50 dead in Orlando gay nightclub shooting

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-15-2016, 06:03 AM)Mikebert Wrote: This too is an interesting response for two reasons.  First it is noncommital and does not answer the question.  Second it seems to imply that it was obviously a rampage (that is, a criminal act rather than an attack by a member of an irregular military unit like 911) and went to the next level of speculating why the shooter decided to commit this criminal act.

Well, I've read a little bit about the guy in the mainstream media. I'm not a qualified psychiatrist. I can do no more than speculate. I am dubious that anyone contributing to this forum can do more than speculate.

How do you define 'membership in an irregular military unit'? Has any muslim who has visited a radical Islam web page a member in your opinion, or do you have to have met other organization members, shared propaganda, trained together, and/or acted under orders? A few press accounts suggest he visited some web pages, but this is speculation and leaks from organizations that might have agendas. Anything we say about it would be speculation.

That being said, 911 was definitely well organized, they trained together, and acted under orders. Different beast. OKC was two guys acting against a cluster of government targets. If two guys can be organized, they were organized, but it's awful close to a lone nut. Then again, McVeigh did spend time in the Middle East and was ticked off by what he saw there. It's much easier to see the political connection and say terrorist. He also tried to escape, it wasn't a suicide event. Occupy Wall Street? Definitely much larger, much more organized, but not violent. Not a match at all.

If you look at them at all closely they are different. I'm not particularly eager to throw them together into arbitrary buckets. If there is a bucket I can tentatively put him in it is lone spree shooter. OKC, 911 and Occupy don't fit that category at all.

[Eric the Green]

Obama's straight talk about ISIL and Orlando to an insane nation that refuses to change. And some members of this forum also need this dressing-down. How many deaths will it take till we know, that too many have died? When do we take responsibility for the results of our policies? We are all survivors now, and we are all in danger. The shooting and the terror continues; our 4T crisis continues.





The home front and Orlando: https://youtu.be/rSoL7Cbb1cc?t=10m50s

Calling the threat by a different name, will not make it go away.

[Mikebert]

(06-15-2016, 09:39 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(06-15-2016, 06:03 AM)Mikebert Wrote: This too is an interesting response for two reasons.  First it is noncommital and does not answer the question.  Second it seems to imply that it was obviously a rampage (that is, a criminal act rather than an attack by a member of an irregular military unit like 911) and went to the next level of speculating why the shooter decided to commit this criminal act.

[Bob]How do you define 'membership in an irregular military unit'?  
[Mike]The phrase was being applied to the 911 terrorists.

[Bob]Occupy Wall Street?  Definitely much larger, much more organized, but not violent.  Not a match at all.
[Mike]The example was the Wall Street bombing (in 1920) not Occupy.  I provided a link.

[Bob]If there is a bucket I can tentatively put him in it is lone spree shooter.
[Mike]That falls in the rampage category, which is what I said you implied. My point was you did not see it as anything like 911, and yet Danilynn did.  And I'll bet most conservatives would agree. 

The first response from the Republican candidate for president was to stop Muslim immigration--as if that would stop an attack from a citizen who was born here. This statement provides elite signaling on how members of the conservative tribe should view this incident.  Hence Danilynn's drawing a connection between Pulse and 911.

The interesting question for me is why does the shooter's Muslim background drive out the usual "good guy with a gun" or armed citizenry narratives following large-scale mass murders?

Why not focus on the fact that in a nightclub in a right-to-carry state there would likely have been a dozen guys carrying who could have gunned this guy down were they not patted down for weapons.?
[url=https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/06/robert-farago/florida-gay-nightclub-massacre-proves-armed-security-isnt-effective/][/url]

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-15-2016, 12:02 PM)Mikebert Wrote: The first response from the Republican candidate for president was to stop Muslim immigration--as if that would stop an attack from a citizen who was born here. This statement provides elite signaling on how members of the conservative tribe should view this incident.  Hence Danilynn's drawing a connection between Pulse and 911.

The interesting question for me is why does the shooter's Muslim background drive out the usual "good guy with a gun" or armed citizenry narratives following large-scale mass murders?

Why not focus on the fact that in a nightclub in a right-to-carry state there would likely have been a dozen guys carrying who could have gunned this guy down were they not patted down for weapons.?
[url=https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/06/robert-farago/florida-gay-nightclub-massacre-proves-armed-security-isnt-effective/][/url]

Keeping guns out of the hands of those who would abuse them would not be a trivial exercise.  Naturally, blue politicians are saying the usual, but the weapons used were among the most common law enforcement weapons in the world.  There aren't enough magic ponies around to make them go away.  An assault weapons ban isn't indicated by this event as assault weapons weren't used, but they'll posture and preen anyway. 

