Mass shooting at Gay night club in Orlando

Reportedly, he pledged allegiance only to ISIS during a call to 911 before shooting.

As for Hezbollah and Al Qaeda...

“First he claimed family connections to Al Qaeda,” which, like the Islamic State, is a Sunni Muslim terrorist group, James Comey, the F.B.I. director, said Monday. “He also said he was a member of Hezbollah,” a Shiite group in conflict with Al Qaeda and the Islamic State.

“He said he hoped that law enforcement would raid his apartment and assault his wife and child so that he could martyr himself,” Mr. Comey said.

“Our investigation involved introducing confidential sources to him, recording conversations with him, following him, reviewing transactional records from his communications,” and searching government records for mentions of him, the director said. “We then interviewed him twice. He admitted making the statements his co-workers reported, but explained that he did it in anger because he thought his co-workers were discriminating against him and teasing him because he was Muslim.”
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/us/orlando-shooting.html

That sounds like scaring the co-workers.
 
RedDevil@84 said:
Because being gay is not a crime, but being a peadophile certainly is.
Click to expand...

Wibble said:
That is a really odd sentence.
Click to expand...

Noticed after I posted it. I meant, they are considered distinct. Ie, a male pedophile who is interested in boys isn't considered a homosexual pedophile. So people who are against homosexuality, like the cops, consider it more okay to be a pedophile than homosexual even if the victim is male for some reason.
I didn't intend for it to sound like pedophilia and homosexuality are the same thing. Obviously, one's fine and one isn't.
 
Zarlak said:
He was a gay man who pledged allegiance to three separate groups all of whom hate each other and are currently killing each other. It's the clearest smokescreen ever yet still the narrative continues to focus on it as if it was true.
Click to expand...
It is true. Even though he had pledged allegiance to others, he did pledge allegiance to ISIS and he did so finally. His last act was to pledge allegiance to this one group. Also, all the groups he pledged loyalty to are linked to Islam. So don't be surprised when people draw the connection.

They also shoe horn immigration in their despite the fact that this is an American citizen and therefore has nothing to do with immigration.
Click to expand...
His parents are Afghan immigrants. So it is related to immigration. His father has also expressed hate for America. He's not the kind of person you want in your country, and his son committed one of the worst mass shootings in history so yes, immigration is a factor. It's also a well known fact the second generation are usually far more radicalized than the parents so descendants of immigrant parents are a topic to debate.

It's twisting what actually happened which was an American citizen who committed a hate crime against the gay community with an assault rifle into an ISIS inspired jihad attack and ban all Muslims from entering the country.
Click to expand...

ISIS asked people to commit attacks during ramadan. Islam also suggests death is salvation for homosexuals. These are issues and they are related to the shooting. The shooter was not simply an American citizen who was gay. That is not the entirety of who he was or the world context. For example, you don't address why he committed a hate crime. Why did he hate gays if he was gay? It is likely his faith and his fathers influence played a significant part.
The fact he had access to the gun is also an issue. Twisting the narrative so Islam and immigration have literally nothing to do with it is also incorrect. Twisting it so gun control has nothing to do with it is incorrect. It is multi faceted, and the right prioritize one aspect over another.
 
Swaters16 said:
His parents are Afghan immigrants. So it is related to immigration. His father has also expressed hate for America. He's not the kind of person you want in your country, and his son committed one of the worst mass shootings in history so yes, immigration is a factor. It's also a well known fact the second generation are usually far more radicalized than the parents so descendants of immigrant parents are a topic to debate.
Click to expand...

You're grasping at straws. This would be an immigration issue if his father, an immigrant committed the crime. All Americans are immigrants if you go back far enough. This is entirely to do with his son and nothing to do with his father. His father has openly condemned his actions and sided publicly with the families affected. It's an American citizen and not an immigration issue.

ISIS asked people to commit attacks during ramadan. Islam also suggests death is salvation for homosexuals. These are issues and they are related to the shooting. The shooter was not simply an American citizen who was gay. That is not the entirety of who he was or the world context. For example, you don't address why he committed a hate crime. Why did he hate gays if he was gay? It is likely his faith and his fathers influence played a significant part.
The fact he had access to the gun is also an issue. Twisting the narrative so Islam and immigration have literally nothing to do with it is also incorrect. Twisting it so gun control has nothing to do with it is incorrect. It is multi faceted, and the right prioritize one aspect over another.
Click to expand...

Only, the facets they've chosen to focus on are the ones that fit the agenda they continuously peddle and some are not even relevant to this issue.
 
