even that is a stereotype ironically, now even there most people just don't care, except perhaps in eastern europe, which I guess politically is a little like your south (more conservative territories) ?)
PEW statistics has good studies about all that if you're interested (perhaps you know that already)
On June 27 2016 08:06 Slayer91 wrote: At this point you're debating as to whether the term "sucks" is relative, or absolute, with regards to being a homosexual. Good job gentlemen. I'd make a joke about the irony of using the term "sucks" with this particular topic but I wouldn't want to drag down the intellectual level of conversation.
I'm not sure what it's like in Ireland, but in the states we have an extremely rich and powerful LGBT lobby that is in constant need to push a the narrative that their ever expanding group of misfits are being treated like Jim Crow south blacks were. They constantly push this narrative that gays have it so bad in the USA. Really though, you can't blame people for believing it when they hear it all the time. But someone has to say, "Hey, that's not true and this is why."
FBI investigators have so far found no reason to believe Mateen was gay. Which makes sense. I think the reason he was at the gay bar was to scope the place out before the shooting.
Even if you think that narrative is overboard, that doesn't nullify any of issues themselves.
On June 27 2016 08:36 Uldridge wrote: I don't think homosexual people face the same hardships as they do in non-western culture. However, being discriminated by a significant portion of society is still having it hard and not at all being treated equally. This is a story of nuance, experience and geosociopolitic nature. The world, not even your country or region where your live is not dichotomous.
How hard is it though? On average, gays make more money and are more well educated than straights. The portion of the population that thinks homosexuality shouldn't be accepted by society aren't able to hold them back. So how significant is that portion?. The media loves them, the administration loves them, Trump loves them, people are afraid they'll get sued by the LGBT lobby for looking at them the wrong way, and all statistics suggest gays are absolutely flourishing in the USA. Enough of the bullshit guys.
I think this is meandering off topic, but I'd really feel remiss if I didn't mention this. The black community is not flourishing and it's mainly because their schools are so abysmal. It's not because of racism or the police. It's a big a complicated subject, but there should be so much more focus on improving black schools in order to improve the lot of the black community.
In all honesty, how can I think you're anything but off your rocker when you tell me gays have it bad in the USA? They have it good here. Most black have it bad here and gays have it bad in Syria.
On June 27 2016 08:36 Uldridge wrote: I don't think homosexual people face the same hardships as they do in non-western culture. However, being discriminated by a significant portion of society is still having it hard and not at all being treated equally. This is a story of nuance, experience and geosociopolitic nature. The world, not even your country or region where your live is not dichotomous.
How hard is it though? On average, gays make more money and are more well educated than straights. The portion of the population that thinks homosexuality shouldn't be accepted by society aren't able to hold them back. So how significant is that portion?. The media loves them, the administration loves them, Trump loves them, people are afraid they'll get sued by the LGBT lobby for looking at them the wrong way, and all statistics suggest gays are absolutely flourishing in the USA. Enough of the bullshit guys.
I think this is meandering off topic, but I'd really feel remiss if I didn't mention this. The black community is not flourishing and it's mainly because their schools are so abysmal. It's not because of racism or the police. It's a big a complicated subject, but there should be so much more focus on improving black schools in order to improve the lot of the black community.
In all honesty, how can I think you're anything but off your rocker when you tell me gays have it bad in the USA? They have it good here. Most black have it bad here and gays have it bad in Syria.
do you have citations for the stuff in your first paragraph? That gays have higher education/income?
On June 27 2016 09:15 Sonnington wrote: In all honesty, how can I think you're anything but off your rocker when you tell me gays have it bad in the USA? They have it good here. Most black have it bad here and gays have it bad in Syria.
I'm starting to do some research into this and one obvious question is how suicide rates compare between gays and nongays. Unfortunately, I don't have access to most online journals since I'm not enrolled in any college programs right now, so much material is paywalled. For example, I just read this abstract:
Both clinical and epidemiological literature point to elevated rates of suicidal behaviors in gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth (GLBY). Recent North American and New Zealand studies of large populations (especially the US Youth Risk Behavior Surveys from several states) indicate that gay, lesbian, and bisexual adolescents (males in particular) can have rates of serious suicide attempts at least four times those of apparently heterosexual youth. There are various reasons why this figure is likely to be an underestimate. Reasons for these elevated rates of suicidal behavior include a climate of homophobic persecution in schools, and sometimes in family and community—values and actions that stigmatize homosexuality and that the youth who has not yet “come out” has to endure in silence.
I suspect the trend is currently getting better in the USA (note the year of the article), but looking at the apparent professional success of homosexual adults is covering up the struggle of getting to adulthood (and not everyone accomplishes that).
For the record, I'm not arguing that the LGBT community or it's organizations aren't making outrageous claims (I'm agnostic on that due to lack of research).
On June 27 2016 08:36 Uldridge wrote: I don't think homosexual people face the same hardships as they do in non-western culture. However, being discriminated by a significant portion of society is still having it hard and not at all being treated equally. This is a story of nuance, experience and geosociopolitic nature. The world, not even your country or region where your live is not dichotomous.
