| Costa86 13.06.2016 04:40 |
The nightclub happened to be an LGBT club. The terrorist was a homophobe. But he was primarily an Islamic terrorist. His particular "choice" of venue to commit his heinous, barbarous acts was a gay club because he had a hatred for homosexuals. But this just changed the flavour of his act - the basis of it was Islamic extremism, coupled with an obviously precarious psychopathological state. His ex-wife has referred to him as bi-polar. Several muslims have united in solidarity with the victims, and this in itself is a positive thing which shows there is still hope for this world. The majority of muslims in the US probably do not hate gays, and they certainly are not violent terrorists. But a spade should be called a spade. This was an act of terrorism committed by an Islamic radicalist who had links to other radicalists, and who was previously investigated by the FBI. And yes, there is a problem of radical Islamist terrorism in America and Europe. Not calling it what it is will not solve the problem. It was not fundamentally a hate crime (although it does have aspects of one), and it is not at its core a gun-control problem (although this too does have a bearing on the problem in the US). The deadliest shooting in US history was committed by a homegrown Islamic radical, born in the US to Afghan parents. Fact. Had made it a point before committing the act to let the police know of his allegiance to IS. Whatever "allegiance" means is immaterial. He himself chose to make this an Islamic terrorist act. |
| Sebastian 13.06.2016 07:41 |
Gun control, education and less privileges for ALL religions are the best ways to prevent these tragedies. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 13.06.2016 09:23 |
This is the exact combination of poisons that gun-control lobbyists have been warning us about. A person with a mental illness focuses on a particular group s/he can righteously hate, and then finds another group that helps to justify and feed that hate. THEN, that person, with every legal right to do so, buys a military-style weapon and snuffs out as many innocent lives as possible. This isn't about "radical islam". This is about incompetent, easily-bought politicians who are more concerned about appeasing the vocal minority and getting re-elected - and thus lining their pockets yet again - by voting down logical gun laws such as banning assault weapons and not allowing certain suspects or criminals to legally gain access to guns of any kind, let alone "AK15-style" weapons. Meanwhile, in other news - how do we explain THIS guy? link For fuck's sake. Hate is hate. And guns are too easy to get. |
| greaserkat 13.06.2016 10:19 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: This is the exact combination of poisons that gun-control lobbyists have been warning us about. A person with a mental illness focuses on a particular group s/he can righteously hate, and then finds another group that helps to justify and feed that hate. THEN, that person, with every legal right to do so, buys a military-style weapon and snuffs out as many innocent lives as possible. This isn't about "radical islam". This is about incompetent, easily-bought politicians who are more concerned about appeasing the vocal minority and getting re-elected - and thus lining their pockets yet again - by voting down logical gun laws such as banning assault weapons and not allowing certain suspects or criminals to legally gain access to guns of any kind, let alone "AK15-style" weapons. Meanwhile, in other news - how do we explain THIS guy? link For fuck's sake. Hate is hate. And guns are too easy to get.We all know what they will say: he is mentally ill... |
| Costa86 13.06.2016 10:53 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: This is the exact combination of poisons that gun-control lobbyists have been warning us about. A person with a mental illness focuses on a particular group s/he can righteously hate, and then finds another group that helps to justify and feed that hate. THEN, that person, with every legal right to do so, buys a military-style weapon and snuffs out as many innocent lives as possible. This isn't about "radical islam". This is about incompetent, easily-bought politicians who are more concerned about appeasing the vocal minority and getting re-elected - and thus lining their pockets yet again - by voting down logical gun laws such as banning assault weapons and not allowing certain suspects or criminals to legally gain access to guns of any kind, let alone "AK15-style" weapons. Meanwhile, in other news - how do we explain THIS guy? link For fuck's sake. Hate is hate. And guns are too easy to get.Had he not procured his guns legally, he could have got them in other ways. If he really wanted to pull this off - and, let's face it, to do something like this you have to be absolutely convinced that you want to do it, or else you've got to be totally off your rocker - he would have found ways of getting weapons. Gun laws in France and Belgium are strict, yet it didn't stop terrorists from commiting acts of violence and murder using guns (and homemade bombs). In this case it is true that it was through the existing gun laws that this terrorist was able to obtain his guns. But this is merely the method of procurement. It is not the cause of the incident. This man did what he did because he was a psychologically disturbed individual who found meaning in radical Islam and who decided to kill many people in the name of his extreme version of the religion. It is bordering on deluded that folks are willing to blame gun laws and mental illness, all the while ignoring the elephant in the room. The killer made it a point of saying that what he was doing was an act of terror in support of ISIS. His having a mental illness, and the guns laws being what they are, do not preclude the killer from having chosen to admit before the act that such act was meant as a radical Islamist prounouncement. Had this killer not been born in a family of Muslims with ties to the Taliban, it is very likely that his mental illness and his gun license would not have led to this. It is of course possible that he would have still lost it completely and killed someone. But that is only an assumption which is just as valid as the assumption that he'd not have killed anyone. We can only analyse what we know - a man with a mental illness who owned guns legally and who, because of his radical beliefs and hatred of gays, decided to kill 50 people and injured just as many. He was reported to have shouted Allahu Akbar as he was shooting people mercilessly. Had he shouted Jesus is King, and had he had a history of association with radical Christian fundamentalists, then it would have been entirely justified to call the act an example of Christian fundamentalist terrorism, all the while conceding that mental illness played a big role. Correlation does not imply causation. US guns laws are related to the "easier" procurement of guns. US gun laws did not cause the massacare. The person involved, spurred by mental illness, hatred of gays, but most prominently (and consciously emphasised by him) his radical Islamist tendencies, caused the massacare. What in your view does an act of radical Islamist terrorism need to involve to be rightfully called as so? |
| Costa86 13.06.2016 11:07 |
This man didn't just wake up one day and decide to kill people and blame it on Islam, just for the fun of it, or just because he was sick and needed a scapegoat. He had a history of being associated with radical Islamists, and was investigated by the FBI because of this. His family were staunch supporters of the Taliban - his dad hosts/hosted a pro-Taliban TV programme, and you can find some of his ramblings on YouTube, in favour of the Taliban. Let's not forget that the Taliban are Islamic fundementalists who have killed Afghan men, women and children alike. Do you think this had no effect on the mind of Omar Mateen? Ignoring this extremely clear link with Islamic fundamentalism and radical terrorism amounts to being slightly obtuse, in my view. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 13.06.2016 11:34 |