Zarlak said:
You're grasping at straws. This would be an immigration issue if his father, an immigrant committed the crime. All Americans are immigrants if you go back far enough. This is entirely to do with his son and nothing to do with his father. His father has openly condemned his actions and sided publicly with the families affected. It's an American citizen and not an immigration issue.



Only, the facets they've chosen to focus on are the ones that fit the agenda they continuously peddle and some are not even relevant to this issue.
Click to expand...

Already explained my point on immigration. It is a fact, whether you agree or not, that the children of immigrants are more likely to be radicalized. And whether the father condemns his sons actions or not he is clearly not a fan of America. But this isn't going back 400 years, this is direct descendants of immigrants. And that is something worth discussing, which is why it is discussed. You can't just dismiss it and say oh everyone's an immigrant at some point. It ignores important information. And again, how can an event like this be only related to the perpetrator and nothing else. Not his family, not the group he pledged allegiance to, not religion. You claim he worked in total isolation and his actions where influenced by nothing else.

The facets democrats choose to focus on are agenda driven and peddled continuously and are often irrelevant. What's your point? I've repeatedly said, the right and left choose to focus on different aspects of issues. It is a prioritization thing.
 
Swaters16 said:
Already explained my point on immigration. It is a fact, whether you agree or not, that the children of immigrants are more likely to be radicalized. And whether the father condemns his sons actions or not he is clearly not a fan of America. But this isn't going back 400 years, this is direct descendants of immigrants. And that is something worth discussing, which is why it is discussed. You can't just dismiss it and say oh everyone's an immigrant at some point. It ignores important information. And again, how can an event like this be only related to the perpetrator and nothing else. Not his family, not the group he pledged allegiance to, not religion. You claim he worked in total isolation and his actions where influenced by nothing else.

The facets democrats choose to focus on are agenda driven and peddled continuously and are often irrelevant. What's your point? I've repeatedly said, the right and left choose to focus on different aspects of issues. It is a prioritization thing.
Click to expand...

I mean, here you're just agreeing with the very post of mine you quoted in the first place.
 
Zarlak said:
I mean, here you're just agreeing with the very post of mine you quoted in the first place.
Click to expand...

No, you said they were wrong to do so. My entire point is they aren't wrong. You said it was wrong for Republicans to focus on Islam or immigration or terrorism, etc. My argument is that having a different political opinion is not wrong.
You had no condemnation for the democrats beating the same gun control horse as always
 
Swaters16 said:
No, you said they were wrong to do so. My entire point is they aren't wrong. You said it was wrong for Republicans to focus on Islam or immigration or terrorism, etc. My argument is that having a different political opinion is not wrong.
You had no condemnation for the democrats beating the same gun control horse as always
Click to expand...

No I didn't, I said that I wasn't surprised at all that that's what they focused on, because that's always their narrative despite the fact that what they chose to focus on was not what happened. When I said they were wrong I was clearly referring to the content of their narrative, not their right to focus on that narrative. When talking about that I only said that I wasn't surprised by it at all.

And no I have no condemnation for the democrats beating the same gun control horse, because it's badly needed as any civilised person usually will back me up on. It's about time that America joined the civilised world in some aspects, such as selling weapons alongside fruit and vegetables at supermarkets.
 
I applaud the sentiment behind the filibuster (senator from my current state actually stood for 15 hrs).

That being said, there needs to finally be an open process regarding this no-fly/no-gun list. If my name is on it, at minimal cost I should be able to fight against it and prove my innocence. Or even better, it would be nice that before my name was placed on said list, I received a notification saying, "Hey Adex, we have suspicions you're a terrorist. If that isn't the case, please call this number and arrange an appointment. No waterboarding, promise."
 
adexkola said:
I applaud the sentiment behind the filibuster (senator from my current state actually stood for 15 hrs).

That being said, there needs to finally be an open process regarding this no-fly/no-gun list. If my name is on it, at minimal cost I should be able to fight against it and prove my innocence. Or even better, it would be nice that before my name was placed on said list, I received a notification saying, "Hey Adex, we have suspicions you're a terrorist. If that isn't the case, please call this number and arrange an appointment. No waterboarding, promise."
Click to expand...

In fairness, adex, the burden of proof needs to reside with the accuser. Anything less is shockingly undemocratic.
 
berbatrick said:
Not just with these lists, there are many more secret courts in the US and UK too - where the accused will never face the prosecution evidence. It's Kafkaesque.
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/jun/14/what-are-secret-courts
Click to expand...

