Orlando terror attack worst mass shooting in US history

[smilesammich 10,727]

Naw, I think he used Islam as a way to justify himself. And there's a lot of material out there to help him with that. Which is a problem as well.

of course its a problem, but it isn't exclusive to islam. if we're speaking about acceptance or at minimum tolerance of homosexuality in this country with regards to religion, i know i was raised to hate the sin and stay away from the sinner, lest they rub their satan off on my innocent soul. bigotry and hatred towards homosexuals is sort of the last moderately 'acceptable' bigotry in this country.

[OriZ 3,157]

At the end of the day lets not kid ourselves - this was a terror attack. Sure there may have been contributory factors as to why he chose the timing and location that he did. But especially if it is true that he supposedly scouted other places, such as disney, it means gays didn't necessarily have to be his target. For one disney has better security, but besides that it's also an open place. It's not uncommon for people like him to look for an enclosed place where it is easier to get as many people as possible. In Israel there have been many attacks in buses, restaurants or nightclubs. None of them were gay nightclubs per se, but maybe some of the other factors contributed to his choice to pick that one. Not only the factors we already know about him but also the fact it is part of liberal western judeo-christian society that they hate so much. It symbolizes the tolerance they fight against and the openness that they detest. My belief is that even if all the other known facts about him were the same about his background and whether or not he was gay or was in gay bars, and the only thing different was his religion, this attack would not have happened. I believe to think otherwise is to kid yourself.

Edited June 14, 2016 by OriZ

[smilesammich 10,727]

for the life of me i don't see any benefit in projecting what would have occurred if the killer were another religion. it happened. what ifs are of zero consequence.

[GandD 5,966]

of course its a problem, but it isn't exclusive to islam. if we're speaking about acceptance or at minimum tolerance of homosexuality in this country with regards to religion, i know i was raised to hate the sin and stay away from the sinner, lest they rub their satan off on my innocent soul. bigotry and hatred towards homosexuals is sort of the last moderately 'acceptable' bigotry in this country.

Yeah but i think considering a sinner dammed to hell affects them a little less than murdering them. Besides, Gay rights are growing stronger and stronger in this country. Which is good.

[OriZ 3,157]

for the life of me i don't see any benefit in projecting what would have occurred if the killer were another religion. it happened. what ifs are of zero consequence.

You're taking one sentence meant to emphasize the point and missing the big picture. The big picture is he would not have done this just because he was gay or hated gays or hated himself or whatever other silly excuses you hear by people trying to say this had nothing to do with islamic extremeism. No, he wouldn't have done this if his name was Charlie, or Shalom. He did this because they represent a society that in his new found radicalism he couldn't stand. Maybe he chose it because it was the only nightclub he knew so well if he's been there before? Easier to do something like this in a place you already know. There are many reasons why he could have chosen the location he has chosen, but classifying it as a hate crime and saying it had nothing to do with his religion is delusional.

[smilesammich 10,727]

Yeah but i think considering a sinner dammed to hell affects them a little less than murdering them. Besides, Gay rights are growing stronger and stronger in this country. Which is good.

sure, but not even close to the majority who hold the belief that gays deserve death go out and murder on behalf of that belief. the vast majority hold on to the 'god will judge them' bs that the killers dad put out there. what i'm trying to say is holding the belief that gays deserve death isn't necessarily a solid indicator that the believer is 1. a follower of a particular religion 2. going to act on that belief.

so for the sake of argument we all agree that this was an islamic terror attack. given that the killer was american, given that the killer appears to have been in the closet and at war with himself, how does the label 'islamic terror attack' assist us in making sure this doesn't happen again?

[smilesammich 10,727]

You're taking one sentence meant to emphasize the point and missing the big picture. The big picture is he would not have done this just because he was gay or hated gays or hated himself or whatever other silly excuses you hear by people trying to say this had nothing to do with islamic extremeism. No, he wouldn't have done this if his name was Charlie, or Shalom. He did this because they represent a society that in his new found radicalism he couldn't stand. Maybe he chose it because it was the only nightclub he knew so well if he's been there before? Easier to do something like this in a place you already know. There are many reasons why he could have chosen the location he has chosen, but classifying it as a hate crime and saying it had nothing to do with his religion is delusional.

the big picture and the point is that if he hadn't been raised in islam (new found radicalism, not sure where you're getting that) he wouldn't have committed this act. seems intangible and irrelevant a big picture/point considering reality and the dead.

also, nothing more than a guess at make believe.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

I don't see any value in a blanket declaration that this killer was motivated solely by extremism. All the facts are hardly in, but it is obvious only that this guy was unhinged. Why is it difficult to understand that this was likely the result of numerous motivations?