double post |
| magicalfreddiemercury 13.06.2016 11:35 |
Costa86 wrote: In this case it is true that it was through the existing gun laws that this terrorist was able to obtain his guns. But this is merely the method of procurement. It is not the cause of the incident. This man did what he did because he was a psychologically disturbed individual who found meaning in radical Islam and who decided to kill many people in the name of his extreme version of the religion.Yes. That's what I said above. Add to all of that the ease with which he could get his hands on these weapons and there's the perfect storm. That's the point. Would he have found another way to access them? Possibly. I'll even say probably. But he did it this way - legally - because it was easy. By making it so easy, lawmakers - who are in the pocket of the NRA - as well as those who support those lawmakers, are as guilty of this crime as the prick who pulled the trigger. Above all else, this was a hate crime. This man hated the LGBT community. He expressed that hate and, on his own, found a way to demonstrate it. His last-minute pledge of allegiance to ISIS seems, at this point, to have been an afterthought, a convenient way for him to justify his despicable actions and to feel relevant. Religion, in my opinion, tends to have that affect on people. Hell, he could have been a follower of this guy - link Bottom line - was he insane? It seems he did have a mental illness. Was he radicalized? I suppose part of me wonders if there's a difference between insanity and radicalization. Was he funded or directed by some international organization? So far, that seems unlikely. Further investigation might prove otherwise. If it does, I'd have no problem calling it radical islamic terrorism. However, my position will remain regarding the ease with which he accessed those weapons. He was on the FBI's radar after all. EDIT - the link above no longer works because Youtube took the video down citing hate speech (kudos to them). Here's part of it, though it's mixed in with someone's response since it's the only way I can see to share it - link |
| Oscar J 13.06.2016 14:18 |
By the way, I don't think anyone's denying militant radical islamism and ISIS are terrible and huge problems, Costa86, regardless if ISIS was the main reason for this man to commit his crime or not. I don't quite see what point you're trying to make of this. |
| Costa86 13.06.2016 15:03 |
Oscar J wrote: By the way, I don't think anyone's denying militant radical islamism and ISIS are terrible and huge problems, Costa86, regardless if ISIS was the main reason for this man to commit his crime or not. I don't quite see what point you're trying to make of this.Nobody is denying ISIS are terrible, but yes there is a concerted effort to disguise the fact that this is a problem which involves factions of Islam. Islam is a religion of peace and all that. Leaders like Obama, Cameron, etc., who do not speak the truth about the problem of Islamic extremism, or who try to disconnect this from Islam as a religion. Islamic extremism is part of Islam just like Christian fundamentalism is part of Christianity. And re magical's post above Oscar's, that Omar Mateen's decision to pledge allegiance to ISIS was an afterthought - it wasn't, he had been investigated very seriously by the FBI for his links to radical islamists. ISIS is a very different type of terrorist organisation than terrorist organisations such as the IRA etc. It's even less centralised than Al Qaeda. He doesn't even have had to be funded by ISIS, and he probably wasn't. But he chose ISIS and Al Qaeda as the groups to pledge allegiance to - he mentioned both organisations in his three calls to the police as the shooting was underway. Yes, there is a problem within Muslim groups of extremism. No, not all Muslims are involved, it's a tiny minority. But this has to be acknowledged and we need to stop hiding behind words and innuendos. Islam has a problem within it. |
| Costa86 13.06.2016 16:50 |
It's now emerged that Omar Mateen scouted Disney World earlier this year, as a possible location where to commit this terrorist act. This only reinforces my point that this man's choice of a gay bar as a location for his act of terrorism was only a secondary factor. His hatred of gays just helped him choose the location. He had already decided that he wanted some place to kill as many people as possible in the name of Allah. Allahu Akbar, he shouted, as he shot dead 49 people. All this poorly thought out rhetoric of "hate is hate", and other miscellaneous, weak, bullshit 21st century politically correct talk, falls flat on its face. This wasn't a hate crime, and it wasn't primarily caused because of gun laws. These are all complicating and associated factors, but are not at the root of the cause. The act was primarily caused by mental illness coupled with the religion of the mentally ill, Islam. Stop lying to yourselves folks. Had he been born in a Buddhist community, he'd be locked up in his bedroom punching the wall. He wouldn't have used his religion as the vessel by which to commit the worst shooting in US history. And yet our leaders refuse to acknowledge that we have a big problem of radical Islam - and therefore a problem in Muslim communities - lest they offend some weak, overly sensitive, politically correct populace. Can these people be any more pathetic? |
| The Real Wizard 13.06.2016 16:58 |
Sebastian wrote: Gun control, education and less privileges for ALL religions are the best ways to prevent these tragedies.If only it were that simple. Not taxing churches means they don't get a say in legislation. We don't want the opposite. The system we have now is the lesser of the two evils. |
| The Real Wizard 13.06.2016 17:00 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: This isn't about "radical islam". This is about incompetent, easily-bought politicians who are more concerned about appeasing the vocal minority and getting re-elected - and thus lining their pockets yet again - by voting down logical gun laws such as banning assault weapons and not allowing certain suspects or criminals to legally gain access to guns of any kind, let alone "AK15-style" weapons.It's actually both - plenty of media sources are saying he has ties to ISIS. But part of me still thinks that may be a media ploy to give Trump a "see, it's all about radical Islam" moment. link Either way, he sure took advantage of it, in a way that should surprise absolutely nobody. What's most interesting about this is the countless Christians who taking a break from homophobia to pray for the families of the victims. Not to mention those who are against Muslims yet entirely in favour of extremist Muslims getting their hands on automatic weapons with ease. The US is such a deporable mess. |
| The Real Wizard 13.06.2016 17:02 |
Costa86 wrote: Had he shouted Jesus is King, and had he had a history of association with radical Christian fundamentalists, then it would have been entirely justified to call the act an example of Christian fundamentalist terrorism, all the while conceding that mental illness played a big role.No, they would just say he was mentally ill. The words "Christian terrorist" have never been put together by American media, and they never will. It would destroy the entire narrative of terrorists being brown people that "aren't us" that keep the majority of Americans afraid and consuming useless crap to keep the entire system going. Any first year marketing student will tell you that fear is the easiest and most effective way to keep people's brains obedient and wallets open. |
| Costa86 13.06.2016 17:07 |