Doesn't strike me to really be an issue for the citizens and it's not like they are not given a fair trial (if you don't consider publicity an indespensable premise; which I wouldn't). Also it says it's for civil courts so just concerns people with previous affairs related to the government.

As for the no fly list i totally agree, especially in the US where flying is of even greater importance than in Europe. Should need legislation and the possibility to appeal. On another note: how does one find out that he/she is on the no fly list, do airplane companies deny the ticket request with info?
 
Raoul said:
Very interesting how this story is playing out in two completely separate narratives in the US.

Democrats - Closeted Gay Muslim man uses high capacity weapon to commit mass murder; uses ISIS as a foil to justify internal conflicts between his sexual orientation and religious dogma (Political Narrative: Increased gun control)

Republicans - ISIS inspired American Muslim radicalized by internet propaganda commits jihadi mass murder at "soft target" Gay Nightclub. (Political Narrative: "Radical Islamic Terrorism" must be dealt with through expanded military action abroad and limits on immigration from Muslim countries).
Click to expand...
I have a Republican friend who is intelligent, kind, and quite religious, but she appears to support the idea that guns aren't dangerous, people are.

In which case, guns are dangerous....
 
Zarlak said:
No I didn't, I said that I wasn't surprised at all that that's what they focused on, because that's always their narrative despite the fact that what they chose to focus on was not what happened. When I said they were wrong I was clearly referring to the content of their narrative, not their right to focus on that narrative. When talking about that I only said that I wasn't surprised by it at all.

And no I have no condemnation for the democrats beating the same gun control horse, because it's badly needed as any civilised person usually will back me up on. It's about time that America joined the civilised world in some aspects, such as selling weapons alongside fruit and vegetables at supermarkets.
Click to expand...

You said "[narrative] that clearly isn't true". And now you claim the moral high ground again, by suggesting anyone who holds a differing opinion is uncivilized. Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, etc have a high number of guns per capita too. Are the uncivilized? Nah they aren't.
The problem is you continuously use a moral argument. And it's a weak argument. This isn't an issue of good vs evil, it is one political ideal vs another. I can just as easily claim the focus of the democrats isn't what happened, and they are still pushing their same narrative. I'm not surprised by that. So, I guess they must be uncivilized too.
You misconstrue disagreement with morality. You can disagree with the right wing but that does not make them uncivilized or wrong.
 
Zarlak said:
He was a gay man who pledged allegiance to three separate groups all of whom hate each other and are currently killing each other. It's the clearest smokescreen ever yet still the narrative continues to focus on it as if it was true. They also shoe horn immigration in their despite the fact that this is an American citizen and therefore has nothing to do with immigration.
Click to expand...
Has a lot to do with immigration. He may have been born in America but did he consider himself American. Doesn't seem like he did.

Gunman said he wanted 'Americans to stop bombing his country'
A survivor of the mass shooting has described the moments before her friend was murdered and her attempts to find her during the attack.

Patience Carter, sitting on a hospital bed trolley, delivered a powerful poem of the guilt she felt at being alive and told reporters the final moments of her friends and how the shooter had said he wanted “Americans to stop bombing his country".
Click to expand...
His father also supported the Taliban in Afghanistan. He was brought up in a household that was pro-Afghan Taliban and so presumably anti-American.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-president-job-TV-showed-support-Taliban.html
 
Red Defence said:
Has a lot to do with immigration. He may have been born in America but did he consider himself American. Doesn't seem like he did.
Click to expand...

That doesn't change the fact that he is American, so it still has far less to do with immigration. It becomes an issue of integration.
 
Last edited:
The Taliban didn't exist in the 1980s.
 
Some people have gone plum loco batshit. I just got an email a few hours ago from a guy who agrees that Obama is responsible for the massacre in Orlando. You see, Obama "hates America" and wants to "recreate America in his own image". :wenger:
 
Spock said:
Some people have gone plum loco batshit. I just got an email a few hours ago from a guy who agrees that Obama is responsible for the massacre in Orlando. You see, Obama "hates America" and wants to "recreate America in his own image". :wenger:
Click to expand...

Agrees with who? Which nut jobs are claiming Obama is to blame?
That's a serious conspiracy theory
 
Swaters16 said:
Agrees with who? Which nut jobs are claiming Obama is to blame?
That's a serious conspiracy theory
Click to expand...

There's some batshit scary folks out there.

This guy agrees with McCain even after McCain renounced his own claim that Obama is "directly responsible" for Orlando!
 
Swaters16 said:
Integration is definitely an aspect of immigration. They aren't mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

But unlike the traditional focus of immigration, where the blame often goes solely to the on the immigrants. For integration, the blame is split with society.
 
