Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 797
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes no law is broken but they are still sanitizing this violent behaviour in the same way that a majority of Muslims do (at least if one believes the Pew polls).

In this way, the fundie Xtians are the same as the majority of Islam and yes they deserve to be criticized for it just like Muslims who hold the same stupid beliefs dear deserve to be called out for their bigotry and homophobia that breeds this kind of violence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to put this out there, I have no issue with addressing gun laws. Maybe clip sizes, maybe background checks or bans for certain people etc.

Blaming the gun itself is silly, it's only a semi-auto - not even fully auto. We can have them here in Canada if we have a "restricted" license. I could order one tomorrow if I wanted. The gun looks more menacing than it actually is. But, blaming the gun and availability is really another way of blaming the NRA, the right wingers and the "religious right"...right?

Should he have had a gun? Well, no! He was investigated by the FBI at least twice - for terrorist connections, he was on a watch list. So, who dropped the ball there? One has to wonder if a reduction in Intelligence, FBI, Homeland security etc etc, should be looked at.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When some non-Muslim commits mass murder, the narrative is about his downfall--it's about his tragedy and his illness and his individuality. A Muslim commits mass murder and it's terrorism and all about that religion. Mass homicides are an American phenomenon. He was born and raised in the United States, bought his weapon in the United States, and unloaded it on innocent Americans, just like every other American killer from Virginia Tech to Columbine to Sandy Hook. This is a problem with America that will never get solved so long as there's idiots who refuse to even acknowledge that a problem exists.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When some non-Muslim commits mass murder, the narrative is about his downfall--it's about his tragedy and his illness and his individuality. A Muslim commits mass murder and it's terrorism and all about that religion. Mass homicides are an American phenomenon. He was born and raised in the United States, bought his weapon in the United States, and unloaded it on innocent Americans, just like every other American killer from Virginia Tech to Columbine to Sandy Hook. This is a problem with America that will never get solved so long as there's idiots who refuse to even acknowledge that a problem exists.

The shooter gave his reasons. It was for Islam and the Islamic State.

Link to post
Share on other sites

.... This is a problem with America that will never get solved so long as there's idiots who refuse to even acknowledge that a problem exists.

Sure...because it's a "problem" that doesn't happen anywhere else. It's solely a problem "with 'Murica".

Screenshot-6_18_2015-9_43_12-PM.jpg

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/12/348197-paris-attack-claim-mass-shootings/

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to post
Share on other sites

... and it will be on the heads of the progressives who fought desperately, even fanatically, to bring as many conservative Muslims with retrograde social views to North America.

newsflash! The guy was born and raised in the United States... homegrown!

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure...because it's a "problem" that doesn't happen anywhere else. It's solely a problem "with 'Murica".

way to shake it up since your last like attempt - here: ... setting aside your prior reference and graphic actually has 2 years more data, c'mon, does using the word "rampage" rather than "mass" mean anything, particularly since the definition of "rampage" doesn't seem to exist in your linked article. In any case, I'll just offer up the same (now tailored) reply as last time, since there's a like attempt to diminish impact and the results are somewhat alike between your two respective references/charts:

again, both your references (this latest) and the one from your prior post (link as provided above), choose a straight population per capita to arrive at a fatality number... instead of one aligned to the actual (estimated) number of guns within the referenced countries. In my prior reply I took the liberty to add an accompanying tally showing the number of guns per capita for the same countries shown (per the Swiss based Small Arms Survey).

fvCF0qx.jpg

(notwithstanding that somewhat dodgy approach that includes outlier data skews where countries like Norway, Switzerland, Finland... have but 1 or 2 mass shootings in total as compared to the U.S.' 133 over the same period).

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't the progressives been assuring us that no matter how primitive the social beliefs of immigrants from Pakistan or Afghanistan are their kids who are born here will be fully integrated? Looks like that ain't happening.

I'm shocked! Shocked that you'd single out this particular instance to imply, most broadly, that all American born children of immigrant parents don't integrate into American society. Shocked I tells ya! Notwithstanding, of course, the mental state/capacity of the individual... still under review/speculation.

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which begs the question: which Muslims are the 'radical ones'?

given your prolific related posting across many MLW threads... I think I'm not going out on a limb here in suggesting that, from your perspective, all Muslims are the radical ones... amirite?

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to put this out there, I have no issue with addressing gun laws. Maybe clip sizes, maybe background checks or bans for certain people etc.