The Real Wizard wrote:What you say - i.e. that terrorists are brown people who are different from us - is not what is supported by the mainstream media or by mainstream politicians. On the contrary, they want to persuade us that we are all alike - Muslims, Christians, etc. And yes, for the most part, we are alike. But right now, in 2016, the problem we have is in Muslims communities.Costa86 wrote: Had he shouted Jesus is King, and had he had a history of association with radical Christian fundamentalists, then it would have been entirely justified to call the act an example of Christian fundamentalist terrorism, all the while conceding that mental illness played a big role.No, they would just say he was mentally ill. The words "Christian terrorist" have never been put together by American media, and they never will. It would destroy the entire narrative of terrorists being brown people that "aren't us" that keep the majority of Americans afraid and consuming useless crap to keep the entire system going. Any first year marketing student will tell you that fear is the easiest and most effective way to keep people's brains obedient and wallets open. The mainstream media does not try to instill fear - it actually tries to hide the truth. Your points stands not, simply because it tallies not with the status quo of reporting and generally advertised opinion. |
| The Real Wizard 13.06.2016 17:10 |
Costa86 wrote: What you say - i.e. that terrorists are brown people who are different from us - is not what is supported by the mainstream media or by mainstream politicians. On the contrary, they want to persuade us that we are all alike - Muslims, Christians, etc. And yes, for the most part, we are alike. But right now, in 2016, the problem we have is in Muslims communities. The mainstream media does not try to instill fear - it actually tries to hide the truth. Your points stands not, simply because it tallies not with the status quo of reporting and generally advertised opinion.My guess is that you're not American and haven't watched FOX news lately, or ever. If this isn't the case in Europe (or wherever you are), then how lucky you are. American media (particularly FOX) run almost entirely on fear tactics. FOX is the propaganda wing of the Republican party. It's presented as a news network, but in reality it's the furthest possible thing from it 99% of the time. It's an opinion mouthpiece with an agenda, more than any major media source in the developed world. |
| Sebastian 13.06.2016 22:17 |
The Real Wizard wrote:I disagree.Sebastian wrote: Gun control, education and less privileges for ALL religions are the best ways to prevent these tragedies.If only it were that simple. Not taxing churches means they don't get a say in legislation. We don't want the opposite. The system we have now is the lesser of the two evils. Of course it's not simple but that'd be a step in the right direction IMO. Taxing churches would increase money for education, which would decrease ignorance and, as a result, the power of religious groups. |
| YourValentine 14.06.2016 04:46 |
Finally, there is an honorable mention of FOX news. In my opinion FOX news is the most dangerous hate inciting institution in this world. FOX news has slowly and systematically torn down all decency barriers in the US public in the last 20 years. In my opinion FOX news are more to blame for the state of the USA than anything else. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 14.06.2016 06:28 |
The Real Wizard wrote:They've also said he was homophobic and misogynistic. He beat his wife. His former employer reported him to authorities due to disruptive and disturbing behaviors. He was questioned by the FBI - multiple times. Yet, this guy was able to get a job as a security guard and was able to stroll into any gun shop and take home an AK15. It's that freedom, the freedom to snatch up assault weapons at will, that allowed this to happen. Whatever prompted this guy to do it isn't the issue. Hate. Mental illness. Extremism. Whatever his motivation, the gun was his tool to carry it out and that's what we need to focus on.magicalfreddiemercury wrote: This isn't about "radical islam". This is about incompetent, easily-bought politicians who are more concerned about appeasing the vocal minority and getting re-elected - and thus lining their pockets yet again - by voting down logical gun laws such as banning assault weapons and not allowing certain suspects or criminals to legally gain access to guns of any kind, let alone "AK15-style" weapons.It's actually both - plenty of media sources are saying he has ties to ISIS. The Real Wizard wrote: What's most interesting about this is the countless Christians who taking a break from homophobia to pray for the families of the victims.They're hypocrites, which should come as no surprise. Just this morning Paul Ryan (Speaker of the House of Representatives) held a moment of silence for the Orlando victims. Immediately afterward, it was business as usual, even with Democrats shouting "Where's the bill", referring to any bill regarding some common sense gun legislation. They were ignored by their catholic speaker who had just genuflected and said a silent prayer. Disgusting. Samantha Bee covered a lot of what many of us are feeling - link |
| magicalfreddiemercury 14.06.2016 06:33 |
YourValentine wrote: Finally, there is an honorable mention of FOX news. In my opinion FOX news is the most dangerous hate inciting institution in this world. FOX news has slowly and systematically torn down all decency barriers in the US public in the last 20 years. In my opinion FOX news are more to blame for the state of the USA than anything else.I agree, though I think what's worse is that there's an audience big enough to keep them going. It's the same crowd that turned The Donald into a presidential candidate. Absolutely terrifying. |
| thomasquinn 32989 14.06.2016 06:53 |
1) Just because IS claims a terrorist attack it doesn't automatically mean they were really behind it. They will claim anything that suits them. Why? Because it's good propaganda for them, and it'll help scare westerners into thinking they're more powerful than they are. It's a common tactic among terrorist groups and has been for decades. 2) This mass-murderer was interested in radical Islamic thought, but that's not the end of the story. He also frequented gay clubs and online chatrooms and used a gay dating app. His ex-wife believed that he led a secret homosexual double-life. As usual, reality is more complicated than propaganda. 3) As for blaming "the muslims" - it is beyond me how anyone can fail to see how that is utterly racist as well as stupid. During World War II, America locked up all Japanese-Americans in camps, out of fear for 'fifth columnists'. In practice, it turned out, there were hardly ANY Japanese-Americans who were disloyal during World War II. After the war ended, this was a source of shame for the government. You'd have thought people would learn a lesson from that. Less than 0.1% of American muslims are even SUSPECTED of holding radicalized views. Does that mean the >99.9% who are INNOCENT should suffer for the guilty few? If that's what you believe, your beliefs are incompatible with the fundamental concept "rule of law", which entails both "innocent until proven guilty" AND "equality under the law". Should all white males ages 15-35 be permanently monitored and ostracized from society because they are BY FAR the largest group of culprits in shootings with multiple victims? Should all white men be considered potential child molesters, because the vast majority of child molesters are white men? 4) It is a proven fact that the discrimination of Muslims as a response to Islamic extremism DIRECTLY leads to the radicalization of young Muslim men and women who previously held no interest in extreme Islam. Why? Because it appears to confirm the propaganda of Islamic extremists that the west hates Muslims and wants to destroy them. British journalist Robert Verkaik recently published a well-received book, the result of years of study, showing how this attitude directly contributes to the radicalization process: link 5) A huge scare-mongering campaign by far-right, anti-democratic groups is going on, and has been going on for years. Donald Trump, Geert Wilders, Marine Le Pen, the Lega Nord, the Golden Dawn, these are all part of a resurgent neo-fascist current in Europe and America which uses misinformation to instill fear and undermine stability. They, too, directly contribute to radicalization by deliberately singling out Muslims and provoking them on the one hand, and by emphasizing that extremist Islamism is "the only true Islam" on the other. The problem of Islamic terrorism WILL NOT END unless this dark menace is tackled as well - they are not separate problems, but part of the same attack on democracy. 