There'd be no issues with passive smoking if everyone smokes!. Ergo, everyone should smoke.
Mass shooting at Gay night club in Orlando
- Thread starter Adisa
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Because Islamic terrorists love gays?
I am not saying that the shooter is Muslim but I wouldn't be surprised, it would be a way of attacking Western and non Islamic values.
Would a muslim do something like this during Ramadan?
If this does turn out to be an attack by someone claiming to be acting in name of Islam, it is important to say that the gunman is not a TRUE representative of Islam. Islam preaches peace and tolerance towards gay people, and there is absolutely nothing at all in the Quran that advocates or justifies violence towards people who practice homosexuality....so there is no discussion to be had. How dare anyone suggest that there is a problem at the heart of the Religion of Peace, Love and Tolerance...that is bigoted hate speech. The 99.9% of Islamic scholars and jurists who have upheld the persecution of gay people in the name of Islam since the 7th century have simply misinterpreted Islam. It is the tiny minority of cosmopolitan Islamic commentators in the West who kinda sorta are willing to give homosexuality a pass in some vague and evasive way who are interpreting the Quran correctly....and the fact that this is convenient for us liberals has nothing to do with it at all.
I'm not aware of any history of targeting gay establishments etc, but it could just be that the club happened to be a gay one rather than that being the reason for it.
If I recall correctly ISIS asked their followers to ramp up the violence during Ramadan.
Pretty much. Waiting for them to wheel out some "moderates" to equivocate and dance around scripture and try to half-heartedly condemn the persecution of gays.
I'm fairly competent when it comes to understanding the politics behind gun laws but it's just beyond me why guns aren't banned , plain and simple . The evidence for them being banned is so unbelievably stacked that trump could build 1000 walls with the documented papers.
The last two days in Marseille have saw thousands of people battling in the street , for lengthy periods of time , using makeshift weapons and seemingly coordinated para military style attacks. There are injured parties , but to my knowledge no one has died.
One person walks into a club armed with a gun and at least 20 are dead in a short space of time and dozens injured, with those injuries probably ranging from horrific to permanently life-altering .
Ban guns . Get rid of them . Every time they vote a president in there is usually a " time for change " element attached. The results of not changing their ways are plain to see . Like seriously , at least give it a fecking try !
The last two days in Marseille have saw thousands of people battling in the street , for lengthy periods of time , using makeshift weapons and seemingly coordinated para military style attacks. There are injured parties , but to my knowledge no one has died.
One person walks into a club armed with a gun and at least 20 are dead in a short space of time and dozens injured, with those injuries probably ranging from horrific to permanently life-altering .
Ban guns . Get rid of them . Every time they vote a president in there is usually a " time for change " element attached. The results of not changing their ways are plain to see . Like seriously , at least give it a fecking try !
To ge fair it is usually one of the first posts here on the Caf also. Some tweets are serious I am sure others are not.
Yeah but we Americans have decided that the right to bear arms is worth the bunch of lone/mass killings of school children, soldiers, actors, and everyone in between. You should get used to this.
Regarding motives, it's premature to assume IMO. Club shootings happen every day, for the most stupid reasons. A few weeks ago a rap concert (TI was performing) got shot up in New York, with one death and a few injuries. It may be the shooter is influenced by ISIS, or his ex-girlfriend was inside the club.
Yea people use it mockingly on here a lot because of the sheer ridiculousness of it. There were plenty of unquestionably serious tweets saying it.
I read, recently, about a couple of infamous gay nightclub arson attacks; the collective motive was a patron being refused readmittance to the clubs.
If America didn't ban guns after Sandy Hook, they never will.
When they turn a blind eye to 20 children getting killed (6 and 7 year olds!) this won't faze them at all.
Happens all the time. Bouncer refuses entry cause someone is intoxicated/has Jordans on. The patron comes back with a gun and starts shooting. Thankfully in most situations, no one is seriously wounded, cause most people are bad shooters. Something that can't be said about the dead villian in this incident.
Give him a chance - he's still writing his essay on how women are to blame.
Unfortunately I deleted my post.I had missed some of the posts in the earlier page about FBI and whatnot and wanted to read them better before pouncing.