I also think that the daily carnage of gun violence in this country makes incidents like this, despite the larger than usual single incident body count, a little bit mundane. Sadly the new normal.

[yuna628 9,676]

There is no difference between this guy and the Nazi kid church shooter, the rich kid who hated women and mowed people down, the PP clinic shooter, the abortion clinic bombers of old, or even Lanza. They all had a high degree of ego, rage, nutbaggery, and self loathing... but they all need an excuse that allows them to take action on the unthinkable to the rational mind. So they turn to an ideology that tells them it's okay to commit the unthinkable (and I'm convinced this had something to do about 'attoning' for his sins as one of the motivating factors not all of them).

But I do have a question: when a lot of people look at people like the PP shooter, or Nazi kid, or Lanza or others they will say ''these are purely crazy people'' without giving a second thought to the possible ideology they were inspired by or turning to. When it is a person that is immediately identified as Muslim we say ''oh that's a terrorist'' and automatically dismiss other contributing factors. All these persons were terrorists in their own right, and both types of dismissing is wrong I think. With terrorist cultist ideology we can immediately point to movements and Imams that are inspiration for these acts, but refuse to acknowledge the rhetoric from so-called Christian preachers, sects, and ideologies that contribute to the other killings (and sadly future killings) I mentioned. They may be associated with different religions, but it comes from the same root of hatred. It's so easy to fall into us vs them mode isn't it? The WBC and Nazi movements isn't actively throwing people off of buildings or waging jihad (well.. you can find a lot of that sort of thing going on in Russian and African countries against gays and immigrants), but they are doing their own method of terrorizing in their own right and sooner or later someone will use that ideology to do exactly as this guy has done. So why do we put such an emphasis on one criminal act over another?

Edited June 14, 2016 by yuna628

[Jacque67 7,328]

There is no difference between this guy and the Nazi kid church shooter, the rich kid who hated women and mowed people down, the PP clinic shooter, the abortion clinic bombers of old, or even Lanza. They all had a high degree of ego, rage, nutbaggery, and self loathing... but they all need an excuse that allows them to take action on the unthinkable to the rational mind. So they turn to an ideology that tells them it's okay to commit the unthinkable (and I'm convinced this had something to do about 'attoning' for his sins as one of the motivating factors not all of them).

But I do have a question: when a lot of people look at people like the PP shooter, or Nazi kid, or Lanza or others they will say ''these are purely crazy people'' without giving a second thought to the possible ideology they were inspired by or turning to. When it is a person that is immediately identified as Muslim we say ''oh that's a terrorist'' and automatically dismiss other contributing factors. All these persons were terrorists in their own right, and both types of dismissing is wrong I think. With terrorist cultist ideology we can immediately point to movements and Imams that are inspiration for these acts, but refuse to acknowledge the rhetoric from so-called Christian preachers, sects, and ideologies that contribute to the other killings (and sadly future killings) I mentioned. They may be associated with different religions, but it comes from the same root of hatred. It's so easy to fall into us vs them mode isn't it? The WBC and Nazi movements isn't actively throwing people off of buildings or waging jihad (well.. you can find a lot of that sort of thing going on in Russian and African countries against gays and immigrants), but they are doing their own method of terrorizing in their own right and sooner or later someone will use that ideology to do exactly as this guy has done. So why do we put such an emphasis on one criminal act over another?

No room for logic here. Get with the program!

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Naw, I think he used Islam as a way to justify himself. And there's a lot of material out there to help him with that. Which is a problem as well.

Oh and I have to assume since you don't think motive matters, you're not a supporter of hate crime legislation?

I know you've been gone for a while, but I've never been a supporter of hate crime laws. Why? Because just like AA, it shows that the system is broken. Do we need them? Yes. Because this country is inherently biased against minorities. So much in fact, BLM has made some places pass a hate crime law for LEO's. Which has to the biggest slap in the face for us since killing a cop either gets you life without parole or the death penalty automatically. I'm curious as to what is life without parole plus some additional years adds up to. Or how do you kill a person twice. Maybe hit the switch a few times before completely frying the person...