6) Anti-gay violence is not a "Muslim-problem", despite the way the far-right is spinning it now. In gay-tolerant Holland, where statistical research has been done into anti-gay sentiments for a number of years, last years' survey clearly showed that anti-gay sentiment among Muslim immigrants is just as high as under white Dutch men over 55. The supporters of the anti-Muslim 'Freedom Party' are the group of voters who hold the second most unfavorable view of gays, after the protestant-fundamentalist SGP, which officially wants to replace the Dutch constitution with Biblical law. Does that latter intention sound familiar? Exactly. It's the same damn thing as Islamic radicals wanting to impose Sharia-law, but because the SGP are Christians, it's supposedly not scary. Also, which group is responsible for most anti-gay VIOLENCE? White males, 18-35. Who engage in anti-gay hate-speech most? Football hooligans. Who are mostly 18-35 year old white males. 7) While Islamic terrorism is the most well-known kind of terrorism, it wasn't the most numerous or the most virulent kind of terrorism until the start of the Syrian civil war. Even so, most victims BY FAR are other muslims. Why don't we want to protect THOSE victims? Instead we BLAME THE VICTIMS. Does that sound familiar too? It's what the far-right propagandists, like FOX News, tell you the 'left' does. I see a kind of fascism on the rise again in Europe and America, and I'm not alone. Has any of you ever spoken to people who lived through the Second World War? Because I can tell you for a fact that I know several people now in their late 80s who get chills from the similarities between current populist groups and the nazis. But you can't say that in public anymore, because any comparison to the nazis is taboo. Which means that anyone can latch on to nazi ideology with impunity, as Donald Trump has shamelessly done. Remember the Mussolini quotes? Expect more of them. Each of you has a choice now. You can either support fascism or oppose it. But if, instead, you choose to deny that it is back, history WILL prove you wrong. And you are then likely to find yourself on the wrong side. |
| Saint Jiub 14.06.2016 12:47 |
0.1%? Did Thomas get his "info" from "TOX" News? http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf From page 142 of a 2013 Pew Research report: "More than eight-in-ten American Muslims say suicide bombings and other forms of violence against civilian targets are never justified (81%) or rarely justified (5%) to defend Islam from its enemies. Worldwide, most Muslims also reject this type of violence, with a median of 72% saying such attacks are never justified and 10% saying they are rarely justified. Just 1% of U.S. Muslims and a median of 3% of Muslims worldwide say suicide bombings and other violence against civilian targets are often justified, while 7% of U.S. Muslims and a global median of 8% of Muslims say such attacks are sometimes justified to defend Islam." |
| thomasquinn 32989 14.06.2016 15:11 |
And that 1% who approve are all going to start killing? Nope. Nice try at lying with statistics, but even you're better at it than with this lazy attempt. But I'm glad you've come up with statistics that show a VAST majority, 92-97% of Muslims worldwide, condemning terrorist attacks. Let's not forget that roughly 5-10% of people in Europe also approve of the nazis, roughly the same percentage. |
| *goodco* 14.06.2016 18:52 |
Muhammad Ali is gonna whoop on all of 'em who are doing these dastardly deeds. [Yes, I know it is a simplification...but they are forewarned. Their nutsucks will shrink and be pummelled before they eff their promised 72 year old virgin.] |
| Saint Jiub 14.06.2016 20:09 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: And that 1% who approve are all going to start killing? Nope. Nice try at lying with statistics, but even you're better at it than with this lazy attempt. But I'm glad you've come up with statistics that show a VAST majority, 92-97% of Muslims worldwide, condemning terrorist attacks. Let's not forget that roughly 5-10% of people in Europe also approve of the nazis, roughly the same percentage. Please comment on your dishonest 0.1% statistic. Does The Neatherlands have any plans "adopting" any of Germany's excess refugees? I think the excess number of young adult male refugees residing in Cologne would be perfect for Holland. |
| Saint Jiub 14.06.2016 20:11 |
dbl post |
| YourValentine 15.06.2016 03:05 |
I believe that various factors contributed to this catastrophy: - apparently, the killer was a closet gay who could not come to terms with his sexual orientation coming from a very strict old fashioned Muslim Family. They say his father has his own YouTube channel and has links to the Taliban. - the gun laws certainly made it very easy for him to own a legal semi-automatic assault weapon although he had been already in the focus of the FBI earlier. Of course not every closet gay from conservative families becomes a mass murderer and not all Muslims have connections to the Taliban. Not all Americans who can buy assault weapons become mass killers, neither. In my opinion the core of it all is hatred. In this specific case self-hatred might have been the biggest factor but hatred is the core of all this terrorism of our times. We all should work on fightihg this hatred and focus on humanism instead. We should really stop all this whataboutism that makes us blind for the danger that we might lose our freedom and civil rights in these days of terrorism. It does not help the victims when we point out that most crimes against gays in the Western world come from white males and it does not help when we point out that sexual offenses against women very often come from Muslim men, even from refugees whom we let into our countries to save their lives. We can only stop this spiral of hatred when we stand up for our civiiisation and demand tolerance and respect for our lifestye from everybody. In the last 20 years we have allowed "political correctness" to dominate the social discourse to a point that we were actually unable to name a problem from fear of being called a racist. Right now we tend to fall into the other extreme and let hate speech dominate our public speeches and even vote for parties and people who champion this hate speech. We all must return to a civilised conversation. |
| Oscar J 15.06.2016 10:13 |
Valid points, good post. |
| ParisNair 15.06.2016 14:16 |
People blaming lack of gun control are simply looking for excuses not to blame Islam. The killer had the intent to kill. Getting the gun was the easiest thing to do. If it was not readily available, he would have googled and learnt to assemble an IED. These guys are the US equivalent of suicide bombers from the middle east. TQ - did you deliberately avoid mentioning the views expressed by the killer's devout muslim dad, because it runs contrary to the picture you are trying to paint? |
| ParisNair 16.06.2016 02:44 |
Good points by YV. From my observation, Americans seem very much capable (generally speaking) of differentiating the right from the wrong as far as they are judging fellow Americans or Westerners (Trump, Geert Wilders, Marine Le Pen etc). They are vocal about their criticism of these people. But when it comes to anything related to Islam, they start beating around the bush. For instance, Mateen's disgust with homosexuality was due to what Islam says about homosexuality. The doctrine of Islam hates homosexuals, and the hadiths accord death as the punishment for homosexual acts, period. Why is it so difficult to accept this, instead of looking for all kinds of other justifications for his hate of gays? Even the guy's father himself admitted as much. The politically incorrect statements of Trump and others is taken on face value and they are judged as bigots and such. Why can't the same be done for the terrorists, when they themselves claim they are doing what their religion teaches them to do? Why do have to, as the first thing, exonerate Islam of any short-comings? |