Some beautiful talented girl is killed by a loon and 20 plus dead for attending a LGBT nightclub in the same day and gun laws still won't change in the US 
Some beautiful talented girl is killed by a loon and 20 plus dead for attending a LGBT nightclub in the same day and gun laws still won't change in the US
Same city as well.
By most verified accounts so far the gunman had an explosive device on his body, so why people are going on about gun rights when he would have caused casualties without guns I don't know.
It's not that ridiculous to say that it could mean less deaths. I'm not saying people should take guns into clubs, but I am saying that if some did have guns, and let's say one of them managed to get behind the attacker in the initial mayhem, it's possible that they could end it with less people dying. I'm not advocating people being armed because it would in general be a terrible idea, but it's not totally inconceivable that it could be of benefit to those inside in this particular situation. And as Arruda alludes to, if I ended up stuck in there after the initial mess, I think I would rather have a few guys in there with me that are armed than wait to be finished off. But to spell things out as I know how people like to jump on points if you don't, I obviously wouldn't want people to be armed in general and particularly not in clubs, this is just me hypothetically saying 'it could help in this scenario'.
It doesn't mean things shouldn't change either, because there would be a lot less of these occurrences if they did. I believe Australia are a good example of that.
Shooting 20 people to death with a gun without the use of explosives might be a reason for that.
He killed 20 people with guns - go figure
And had he needed to he would have done the same with more explosives, as he was clearly prepared to do. Seems people are more interested in the dialogue they want to have than the one they need to have.
Jesus wept.
I think you've misread the story. The guy killed 20 people with a gun. That's the dialogue.
So the discussion clearly needs to be limited to gun control, which would have prevented this. Sure.
Well without access to guns he wouldn't have been able to shoot anyone, so yes.
Well I suppose that's grand, not like he had explosives on his body or access to them if needed or anything. As long as people aren't dying from bullets I suppose.
He killed 20 people with guns so suicide bombs clearly need to be controlled. Nice logic.
Not.
Not.
Are explosives legal?
Are people dying from random use of explosives in America on a daily basis?
Are there people profiting from the distribution of explosives whilst polluting the political spectrum with their money and suggesting more explosives are the answer to the problem?
Or is it possible you're just being obtuse here?
No, he killed 20 people and was perfectly able to kill them anyway no matter how many gun free zones you establish, so the dialogue should be focused on how and why he did this and what his motivations were, not on twitter types patting themselves on the back for shitting on the NRA. But there's very obvious reasons why you're skirting that.
It seems you're being deliberately obtuse by repeatedly running back to the guns narrative when it's demonstrably clear that 20 people would have died today if a gun were never in the equation.
Yes, 20 people have been shot to death and you're saying that guns have nothing to do with it, but it's me being obtuse. Obviously.
Of course guns have something to do with it, the entire debate however being shifted onto gun control which clearly wouldn't have impacted what happened today seeing as the guy was armed to the teeth with explosives is wrong. You simply don't want to admit that since you ran in here ranting about white males and gun control from the off before any details had emerged.
Go and read some scripture and get back to me.
Intellectual dishonesty doesn't do anything to help these situations. I believe the vast majority of Muslims are opposed to harming anyone, homosexuals included. To claim homophobia is anti Islamic, is similar to saying protestants aren't real Christians. In the same way Christians apply WWJD, many Muslims apply the same with Muhammad. Yet for some reason western media and Islamic apologists wont acknowledge this and spin things such as Islam preaching tolerance and there being nothing in the Quran that advocates violence towards gay people etc. They do this knowing most people wont know about Hadith. We saw the same dishonest arguments after the Charlie Hebdo shootings and it doesn't help anyone, because it ignores the problem.
This is not confirmed at all. Your argument is pointless and has no substance.
N
Mind you, only marginally better and even that is debatable.
cnut.
Why? You're a cnut who is marginally better than the murderous homophobe who just killed 20 innocent people.
Mind you, only marginally better and even that is debatable.
cnut.
Out of interest how do most moderate Muslims view homosexuality and are they as accepting as your average moderate Christian, Hindu or Jew of homosexuality?
Because it is a bullshit straw man argument?