FlawlessThaw said:
But unlike the traditional focus of immigration, where the blame often goes solely to the on the immigrants. For integration, the blame is split with society.
Click to expand...

That depends on the context as much as anything. In this instance, it isn't like the shooter was not given every chance to integrate with society. His beliefs and identity are accepted in America. Although there would be examples were society is also responsible.
 
Swaters16 said:
That depends on the context as much as anything. In this instance, it isn't like the shooter was not given every chance to integrate with society. His beliefs and identity are accepted in America. Although there would be examples were society is also responsible.
Click to expand...

Depends on how you view it. You might think his beliefs and identity was completely accepted but given the nominee of a major political party want to ban people of his faith, he and others might view otherwise. It does come down to how you view a situation, not how it is on paper.

We're also talking about him being an immigrant as well despite him being born and raised in America.
 
FlawlessThaw said:
Depends on how you view it. You might think his beliefs and identity was completely accepted but given the nominee of a major political party want to ban people of his faith, he and others might view otherwise. It does come down to how you view a situation, not how it is on paper.
Click to expand...

Well Trump's views are chicken and egg aren't they. He's also a candidate. He's also only been running for several months. I don't think his candidacy can be blamed for anything. I also don't consider killing 50 people a reasonable response regardless. As well, his faith is the aspect that doesn't accept homosexuality, it wasn't American society that didn't.
I don't think you can blame society for this crime. I don't believe integration was the issue. As said before, he was also an American citizen so even if the caricature of Trump that has been created was elected, he would be at no risk of deportation. It's also impossible to just ban religion in America. I just don't think you can defend his actions in any way.
 
Swaters16 said:
Well Trump's views are chicken and egg aren't they. He's also a candidate. He's also only been running for several months. I don't think his candidacy can be blamed for anything. I also don't consider killing 50 people a reasonable response regardless. As well, his faith is the aspect that doesn't accept homosexuality, it wasn't American society that didn't.
I don't think you can blame society for this crime. I don't believe integration was the issue. As said before, he was also an American citizen so even if the caricature of Trump that has been created was elected, he would be at no risk of deportation. It's also impossible to just ban religion in America. I just don't think you can defend his actions in any way.
Click to expand...

I'm not blaming Trump directly, just saying he can easily be seen as creating a hostile environment thus not as making integration as easy you think. Glad you agree he is an American citizen though.

Who's actions am I defending? The shooter? All I said was he was an American not an immigrant. He's still a cnut and his motivations are far more complex than the fact that he is the son of immigrants.
 
FlawlessThaw said:
I'm not blaming Trump directly, just saying he can easily be seen as creating a hostile environment thus not as making integration as easy you think. Glad you agree he is an American citizen though.

Who's actions am I defending? The shooter? All I said was he was an American not an immigrant. He's still a cnut and his motivations are far more complex than the fact that he is the son of immigrants.
Click to expand...

Of course, he's an american citizen. That's undeniable, because he had citizenship.
I didn't mean to imply you were defending him. Just that in this instance, suggestions that someone like Trump is creating a hostile environment seem like a stretch. I do think we're on the same page though.
 
Suggestions that the shooter was Gay.
If that is indeed true, like to see how IS backtrack.
 
Livvie said:
I have a Republican friend who is intelligent, kind, and quite religious, but she appears to support the idea that guns aren't dangerous, people are.

In which case, guns are dangerous....
Click to expand...

They certainly are, Livvie. I often wonder if the perpetrators of these acts actually understand the destruction guns can cause or if they think it's a bit like video games or TV.
 
Adisa said:
Suggestions that the shooter was Gay.
If that is indeed true, like to see how IS backtrack.
Click to expand...
you know, the usual bullshit about how he saw the error of his ways and sought to repent himself by taking his life for allah.
 
Source: Omar Mateen and wife texted during Orlando rampage

Records show that prior to the shooting, Mateen posted on Facebook "Alliance to [ISIS leader] Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi," CBS News correspondent Jeff Pegues reported.

Then after the gunfire began, Mateen paused. Sources told CBS News he searched for "Pulse Orlando" and "shooting," perhaps to see if the massacre was trending online.

He also made calls to 911 and to a television station about the ongoing shooting.

A law enforcement source told CBS News senior investigative producer Pat Milton that during the shooting, Mateen was also communicating with his wife via text message. The source said the couple exchanged, "I love you."
Click to expand...
 
Ouch. That's an accessory. She'll be seeing the penitentiary.

Edit: after reading details on CNN they exchanged messages about two hours after the shooting began so that's a lot less suspect.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.