I have several guns that pack more wallop than an AR-15, but none of them have 30-round magazines. I am convinced that large magazine capacities and the ease with which additional magazines can be carried and deployed is a contributing factor to the high death toll in incidents like this one and Sandy-Hook.

Blaming the gun itself is silly, it's only a semi-auto - not even fully auto. We can have them here in Canada if we have a "restricted" license. I could order one tomorrow if I wanted. The gun looks more menacing than it actually is. But, blaming the gun and availability is really another way of blaming the NRA, the right wingers and the "religious right"...right?

I certainly don't blame the incident on guns, but I think it's an aggravating factor in the shocking death-toll. I can't buy that this many people would have been killed had he gone in with a brick, a knife, a pressure-cooker full of ball-bearings, a can of gasoline and a lighter, a bolt-action rifle, a revolver, or even a semi-automatic with a fixed 5 or 10 round magazine. I won't say it's impossible, but I think having a 30-round magazine and 4 more 30-round magazines strapped to your vest makes it a lot easier for the shooter. Or pistols with high-capacity magazines.

I know full-well that most of the time when phrases like "military-style assault weapon!!" are thrown around it's uninformed media hype or political talking points. It's often used to describe weapons that are neither military-style nor assault weapons. A gun with a wooden stock is just as dangerous as one with a black synthetic stock. I own guns and I go shooting frequently. I'm not somebody who hates guns or wants them banned. And I still think the stance taken by some of the hard-line NRA fanatics is ridiculous.

But I agree, guns are not the *cause* of this incident, and I think that by the end of the week the Muslims and the gun-nuts will all be arguing that they're the real victims of this.

Should he have had a gun? Well, no! He was investigated by the FBI at least twice - for terrorist connections, he was on a watch list. So, who dropped the ball there? One has to wonder if a reduction in Intelligence, FBI, Homeland security etc etc, should be looked at.

Freedom-living Republicans have been fighting tooth-and-nail against laws that would prohibit the sale of guns to people on the FBI watch-list.

-k

Link to post
Share on other sites

But apparently a Muslim guy born in New York and lived all his life in the US decided that he would just up and commit a mass murder in the name of the caliphate.

I'm reading the picture of a guy who went out of his way to be noticed by saying almost anything... boasting in high school that Bin Laden was his uncle... I mean I guess that could be true??? To me, the fact the FBI investigated him 3 separate times and closed those investigations without substantive concern, that the FBI didn't have him on any active surveillance... to me, this certainly calls into question the reality of his "caliphate ties/allegiance".

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

to me, this certainly calls into question the reality of his "caliphate ties/allegiance".

.

Does it matter if he received an Official ISIS membership card? ISIS encourages "lone wolf" attacks to be committed in their name. They actively invite this. "Don't ask our permission, just do it!" If he says he did it for ISIS and Islam and Allah, who are you to doubt him?

-k

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's getting sad that every time this happens those on the left have to run around and find any aspect or the smallest detail to try and disprove that the root problem is radical islam.

When we all woke up to the horrific news, we all knew it would be a muslim - didn't we?

Before you get too carried away, the guy arrested on his way to the LA Pride Parade with assault rifles and enough Tannerite to put a man into orbit turned out to be a white guy from Indiana.

-k

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it matter if he received an Official ISIS membership card? ISIS encourages "lone wolf" attacks to be committed in their name. They actively invite this. "Don't ask our permission, just do it!" If he says he did it for ISIS and Islam and Allah, who are you to doubt him?

early days yet... reading the guy repeatedly referred to as a 'devout Muslim', without any attached qualification to that end, gives me pause. The very nature of the "Lone Wolf" designate you apply calls into question, for me, what actual degree of indirect influence/motivation from "the outside force" was an actual driver. I'd certainly give it more credence if follow-up investigations bring more substantive weight to bear in that regard. And, again, just what mental state/capacity applies here? And, again, there's the described history of saying things... outlandish things... simply to get reaction/attention.

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry LGBTQIAP+ people. Justin Trudeau's defence minister told us not to fear ISIS. Sunny Ways!