The conservatives interpret the 2nd as in part a right to be able to defend one's self.  Pat downs and taking of weapons are designed to take away said right.  As you say, why not give law abiding people a chance at survival?  If what we are doing isn't working, why not try a change?  Isn't that one definition of insanity, clinging to a failed policy?

But values don't shift.  We'll all cling to existing values.  We're all insane.

[Eric the Green]

America refuses to change; America will get more of the same

[Danilynn]

How about not speculating on my reasoning? And let me explain my reasoning behind the choices of Oklahoma City and 9/11.

Oklahoma city: That attack was carried out by a small disjointed group of 2, I still believe there were more that just were not caught, and done in such a way as to maximize impact on the populace by American Born several generations back American Born radicals. This attack in McVeigh's own words was supposed to have ignited more lone wolf attacks against the Government and the population to turn against the government. Chaos. Mayhem, and unrest. Innocent loss of life was just collateral damage. The main target wasn't a lifestyle, so much as an attack on the government.

9/11 Was an attack and a message about our way of life, our financial heartbeat and importance in the world. It was carried out by Saudi Nationals, who laughed from things I have heard and read that we gave them their Visas and flight training that allowed them to do things they did with some aircraft. The middle East has made no bones about their opinion of our "immoral Western culture" Western Culture represents Soddam and Gomorrah to them. Or whatever the muslim version is. (Don't know, don't really give a rat's ***, so if you know just know I don't care.)

This attack seems a hybrid of the two to me, a couple of lone nutbags bent on sending a message to other nutbags in the hopes of causing chaos and mayhem. Only this one wants to impact not only the government of a nation that blindly and stupidly accepted his parents into it's country, but to lash out because his ideology demands it of him against a lifestyle he wrongly assumed would have the fruitloops on the fringes of Christianity cheering him on for his mass murder. Obviously he was wrong, Not sure what the westboro freaks feel, and again don't give a rat's *** nor care.

Was he gay, maybe. Was he curious. maybe. No one will know that but the now dead terrorist scum and whatever God he had to answer to.

The two have similarities in that they both happened after other well publicized events. In OKC it was the Waco incident, with this one it was Paris just last fall ( twice).

As for my feelings on Guns, that has been hashed out before on the old forum. You can take them when you kill me for them. Otherwise, well, seems we have a standoff. My 2nd amendment right has not yet infringed on anyone else's life or liberty or pursuit of happiness.

As an aside, there are nearly 200 million legal gun owners with probably a few trillion rounds of ammo for said guns in our collective hands. If we were the REAL problem, oh, trust me you'd have already seen this up close and probably real damn personal. It would be the Purge meets the Walking Dead meets the wild wild west on steroids by now.

[Galen]

(06-15-2016, 03:10 PM)taramarie Wrote: Agree with Eric here. Until America decides to change it will get the same results. It makes me glad i live in a country with tight regulations on guns and guns designed for mass kills are banned here as well as the fact it is illegal to carry a gun or any weapon on you. Take a lesson from other countries America. It won't hurt you to learn from others every so often. England is another prime example so I hear.

You might want to listen to a man from the UK as to why gun control is a bad idea:  (Milo also has some useful things to say about the current state of Europe)

[Odin]

Milo is a professional panderer who tells right-wing idiots what they want to hear and says dumb shit to get attention.

[Eric the Green]

(06-15-2016, 04:59 PM)Danilynn Wrote: How about not speculating on my reasoning? And let me explain my reasoning behind the choices of Oklahoma City and 9/11.

Oklahoma city: That attack was carried out by a small disjointed group of 2, I still believe there were more that just were not caught, and done in such a way as to maximize impact on the populace by American Born several generations back American Born radicals. This attack in McVeigh's own words was supposed to have ignited more lone wolf attacks against the Government and the population to turn against the government. Chaos. Mayhem, and unrest. Innocent loss of life was just collateral damage. The main target wasn't a lifestyle, so much as an attack on the government.

9/11 Was an attack and a message about our way of life, our financial heartbeat and importance in the world. It was carried out by Saudi Nationals, who laughed from things I have heard and read that we gave them their Visas and flight training that allowed them to do things they did with some aircraft. The middle East has made no bones about their opinion of our "immoral Western culture" Western Culture represents Soddam and Gomorrah to them. Or whatever the muslim version is. (Don't know, don't really give a rat's ***, so if you know just know I don't care.)