| Sebastian 16.06.2016 02:58 |
ParisNair wrote: People blaming lack of gun control are simply looking for excuses not to blame Islam.Not me - I think there were a number of factors involved, guns and religion being the top ones of course, but also homophobia (which is largely, though not a hundred per cent, fuelled by religion), hatred (as YourValentine rightly pointed out), etc. Life's not black and white, and it's not a greyscale either. There are millions of colours, and not being able to see the FIR or the UV doesn't mean they don't exist. We can all theorise on whether he could've assembled a ... whatever you said (I'm not an expert on that so I've forgotten what it was you mentioned) or whether he could've bought a gun illegally if they were outlawed, but that would've meant assuming he: * Was clever enough to manufacture a weapon. * Wasn't lazy enough to give it up hadn't the opportunity been handed to him on a silver tray. Gun control wouldn't magically eradicate mass shootings (or domestic shootings, or accidental shootings, or hunting, etc) but it'd certainly help. Expanding from my 'it's not B&W or a greyscale' point/leitmotif, I do think people aren't necessarily ambassadors of the entire group(s) they belong to, either via choice (sometimes theirs, sometimes their parents') or via circumstances (nobody chooses where they were born or their skin colour). Would he have commited those crimes if he weren't a Muslim? Or if he weren't allegedly a closeted homosexual? Or if he hadn't easy access to guns? Or if he hadn't been born and raised in America? Or if his mum and dad had bought him another ice-cream one day when he was five and accidentally dropped his? We'll never know. What we can know is that: * Horrible crimes are commited all the time in the name of religion (not just Islam, and that's not the same as defending them or bending over backwards to be politically correct). * It certainly is bloody tricky to kill 49 people with a baseball bat or a butcher's knife. * Countries which have made the choice of outlawing guns have a far lower rate of mass-shootings per hundred inhabitants (and that can be and has been mathematically and statistically measured). * Events in cities like Paris, Brussels, Orlando and New York get a lot more media attention than those in Kenya, Somalia or Guatemala, and it shouldn't be that way. |
| ParisNair 16.06.2016 10:50 |
IEDs - Improvised Explosive Devices :)
In my country, we hear this term a lot. Getting access to a gun legally is not easy here. And, if you are a terrorist, trying to procure a gun illegally is risky..you are exposing yourself to many unscrupulous people and leaving a trail.
So the terrorists get hold of raw material that is easily available at any shopping mall and build a bomb which can have a timer, or a remote controlled trigger...take your pick. So, instead of 49 getting killed by a gun like in America, 100 get killed by a bomb.
I am not making this up. This is how terrorists work here (India, Pakistan). Depending on how the IED has been assembled, the investigators are able to identify which group is behind the explosion. And, unlike in case of a gunman who gets identified and neutralized immediately, catching the bomber takes forever. Sometimes they never get caught even. And when caught, they go through the lengthy justice system on the tax-payer's expense.
* It certainly is bloody tricky to kill 49 people with a baseball bat or a butcher's knife. * Countries which have made the choice of outlawing guns have a far lower rate of mass-shootings per hundred inhabitants (and that can be and has been mathematically and statistically measured).I don't think its about number of victims. I'm sure you don't think its somehow better if a terrorist is only able to stab 10 people (or 1 person) than gunning down 50. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 16.06.2016 10:55 |
ParisNair wrote: People blaming lack of gun control are simply looking for excuses not to blame Islam.People blaming lack of gun control are simply putting a chunk of the blame where it belongs. Whatever the fuel for the Orlando massacre, the tool was the easily and legally acquired assault weapon. Democrats stood for 15 hours on the Senate floor yesterday detailing the effects of these weapons over the past years. Senator Chris Murphy said: "What unites all of these shootings, from Littleton to Aurora, to Newtown, to Blacksburg to Orlando, is that the weapon of choice in every case is a gun — often a very powerful gun, an AR-15 or an AR-15-style gun that was designed for the military, for law enforcement to kill as many people as quickly as possible." Radicalization? Mental illness? Hate? Revenge? The motivations behind these attacks absolutely have to be addressed. But so do the means of carrying them out. That's why the weapons used, and the ease of legally obtaining those weapons, are at issue. Focusing on those issues in no way alters or diminishes the focus on the mind-set behind the attacks. |
| Oscar J 16.06.2016 11:11 |
"I don't think its about number of victims. I'm sure you don't think its somehow better if a terrorist is only able to stab 10 people (or 1 person) than gunning down 50. " This is a very weird statement. Surely it's better if fewer people die in terrorist attacks? The obvious reason: each death is a life destroyed, and people around the deceased suffer deeply from the tragedy. Another reason: a terrorist might not think an attack is worth it if he can't kill many people. |
| ParisNair 16.06.2016 11:44 |
Radicalization? Mental illness? Hate? Revenge? The motivations behind these attacks absolutely have to be addressed. But so do the means of carrying them out. That's why the weapons used, and the ease of legally obtaining those weapons, are at issue. Focusing on those issues in no way alters or diminishes the focus on the mind-set behind the attacks.I would consider it a gun control issue if the gun was obtained legally. You mention ease of obtaining guns illegally. That means flouting rules right? Frankly, other than the fact that guns are available quite easily (legally) in the USA, and that it is big issue, I don't know much about the topic. Anyway, my point is, if not gun, the killer would look for something else to carry out the attacks. It is the motivation/mentality that needs to be addressed. As far as the politicians (especially Democrats) are concerned, they always outdo each other to make the right noises and make sure to stay politically correct. This is a very weird statement. Surely it's better if fewer people die in terrorist attacks? The obvious reason: each death is a life destroyed, and people around the deceased suffer deeply from the tragedy. Another reason: a terrorist might not think an attack is worth it if he can't kill many people.My poitn was, it does not matter how many die. The people get terrorized and the perpetrator's aim is acheived. And your second statement contradicts the first. Seriously check out IEDs. There are detailed DIY manuals, even numerous videos on youtube which explain every aspect of making one. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 16.06.2016 11:51 |
ParisNair wrote: I would consider it a gun control issue if the gun was obtained legally. You mention ease of obtaining guns illegally. That means flouting rules right?No. I was discussing the ease of obtaining guns legally because that's how the guns in the mass shootings I mentioned were obtained...and that's why this IS, in large part, a gun control issue. |