How hard is it though? On average, gays make more money and are more well educated than straights. The portion of the population that thinks homosexuality shouldn't be accepted by society aren't able to hold them back. So how significant is that portion?. The media loves them, the administration loves them, Trump loves them, people are afraid they'll get sued by the LGBT lobby for looking at them the wrong way, and all statistics suggest gays are absolutely flourishing in the USA. Enough of the bullshit guys.
I think this is meandering off topic, but I'd really feel remiss if I didn't mention this. The black community is not flourishing and it's mainly because their schools are so abysmal. It's not because of racism or the police. It's a big a complicated subject, but there should be so much more focus on improving black schools in order to improve the lot of the black community.
In all honesty, how can I think you're anything but off your rocker when you tell me gays have it bad in the USA? They have it good here. Most black have it bad here and gays have it bad in Syria.
do you have citations for the stuff in your first paragraph? That gays have higher education/income?
From what I've heard, uncited, people with high IQs tend to push social norms. Which would explain why gays tend to have higher IQs and more education. It would also explain why religions that are based on old dogma are averse to homosexuality because you'd want the smartest people in your tribe fathering the most amount of children. Not to say it's acceptable today, but it's understandable where the value originally came from.
On June 27 2016 08:36 Uldridge wrote: I don't think homosexual people face the same hardships as they do in non-western culture. However, being discriminated by a significant portion of society is still having it hard and not at all being treated equally. This is a story of nuance, experience and geosociopolitic nature. The world, not even your country or region where your live is not dichotomous.
How hard is it though? On average, gays make more money and are more well educated than straights. The portion of the population that thinks homosexuality shouldn't be accepted by society aren't able to hold them back. So how significant is that portion?. The media loves them, the administration loves them, Trump loves them, people are afraid they'll get sued by the LGBT lobby for looking at them the wrong way, and all statistics suggest gays are absolutely flourishing in the USA. Enough of the bullshit guys.
I think this is meandering off topic, but I'd really feel remiss if I didn't mention this. The black community is not flourishing and it's mainly because their schools are so abysmal. It's not because of racism or the police. It's a big a complicated subject, but there should be so much more focus on improving black schools in order to improve the lot of the black community.
In all honesty, how can I think you're anything but off your rocker when you tell me gays have it bad in the USA? They have it good here. Most black have it bad here and gays have it bad in Syria.
do you have citations for the stuff in your first paragraph? That gays have higher education/income?
From what I've heard, uncited, people with high IQs tend to push social norms. Which would explain why gays tend to have higher IQs and more education. It would also explain why religions that are based on old dogma are averse to homosexuality because you'd want the smartest people in your tribe fathering the most amount of children. Not to say it's acceptable today, but it's understandable where the value originally came from.
This doesn't really explain why the brightest Christian child in ye olden days would be encouraged to become the Priest... although that is getting horribly off topic
Hmm, I've checked those sources sonnington, and they don't say gays earn more and are better educated than straight people; those stats are specifically for couples living in households; it does not include the numerous people who live alone, or with other family.
There's another issue too: look at the map in your linked source, note that some of those areas have a much higher percentage of gay couples than others. I recognize alot of those areas as states that simply have higher income levels and higher average levels of educational attainment. Which could mean that the differences between gay and straight couples are substantially or entirely a result of the fact that gay couples are more common in certain states, rather than being actually due to any gay/straight difference.
On June 27 2016 09:59 zlefin wrote: Hmm, I've checked those sources sonnington, and they don't say gays earn more and are better educated than straight people; those stats are specifically for couples living in households; it does not include the numerous people who live alone, or with other family.
There's another issue too: look at the map in your linked source, note that some of those areas have a much higher percentage of gay couples than others. I recognize alot of those areas as states that simply have higher income levels and higher average levels of educational attainment. Which could mean that the differences between gay and straight couples are substantially or entirely a result of the fact that gay couples are more common in certain states, rather than being actually due to any gay/straight difference.
Those are fair points to make. Only gay couples make more than straight couples and likely has a strong link to the fact they mostly live in high income areas. I can't find any well sourced information outside of that though.
I don't recall ever hearing elsewhere about any educational or income advantage in gays generally; other than that (at least for male couples) they may more often have 2 incomes from working and no children.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CLKjOZe.jpg)
)![[image loading]](http://puu.sh/pq2Qq/d951f114b1.png)
![[image loading]](http://puu.sh/pq30o/b00a4bbcb2.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/P4Sj4uQ.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.pewforum.org/files/2015/10/PF_15.10.27_SecondRLS_overview_nonesDems640px.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.pewforum.org/files/2015/10/PF_15.10.27_SecondRLS_overview_nonesReps640px.png)
.![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HGpmt3W.png)
![[image loading]](http://puu.sh/pqhqe/d191546c73.png)
![[image loading]](http://static1.squarespace.com/static/5121c9a1e4b0dce195c63857/t/548ef233e4b0b7d308958caa/1418654259347/Islam.jpeg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/u8vwRUq.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://thefederalistpapers.integratedmarket.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/American-Flag-Bald-Eagle-Getty-Images.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/85/LGBT_rights_at_the_UN.svg/800px-LGBT_rights_at_the_UN.svg.png)