This attack seems a hybrid of the two to me, a couple of lone nutbags bent on sending a message to other nutbags in the hopes of causing chaos and mayhem. Only this one wants to impact not only the government of a nation that blindly and stupidly accepted his parents into it's country, but to lash out because his ideology demands it of him against a lifestyle he wrongly assumed would have the fruitloops on the fringes of Christianity cheering him on for his mass murder. Obviously he was wrong, Not sure what the westboro freaks feel, and again don't give a rat's *** nor care.....The two have similarities in that they both happened after other well publicized events. In OKC it was the Waco incident, with this one it was Paris just last fall ( twice).

Do I dare answer? hmmmmmmmmm

Offered in the spirit of rational discourse.

All true, except for the assumption that all Muslims are anti-Western fanatics who say The West is Sodom and Gomorra. Obama has set things straight on that in his latest speech (I posted it above I think). All Muslims, just like all Christians, should not be lumped together as all the same and all bad. We very-much need Muslim allies to defeat the Islamic State, Al Qaeda and other such terrorist scum.

Quote:Was he gay, maybe. Was he curious. maybe. No one will know that but the now dead terrorist scum and whatever God he had to answer to.

The same God we all answer to, yes.

Quote:As for my feelings on Guns, that has been hashed out before on the old forum. You can take them when you kill me for them. Otherwise, well, seems we have a standoff. My 2nd amendment right has not yet infringed on anyone else's life or liberty or pursuit of happiness.

As an aside, there are nearly 200 million legal gun owners with probably a few trillion rounds of ammo for said guns in our collective hands. If we were the REAL problem, oh, trust me you'd have already seen this up close and probably real damn personal. It would be the Purge meets the Walking Dead meets the wild wild west on steroids by now.

Hashed, and rehashed. Liberals won't take your guns away until you are ready to give them up, or you go insane and/or violate the law. As for military assault weapons, there will probably be a ban (eventually), but I don't know if that will entail confiscation. Most legal gun owners may not be the problem, but ENOUGH of them ARE to result in more mass shootings than in any other country by far.

btw 22% of 300 million does not equal 200 million; more like 65 million.
http://qz.com/518477/charted-this-is-the...al-policy/

[pbrower2a]

The most effective deterrent to burglary remains the dog, an animal whose behavior morphs easily from loving pet to for all practical purposes the Other Big Cat if it finds itself or its loved ones (including us, fellow dogs, and even cats) under threat.

[Galen]

(06-16-2016, 07:21 AM)Odin Wrote: Milo is a professional panderer who tells right-wing idiots what they want to hear and says dumb shit to get attention.

I have spent enough time around the left myself to know he is not making this shit up.  The situation in Europe really is as bad as he says it is.

[Mikebert]

(06-15-2016, 04:59 PM)Danilynn Wrote: How about not speculating on my reasoning? And let me explain my reasoning behind the choices of Oklahoma City and 9/11.

Oklahoma city:  That attack was carried out by a small disjointed group of 2, I still believe there were more that just were not caught, and done in such a way as to maximize impact on the populace by American Born several generations back American Born radicals. This attack in McVeigh's own words was supposed to have ignited more lone wolf attacks against the Government and the population to turn against the government. Chaos. Mayhem, and unrest. Innocent loss of life was just collateral damage. The main target wasn't a lifestyle, so much as an attack on the government.

9/11 Was an attack and a message about our way of life, our financial heartbeat and importance in the world. It was carried out by Saudi Nationals, who laughed from things I have heard and read that we gave them their Visas and flight training that allowed them to do things they did with some aircraft. The middle East has made no bones about their opinion of our "immoral Western culture" Western Culture represents Soddam and Gomorrah to them. Or whatever the muslim version is. (Don't know, don't really give a rat's ***, so if you know just know I don't care.)

This attack seems a hybrid of the two to me, a couple of lone nutbags bent on sending a message to other nutbags in the hopes of causing chaos and mayhem.

The question was do you see this as a terrorist attack like 911 or a rampage like Virginia Tech? This entire response argues from an assumption that it is obvious that it is an act of terrorism, and so the focus is on why you chose 911 or Oklahoma as specific examples of terrorist events to which Orlando can be compared.  Not addressed is the original question, why is an act of terrorism and not a rampage?

Terrorism implies a political motive on the part of the terrorists.  Rampages like Virginia Tech or Sandy Hook have no motives intelligible to a sane observer, any motives the perps may have are crazy.  Rampage killers are nutbags.  The 911 actors were no more crazy than kamikaze pilots during WW II.  Like the kamikazes, they were following orders given by a higher authority.  There is no evidence of a controlling authority behind Orlando nor is anyone speculating on this.