| ParisNair 16.06.2016 12:13 |
Sorry, I do see now you mentioned "ease of legally obtaining" but I somehow misread it as "illegaly". I dunno how that happened :D Then, yes it is a gun control issue, in my opinion too. But not the main reason. And mentioning gun control while completely discounting the main cause does not help in any way. |
| Oscar J 16.06.2016 12:25 |
Yes, the number of people dying matters. The more deaths, the more trauma and lives destroyed. It's a quite cynical thing to say that preventing deaths from terror doesn't matter. |
| ParisNair 16.06.2016 15:40 |
I did not say and never meant that preventing death from terror does not matter, and you now it. |
| Oscar J 16.06.2016 16:05 |
It certainly sounded like it from this comment, unless you meant from the murderers perspective. "My poitn was, it does not matter how many die." Also: "I'm sure you don't think its somehow better if a terrorist is only able to stab 10 people (or 1 person) than gunning down 50." I sure as hell think it's a lot better if a terrorist is only able to stab 10 people than gunning down 50. 40 lives spared. But maybe I'm not understanding you correctly here either? |
| YourValentine 17.06.2016 04:15 |
OscarJ, ParisNair was saying that the number of victims is not the main factor in creating the terror, he did not say that the victims don't matter :-) If you are afraid to be in a public street because a bomb could explode each second - that is terror. Right now American citizens are more likely to be shot accidentally by a toddler than by a politically motivated murder or killed in a hate crime. However, you can protect yourself from getting shot by your own child by simply not owning a gun. You cannot protect yourself from a random terror attack. |
| Oscar J 17.06.2016 05:13 |
Yeah, I figured it was something like that he meant. But I still feel like the thought of a potential terrorist with a sophisticated weapon, capable of killing more people, is more terrifying. |
| Sebastian 17.06.2016 08:51 |
YourValentine wrote: ...you can protect yourself from getting shot by your own child by simply not owning a gun.True. But you cannot protect your child from getting shot by other children if they (or their parents) can easily get guns, no questions asked. |
| ParisNair 18.06.2016 08:53 |
....and we have manoeuvred the discussion away from terrorism and back to gun control. |
| ParisNair 18.06.2016 08:53 |
YourValentine wrote: OscarJ, ParisNair was saying that the number of victims is not the main factor in creating the terror, he did not say that the victims don't matter :-) If you are afraid to be in a public street because a bomb could explode each second - that is terror. Right now American citizens are more likely to be shot accidentally by a toddler than by a politically motivated murder or killed in a hate crime. However, you can protect yourself from getting shot by your own child by simply not owning a gun. You cannot protect yourself from a random terror attack.Thank you so much for explaining it better than I could. |
| ParisNair 18.06.2016 08:54 |
Oscar J wrote: Yeah, I figured it was something like that he meant. But I still feel like the thought of a potential terrorist with a sophisticated weapon, capable of killing more people, is more terrifying.More terrifying than? |
| ParisNair 18.06.2016 08:57 |
Sebastian wrote:There are a lot of situations you can't protect your children from. You can't prevent your child from being grabbed from the street and shoved into an SUV (ie kidnapped). Does that mean you would control SUV sales?YourValentine wrote: ...you can protect yourself from getting shot by your own child by simply not owning a gun.True. But you cannot protect your child from getting shot by other children if they (or their parents) can easily get guns, no questions asked. Law enforcement and punishments are there for a reason. |
| Oscar J 18.06.2016 09:36 |
ParisNair wrote:Than one with a knife for example.Oscar J wrote: Yeah, I figured it was something like that he meant. But I still feel like the thought of a potential terrorist with a sophisticated weapon, capable of killing more people, is more terrifying.More terrifying than? |
| magicalfreddiemercury 18.06.2016 18:56 |
ParisNair wrote: Then, yes it is a gun control issue, in my opinion too. But not the main reason. And mentioning gun control while completely discounting the main cause does not help in any way.The main cause has not been completely discounted. The 'main cause' is still being investigated. While so many immediately called this radical islamic terrorism, the fact is that there are other issues at work here. This guy had psychiatric/behavioral issues all the way back in his elementary school days - which, in the US, is anywhere from 4 to 10 or 11 years of age. In other words, the shooter had a history of mental instability. His third grade teacher said he was preoccupied with sex and was aggressive and angry. He threatened people in high school. He beat his first wife and harassed her. At that time, he was described as bipolar. His former employers noted irrational behaviors from him. This is all before the FBI ever got involved with him. He should never have been allowed to buy, own or use a gun by any legal means. While he did indeed pledge allegiance to isis during the shooting, he also said he had connections to the Tsarnaev brothers and he had, in the past, claimed he was linked to al-qaeda and hezbollah. For a number of years now, US Homeland Security officials have warned about how terrorist groups could be attractive to the mentally handicapped. Those groups feed into insecurities and confusion in a twisted way that empowers, and that gives direction and an outlet for it all. From reports so far, it appears that’s what happened here. This scumbag needed validation. He needed to belong to something big because he was that unstable. He was also, it seems, filled with self-hate for being gay (or bi) himself, which is the speculation now - that he had "gay tendencies", that he had frequented this particular club for the pleasure of it, that he had accounts with gay hook-up sites and had chatted up other gay men more than a few times. Self-loathing is a powerful force. So, there are numerous issues at work here. To boil it down to terrorism is to, in my opinion, dismiss the whole of it. This man should never have been able to get hold of a military-style weapon. Not because of his religion - and trust me, I am no defender of religion – but because of his history of mental instability. The cause has to be addressed at all levels and in honest ways. Radical islamic terrorism is a real thing and no one is denying it played a part in this attack. But it was not the main cause of it. |
| Saint Jiub 18.06.2016 21:13 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:ParisNair wrote:The cause has to be addressed at all levels and in honest ways. Radical islamic terrorism is a real thing and no one is denying it played a part in this attack. But it was not the main cause of it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/troubled-quiet-macho-angry-the-volatile-life-of-omar-mateen/2016/06/17/15229250-34a6-11e6-8758-d58e76e11b12_story.html I am not sure why you are discounting the effect of radical islam. He cheered while in classroom when the 2nd plane hit the twin towers ... almost 15 years earlier. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 18.06.2016 21:51 |
Panchgani wrote:I'm not sure how saying "Radical islamic terrorism is a real thing and no one is denying it played a part in this attack." is the same as discounting the effect of radical islam.magicalfreddiemercury wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/troubled-quiet-macho-angry-the-volatile-life-of-omar-mateen/2016/06/17/15229250-34a6-11e6-8758-d58e76e11b12_story.html I am not sure why you are discounting the effect of radical islam. He cheered while in classroom when the 2nd plane hit the twin towers ... almost 15 years earlier.ParisNair wrote:The cause has to be addressed at all levels and in honest ways. Radical islamic terrorism is a real thing and no one is denying it played a part in this attack. But it was not the main cause of it. |