"LGBTQIAP+"... geezaz, that alphabet soup keeps getting longer and longer! But we learn stuff here - you made me look on a couple of those: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Two-spirited, Queer and Questioning, Intersex, Asexual, Pansexual and other marginalized orientations/identities.

what was actually stated by Defence Minister, Harjit Sajjan: "ISIS is a threat, no doubt about that. Should we fear it? No. The Canadian population should have full confidence in all the security services to keep us safe."

now whether or not one accepts that statement and to what degree one accepts it, if the reference being used turns out to be this possible, "homegrown, radicalized, lone-wolf with uncertain mental faculties... and no criminal record", how might security services give you greater confidence, factoring the distinction between Canada and the U.S. gun culture and ready/easy access to assault rifles.

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"LGBTQIAP+"... geezaz, that alphabet soup keeps getting longer and longer! But we learn stuff here - you made me look on a couple of those: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Two-spirited, Queer and Questioning, Intersex, Asexual, Pansexual and other marginalized orientations/identities.

Oh, I forgot 2 spirited. LGBTQIAP2S+. :)

The Canadian population should have full confidence in all the security services to keep us safe."

Why would I have full confidence, when people have been killed in Canada, USA, Australia, Britain, France, etc. from these attacks?

Oh well, it is expected from a defence minister that thinks climate change causes ISIS.

Edited by -1=e^ipi
Link to post
Share on other sites

now whether or not one accepts that statement and to what degree one accepts it, if the reference being used turns out to be this possible, "homegrown, radicalized, lone-wolf with uncertain mental faculties... and no criminal record", how might security services give you greater confidence, factoring the distinction between Canada and the U.S. gun culture and ready/easy access to assault rifles.

.

Yes, because we all know access to an AR-15 is the only viable way terrorism can be carried out anymore. But I guess any terrorist would be smart to use a gun, because there's a faction that will dismiss any motive and just blame access to guns as the root cause.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saw some coverage of doctors dealing with the wounded. There is an addition problem with this shooting. There was blood all over the place with folks bleeding over each other. Since this is a gay bar, the assumption was that most of the males were gay. About 20% of gays are HIV positive:

http://healthland.time.com/2010/09/26/study-20-of-homosexual-men-are-hiv-positive-but-only-half-know-it/

It created some exceptional challenges for the attending doctors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which begs the question: which Muslims are the 'radical ones'?

By how most of the Muslim world interprets Islam what he did wasn't really all that shocking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the terrorists who have attacked the West have essentially all been of a certain extremist fundamentalist sect of Sunni Islam, following the teachings of Qutb and the like. It's like asking why Christianity attracts polygamists when only Mormons and a few other smaller sects do that within Christianity.

No, it's really not. How many gay pride parades take place in the Muslim world? None. Why not? Because in much of the Muslim world homosexuality is illegal, in some places punishable by death. Even in those Muslim countries where it isn't any gay pride parade would be interrupted by waves of gunfire and mobs holding flaming torches.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not like Islam is alone in condemning homosexuality, most of Christianity does too (rot in hell!).

You're not completely wrong. But here's the difference. Christianity has had a thousand years of western philosophy to influence it. It's now a relatively benign and peaceful religion compared to Islam. Islam grew up in the bloody turmoil of the middle east and was spread by violence in a violent land. All the 'mainstream' interpretations of Islam's texts come from the middle east and are subject to the cultural values and legacy of that region. There has been very little time for westerners to influence it. Almost all Muslim clerics in the West are from the middle east. In fact, Saudi Arabia offers to pay for them to come from SA and pay their salaries (in order to push their extremists Wahabi version) so a good many western clerics are Wahabi followers, as well.

So even Muslims born in the West are following a religion whose belief system is from the middle east, and listening to middle east clerics. Therefore, the messages, including social values, they get, are going to be deeply influenced by middle east social values and customs.

Edited by Argus
Link to post
Share on other sites

We have mostly agreed that Islam is a religion far behind the times.

But It is only 35 years ago that mainstrem Canadian society discriminated against gays, even as a point of public policy (Toronto Bathhouse raids)....

Even after that episode sparked the gay rights movement, we can find significant cases of gay bashing right up to the present time, and not all of it by Muslims. https://www.google.ca/search?q=latest+gay+bashing+incident&oq=latest+gay+bashing+incident&aqs=chrome..69i57.6769j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Pew Research is finding that the Muslim attitude toward gays is softening... "As of 2011, U.S. Muslims were somewhat split between those who said homosexuality should be accepted by society (39%) and those who said it should be discouraged (45%), although the group had grown considerably more accepting of homosexuality since a similar survey was conducted in 2007." http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/07/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...