I don't see any value in a blanket declaration that this killer was motivated solely by extremism. All the facts are hardly in, but it is obvious only that this guy was unhinged. Why is it difficult to understand that this was likely the result of numerous motivations?

I also think that the daily carnage of gun violence in this country makes incidents like this, despite the larger than usual single incident body count, a little bit mundane. Sadly the new normal.

Because he has a Muslim name. And people here and IRL think that Islam is just an evil religion.

There is no difference between this guy and the Nazi kid church shooter, the rich kid who hated women and mowed people down, the PP clinic shooter, the abortion clinic bombers of old, or even Lanza. They all had a high degree of ego, rage, nutbaggery, and self loathing... but they all need an excuse that allows them to take action on the unthinkable to the rational mind. So they turn to an ideology that tells them it's okay to commit the unthinkable (and I'm convinced this had something to do about 'attoning' for his sins as one of the motivating factors not all of them).

But I do have a question: when a lot of people look at people like the PP shooter, or Nazi kid, or Lanza or others they will say ''these are purely crazy people'' without giving a second thought to the possible ideology they were inspired by or turning to. When it is a person that is immediately identified as Muslim we say ''oh that's a terrorist'' and automatically dismiss other contributing factors. All these persons were terrorists in their own right, and both types of dismissing is wrong I think. With terrorist cultist ideology we can immediately point to movements and Imams that are inspiration for these acts, but refuse to acknowledge the rhetoric from so-called Christian preachers, sects, and ideologies that contribute to the other killings (and sadly future killings) I mentioned. They may be associated with different religions, but it comes from the same root of hatred. It's so easy to fall into us vs them mode isn't it? The WBC and Nazi movements isn't actively throwing people off of buildings or waging jihad (well.. you can find a lot of that sort of thing going on in Russian and African countries against gays and immigrants), but they are doing their own method of terrorizing in their own right and sooner or later someone will use that ideology to do exactly as this guy has done. So why do we put such an emphasis on one criminal act over another?

Janelle has answered this a few pages back. Mentally ill is only reserved for white criminals that commit this heinous crimes. It's how they separate them from the rest of the majority. Also, because folks really think Islam is such a violent religion(for some reason no one wants to talk about the old Testament, but whatever) it fits their narrative when these things occur. A dude could be a church going Christian for years, the second he kills, he's a crazy person. A dude who has an Arabic name and isn't even a follower of Islam does the same thing, and he's automatically a devout Muslim. That's why Muslims are identified as Muslims first and foremost, even if what they did had nothing to do with Islam. The PP shooter was clearly motivated by the bible, but they never identified him as a Christian.

[B_J 2,752]

But I do have a question: when a lot of people look at people like the PP shooter, or Nazi kid, or Lanza or others they will say ''these are purely crazy people'' without giving a second thought to the possible ideology they were inspired by or turning to.

While that may be an accurate description of some, I don't think it describes the majority of people. In my opinion, the PP shooter and the Nazi kid had definite agendas, not unlike this guy. Lanza seems to be more of a purely crazy person.

And I just experienced an incredibly sad moment. I am actually disturbed at how difficult it was for me to remember all three shooters you had brought up. This is becoming way too common. And I'm less concerned about the gun issue as I am about the societal issue. I'm not as concerned about the fact that people have the means to do these things; I'm more concerned that they have the desire to do this.

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

I call for Obama to resign immediately.

I call for you to get your computer /internet fixed immediately because your constant double -triple-quadruple postings

interfere with my morning coffee.

[Sousuke 1,214]

While that may be an accurate description of some, I don't think it describes the majority of people. In my opinion, the PP shooter and the Nazi kid had definite agendas, not unlike this guy. Lanza seems to be more of a purely crazy person.

And I just experienced an incredibly sad moment. I am actually disturbed at how difficult it was for me to remember all three shooters you had brought up. This is becoming way too common. And I'm less concerned about the gun issue as I am about the societal issue. I'm not as concerned about the fact that people have the means to do these things; I'm more concerned that they have the desire to do this.

Yeah I would say both Aurora and Lanza were clinical mental issues that can be separated from the others.

[GandD 5,966]

Yeah I would say both Aurora and Lanza were clinical mental issues that can be separated from the others.

I agree. Different motives.