| YourValentine 19.06.2016 04:28 |
I think we always make this big mistake in trying to find reasons why the killing has really nothing to do with us and our society. We avoid the crucial question why so much hatred can develop in one of the most advanced societies ever. It reminds me of the Columbine shooting or the massacre in Norway where a single person killed over 70 people from sheer hatred. In retrospect the killer was called a psychopath who had severe mental issues, he was called a Christian fundamentalist, anti-muslim, nationalist. The Columbine killers were labelled as depressive, sexually frustrated and mentally ill. But we cannot deny that they all came from the middle of our society - so where did all this hatred come from? In the Omar Mateen case it is easy to see that the hatred came from his family who could not even refrain from name-calling the victims after the killing. I believe we have far too many people in our society who feel that their "values" (anti.gay sentiments, anti-abortion, anti- atheist, white supremacist, racist) are no longer represented in our modern society. The gap between ultra-conservatives and public opinion is becoming bigger and bigger. Too many people feel left behind with the changes and turn to nasty alternatives. Too many people use this frustration for their own purposes like Fox news or the tea party movement thus increasing the hatred. The worst thing imo is that in the aftermath of such a catastrophe people do not unite and ask the right questions but start blaming their favourite usual suspects. |
| ParisNair 19.06.2016 06:33 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: Democrats stood for 15 hours on the Senate floor yesterday detailing the effects of these weapons over the past years.How much time did they spend addressing the motivation behind the killings, as admitted by the gun-man himself? How much time did they spend condemning the statements of the father of the killer? If you are not aware of shit that came out of Mir Seddique's (Omar Mateen’s Father) mouth soon after the act, here is an example- "God will punish those involved in homosexuality, not an issue that humans should deal with." But you can ignore it. You want to point at everything else under the sun as the cause, but downplay the "main" cause. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 19.06.2016 07:13 |
ParisNair wrote:I'm not sure if you're truly not getting what I've been saying or if you're purposely dismissing it. I have said, repeatedly, that there were multiple issues at play, including mental illness, hate, extremism, and ease of access to assault weapons. I have also said the motivation and means are separate entities and each/all have to be addressed. The Dems spent 15 hours demanding some action be taken regarding common-sense gun legislation so that at least some guns can become out of reach for some who intend to do harm - whether because they're mentally ill, filled with hate, radicalized or some other excuse. Those 15 hours did not stop one drone or one pair of boots on the ground or one attempt to cut funds to extremists in the "war on terror" which has been raging for 15 years, not 15 hours, and is showing no signs of (helping or) letting up. But, yes, let us all blame only one thing and ignore everything else because the world we live in is one-dimensional.magicalfreddiemercury wrote: Democrats stood for 15 hours on the Senate floor yesterday detailing the effects of these weapons over the past years.How much time did they spend addressing the motivation behind the killings, as admitted by the gun-man himself? How much time did they spend condemning the statements of the father of the killer? If you are not aware of shit that came out of Mir Seddique's (Omar Mateen’s Father) mouth soon after the act, here is an example- "God will punish those involved in homosexuality, not an issue that humans should deal with." But you can ignore it. You want to point at everything else under the sun as the cause, but downplay the "main" cause. |
| ParisNair 19.06.2016 09:29 |
No, I understand exactly what you have said, and what I am doing is just pointing out that you still want to bring in every angle into the picture (you just did it again), but you (and others) refuse to highlight the main cause for what it is. |
| Oscar J 19.06.2016 09:57 |
ParisNair - I think it's more a case of you highlighting what you think is the main cause, and discarding every other angle and aspect of it. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 19.06.2016 10:39 |
Oscar J wrote: ParisNair - I think it's more a case of you highlighting what you think is the main cause, and discarding every other angle and aspect of it.My thoughts exactly, only you expressed them much more succinctly than I would have. |
| Saint Jiub 19.06.2016 13:41 |
Yeah Paris - git with da program. It is not radical islamic terrorism it is those damn ultra-conservitives ... or it is because he was fat and bullied as a child. Anti-US radical islamic terrorism in the US is a myth perpetrated by ultra-conservatives and Fox News: December 2015: Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, a married Pakistani couple, stormed a San Bernardino County government building with combat gear and rifles and opened fire on about 80 employees enjoying an office Christmas party. They killed 14 after pledging loyalty to ISIS. A third Muslim was charged with helping buy weapons. July 2015: Mohammad Abdulazeez opened fire on a military recruiting center and US Navy Reserve center in Chattanooga, Tenn., where he shot to death four Marines and a sailor. Obama refused to call it terrorism. May 2015: ISIS-directed Muslims Nadir Soofi and Elton Simpson opened fire on the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, Texas, shooting a security guard before police took them down. April 2013: Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, Muslim brothers from Chechnya, exploded a pair of pressure-cooker bombs at the Boston Marathon, killing three and wounding more than 260. At least 17 people lost limbs from the shrapnel. September 2012: Terrorists with al Qaeda in the Maghreb attacked the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, killing the US ambassador, a US Foreign Service officer and two CIA contractors. Obama and then-Secretary of State Clinton misled the American people, blaming the attack on an anti-Muslim video. November 2009: Army Maj. Nidal Hasan opened fire on fellow soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas, killing 13. Obama ruled it “workplace violence,” even though Hasan was in contact with an al Qaeda leader before the strikes and praised Allah as he mowed down troops. June 2009: Al Qaeda-trained Abdulhakim Muhammad opened fire on an Army recruiting office in Little Rock, Ark., killing Pvt. William Long and wounding Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula. |
| ParisNair 19.06.2016 16:06 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:Yes and no. I do think Islamic radicalism is the main cause behind what Mateen did. But I did not dream it up; I base it on the words and actions of Mateen himself.Oscar J wrote: ParisNair - I think it's more a case of you highlighting what you think is the main cause, and discarding every other angle and aspect of it.My thoughts exactly, only you expressed them much more succinctly than I would have. I do not discount any of the other angles to the story. But main reason is main reason, and I don't see you folks emphasizing it enough. And I understand the reason also. You are so pre-occupied with being decent and politically correct, that you don't want to offend Muslims beyond a certain limit, and don't want to be seen as Islamophobic etc. link |
| YourValentine 20.06.2016 05:15 |