Of course the Oklahoma and Bath bombings had no higher authority either but there were still political motives behind them.  McVeigh was striking against a government he hated.  The Bath bombing was an anti-tax protest, like the guy flying a plane into an IRS field office a few years back.

[Anthony '58]

Problem: A radical Islamist kills 50 gay Americans with an AR-15.

Knee-jerk radical's solution: Ban AR-15s.

Fundamentalist bigot's solution: Ban gays.

Common-sense solution: Ban radical Islamists!

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-21-2016, 07:40 AM)Anthony Wrote: Common-sense solution: Ban radical Islamists!

There is a distinction being made that we are fighting terrorists, not a religion.  ISIS is trying to say the West hate muslims and is making war on muslims.  Some Western leaders (Obama among them)  prefer to identify specific violence using groups rather than use language that targets religion.

A while ago the IRA was doing a lot of killing in Ireland.  About that time I was a practicing Catholic.  No, I wasn't pleased by language directed at all Catholics.  Not sure whether this is important or another weird form of political correctness.

But whatever you call them, what, are you going to deny visas to a certain group of individuals who present a risk?  You have a solid method of identifying them other than religion?

[Anthony '58]

We are at war - and like it or not, Islam is the enemy.

Get over it - and politics stops at the water's edge. The foreign enemy of your domestic political opponent is not your friend - unless you are at best a sore loser, and quite possibly a traitor.

[TnT]

Common-sense solution: Ban radical Islamists!

I suppose ... if by "Common-sense" you mean the sort of one-dimensional, superficial, over-simplified kinds of solutions that appeal to sixth grade boys, Trumpistas, and assorted anti-intellectuals.

[radind]

(06-21-2016, 08:29 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(06-21-2016, 07:40 AM)Anthony Wrote: Common-sense solution: Ban radical Islamists!

There is a distinction being made that we are fighting terrorists, not a religion.  ISIS is trying to say the West hate muslims and is making war on muslims.  Some Western leaders (Obama among them)  prefer to identify specific violence using groups rather than use language that targets religion.

A while ago the IRA was doing a lot of killing in Ireland.  About that time I was a practicing Catholic.  No, I wasn't pleased by language directed at all Catholics.  Not sure whether this is important or another weird form of political correctness.

But whatever you call them, what, are you going to deny visas to a certain group of individuals who present a risk?  You have a solid method of identifying them other than religion?

Just target Islamic terrorists( internal or external).

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-21-2016, 08:50 AM)Anthony Wrote: We are at war - and like it or not, Islam is the enemy.

Well, no.  There are a lot more muslims out there that are not my enemies than are.  Treating them all like enemies is apt to make more of them into enemies.

I suppose the opposite extreme from spreading hate would be spreading love.  Is it common sense that we should all sing Kumbaya and trade hugs?  That sort of simplistic logic is no better and no worse than your flavor of common sense.

[Classic-Xer]

(06-21-2016, 05:37 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(06-21-2016, 08:50 AM)Anthony Wrote: We are at war - and like it or not, Islam is the enemy.

Well, no.  There are a lot more muslims out there that are not my enemies than are.  Treating them all like enemies is apt to make more of them into enemies.

I suppose the opposite extreme from spreading hate would be spreading love.  Is it common sense that we should all sing Kumbaya and trade hugs?  That sort of simplistic logic is no better and no worse than your flavor of common sense.

If I'm able to understand the difference between the two, you should be able to understand the difference as well. Why aren't you able to recognize the difference and accept a rational (common sense) Americans point of view on an issue that directly relates to Muslims? What's the problem with today's Democrats? Is it race and the Democratic fear of losing Muslim votes? Or is that the high almighty Democrats don't believe that the Muslims are capable/ intelligent enough to distinguish the difference among themselves?

[Classic-Xer]

(06-21-2016, 05:44 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(06-21-2016, 05:37 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(06-21-2016, 08:50 AM)Anthony Wrote: We are at war - and like it or not, Islam is the enemy.

Well, no.  There are a lot more muslims out there that are not my enemies than are.  Treating them all like enemies is apt to make more of them into enemies.

I suppose the opposite extreme from spreading hate would be spreading love.  Is it common sense that we should all sing Kumbaya and trade hugs?  That sort of simplistic logic is no better and no worse than your flavor of common sense.

Bingo.

Who's doing that other than the liberals? Aren't liberals able to see there's a major difference between the radicals and the moderates?