I think you raise an important issue here, ParisNair: refusing to mention the big elephant in the room because of fear to be called a racist. The worst example of it is the case of mass rape and child abuse in Rotherham,England. The whole society is suffering from a lack of self confidence.and common decency. We question our outrage when it is caused by some sort of minority. This opens the door for all kinds of other extremists, racists and right-wing. We need to find the common ground again. Otherwise we allow the society to be split into extremists, We can already watch that in the USA and Europe. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 20.06.2016 06:02 |
ParisNair wrote:So…when someone addresses a specific issue, but does not “emphasize it enough”, according to some abstract point on your personal Emphases Scale, then their point of view is invalid as it must be skewed by their pre-occupation with political correctness. Right. Got it. And, of course, there is no danger and no flaw, whatsoever, with that thought process.magicalfreddiemercury wrote:Yes and no. I do think Islamic radicalism is the main cause behind what Mateen did. But I did not dream it up; I base it on the words and actions of Mateen himself. I do not discount any of the other angles to the story. But main reason is main reason, and I don't see you folks emphasizing it enough. And I understand the reason also. You are so pre-occupied with being decent and politically correct, that you don't want to offend Muslims beyond a certain limit, and don't want to be seen as Islamophobic etc.Oscar J wrote: ParisNair - I think it's more a case of you highlighting what you think is the main cause, and discarding every other angle and aspect of it.My thoughts exactly, only you expressed them much more succinctly than I would have. |
| Oscar J 20.06.2016 06:50 |
Panchgani: Nobody has claimed islamic terror is a myth. ParisNair: I have a general distrust in the values of people thinking of political correctness and decency as something undesirable, as they are indeed often xenophobes, racist, sexist, anti-HBTQ, etc. With that said, what I say doesn't come from me not wanting to seem islamophobic. I wouldn't care, especially on a random music forum like this. No, it comes from me not being islamophobic - meaning that I am not afraid of muslims or Islam. That doesn't mean I deny there are problems we have to deal with. However I do think it's interesting how bombings and mass shootings hardly ever happen in Sweden, with its 5% muslim percentage, while USA, with only about 1 % muslims, has a much bigger problem with it. That seems to indicate that other factors are much more important than ethnicity and religion. |
| *goodco* 21.06.2016 08:30 |
I guess all Brits should now be prevented from coming to the States link |
| The Real Wizard 21.06.2016 12:49 |
It's always fun to spot the conservatives in discussions like these. They're the ones who use buzz words, and have a need for cognitive closure in the form of providing simple answers for complex issues. In this case, it's easiest to singularly place blame on Islam than to address the fact that gun control is so obviously needed to help prevent these things from happening again. But they won't. About a hundred more people have already been gunned down since Orlando, and the Republicans have yet again blocked legislation for even the slightest bit of gun control because they're so deep in the pockets of the NRA that they can count the particles of pocket lint. |
| ParisNair 22.06.2016 14:02 |
Oscar J wrote: However I do think it's interesting how bombings and mass shootings hardly ever happen in Sweden, with its 5% muslim percentage, while USA, with only about 1 % muslims, has a much bigger problem with it. That seems to indicate that other factors are much more important than ethnicity and religion.That is interesting indeed. Other than that, I've nothing more to say regarding this topic. |
| ParisNair 22.06.2016 15:04 |
The Real Wizard wrote: It's always fun to spot the conservatives in discussions like these. They're the ones who use buzz words, and have a need for cognitive closure in the form of providing simple answers for complex issues. In this case, it's easiest to singularly place blame on Islam than to address the fact that gun control is so obviously needed to help prevent these things from happening again. But they won't. About a hundred more people have already been gunned down since Orlando, and the Republicans have yet again blocked legislation for even the slightest bit of gun control because they're so deep in the pockets of the NRA that they can count the particles of pocket lint. |
| ParisNair 22.06.2016 15:04 |
The Real Wizard wrote: It's always fun to spot the conservatives in discussions like these. They're the ones who use buzz words, and have a need for cognitive closure in the form of providing simple answers for complex issues. In this case, it's easiest to singularly place blame on Islam than to address the fact that gun control is so obviously needed to help prevent these things from happening again. But they won't. About a hundred more people have already been gunned down since Orlando, and the Republicans have yet again blocked legislation for even the slightest bit of gun control because they're so deep in the pockets of the NRA that they can count the particles of pocket lint.You are at the other end of the spectrum. And it is opinions like your's, which take the attention away from uncomfortable truths, there by letting the culprits get away, and mount attack after attack. Gun control is a topic in itself, and I've been reading up on it these last few days. It should not to be confused/mixed with terrorism though. Restricting sale of guns is not going to prevent terrorist attacks. This is not a conservative or a republican speaking. This is citizen of a country speaking, where guns are not easy to come by at all, yet it is one of the biggest victims of terror. |
| The Real Wizard 22.06.2016 22:54 |
ParisNair wrote:I'll second that.Oscar J wrote: However I do think it's interesting how bombings and mass shootings hardly ever happen in Sweden, with its 5% muslim percentage, while USA, with only about 1 % muslims, has a much bigger problem with it. That seems to indicate that other factors are much more important than ethnicity and religion.That is interesting indeed. Other than that, I've nothing more to say regarding this topic. If only American media would actually print facts like this or mention them on TV. It should be a daily occurrence until Americans finally start to understand what's going on. But special interests have long bought and paid for the media. Without a boogeyman for the average white Christian American to be afraid of, there is no public acquiescence allowing the military industrial complex to continue with business as usual in the biggest revenue maker the country has - war. |
| The Real Wizard 22.06.2016 22:56 |
ParisNair wrote: Gun control is a topic in itself, and I've been reading up on it these last few days. It should not to be confused/mixed with terrorism though. Restricting sale of guns is not going to prevent terrorist attacks. This is not a conservative or a republican speaking. This is citizen of a country speaking, where guns are not easy to come by at all, yet it is one of the biggest victims of terror.Of course, gun control isn't singularly the only solution. There are more guns per capita in Switzerland than in the US, and the Swiss don't have a problem with mass shootings. So combined with the last post I just quoted, we then begin the digging into the political and socio-economic problems that plague the US and cause more people to act out in violence more than any other nation on earth. |
| brENsKi 24.06.2016 10:20 |
The Real Wizard wrote: In this case, it's easiest to singularly place blame on Islam than to address the fact that gun control is so obviously needed to help prevent these things from happening again.(lack of) gun control AND radical Islam are equally to blame in this instance. any push to blame one or the other is deflection. tackling ONE only let's the other off the hook. |
