Mass shooting at gay club

[New_Atlantis]

 

I dunno man. but he was there for at least 1 year and above.

 

 

Looks like the wife knew about the attack.. 

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-florida-shooting-idUSKCN0Z017C

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/orlando-nightclub-massacre/omar-mateen-s-wife-tried-talk-him-out-orlando-attack-n592051

Edited June 15, 2016 by New_Atlantis

[Jamesc]

so about 11,000 homicide by guns every year. And 84k people injured every year by firearms.

 

So the only people profiting from this

 

is the doctors and hospitals.

 

Make you wonder if they are

 

doing anything about this

 

behind the scene.

 

[Darryn]

moral upstanding religious arseholes(?) =/= deluded murderous extremists**

 

No - But one sure has a habit of breeding the other doesn't it? 

 

Just reference the latest case here in Singapore of the "figurative" shooting of people - where did that thread come from? 

 

Which group is it that condemns and vilifies, denigrates and denies, blames and says "they got what they deserved"? 

Why is it that some groups feel the right to impose their standards on others? 

 

I am fairly liberal in some regards - I make no secret of the fact that I "support" gays.  Although I don't much talk about it, I also don't like religion in general.  

 

Here's the thing though - if you (the general you) are religious, if you have beliefs in whatever god rocks your boat, that is perfectly fine.  I awm quite happy, even supportive, if you want to attend a meeting every Sunday, don't want to eat certain animals because they are either dirty or holy, like to say grace, want to go a day without eating or whatever else "the book" demands of you.  I won't interfere.  That it purely your decision. 

 

The converse of this - do not impose your beliefs on me. Do not deny me the things other people have a right to because you don't like what I do in my bedroom. Do not vilify me for the person I love.  

 

Being religious, moral, conservative, traditional asian values - or whatever other term you want to use to try to wrap you bullying, ostracism and hatred in does not make you correct - you are still pushing people into a position of inferiority, making them into "second class" people.  Throughout history - that has NEVER worked out well, people that are treated this way always end up fighting back, often violently and in ways that shock and upset everybody. 

 

This is not to say that I support or think the shooter is justified, right, or any other accusation that some will throw towards me.  What I am saying - you can be sure that an environment of homophobia & intolerance sure played a role in pushing this guy into insanity.  (if indeed it does turn out that he was gay - which is becoming increasingly likely) 

 

And we all need to think about and "own" that - already in the US there are people coming out from religious groups saying things like "the gays got what they deserved" or that "god is smiting the gays" without even having the self awareness to examine the role they are playing in propagating more hatred and pushing people towards that uncrossable line. 

 

Edited June 15, 2016 by Darryn

[Jellandross]

A different perspective from an ex-CIA officer apart from what we read from the usual mainstream propaganda.

 

https://youtu.be/7WEd34oW9BI

[Kb27]

Trump may just be pushed to win the election, bcuz of all these fanatic religious attack.

 

There are obviously many angry Americans around and getting more.

[Darryn]

Trump may just be pushed to win the election, bcuz of all these fanatic religious attack.

 

There are obviously many angry Americans around and getting more.

I think just the opposite. 

 

It seems that his hate filled, racist flailing is going to turn people off.  It will make people realise just how unsuited for the job he is. 

 

He has already made gross factual errors in his speech about the attack - claiming the shooter was born in Afghanistan, when he is actually born in Queens (same place Trump himself was born) and Trump's first tweet about the attack was to congratulate himself about being "right" -

 

This will appeal to some people - but I think that sort of person has a very hard "ceiling" as to how many it can enlist -

 

Witness history for examples - how much of Germany voted for Hitler?  How much support did Pauline Hanson get in Australian elections?  How much support did Winston Peters / New Zealand first get in New Zealand with his anti-immigrant rhetoric?  Here's a hint - none of them got to 40%.  While that's still scaringly significant, it isn't even close to winning the US presidency.  

[Benarsenal]

It's really grim. For me personally, as I get older, and attend more and more funerals (sadly), I find myself thinking a lot more about morality and stuff like that.

 

Right now, whenever I read about deaths like these, I always feel a tinge of waste. Each and every life, they are worth something. And to be taken away just like that in a moment, it's just terribly sad. 

[ins1dious]

I'm not particularly religious myself... might even be agnostic...  but here goes. 

 

No - But one sure has a habit of breeding the other doesn't it? -> hatred and intolerance isn't necessarily borne out of religious texts alone. Some of the biggest mass murderers in the world have been communists/atheists. 

 

While it is true that the Three Books have texts which can be of hatred and intolerance, the same cannot be said about the teaching of the Buddha.... which is entirely non-violent. Yet... some belligerent monks in Sri Lanka, Cambodia and Thailand have taken those very same peaceful texts and have conducted a campaign of violence, terror and murder on innocent women and children.

 

This crazy disconnect between their teachings and their actions can only be because... man is the weak link. Whether he is an atheist, follows a belligerent religion or a completely non-violent one... man is the weak link.

 

Just reference the latest case here in Singapore of the "figurative" shooting of people - where did that thread come from? ​-> I'm sorry... I don't know about this case.

 

Which group is it that condemns and vilifies, denigrates and denies, blames and says "they got what they deserved"? 

Why is it that some groups feel the right to impose their standards on others? -> the same could be said of Famous Amos and his vilification of... well in his case... everything... control... govt., religious or otherwise. 

 

I am fairly liberal in some regards - I make no secret of the fact that I "support" gays.  Although I don't much talk about it, I also don't like religion in general.  -> I don't remember which thread it was... but when replying to one of forum members low opinion on LGBT, I'd embedded Bob Dylan's "The Times They Are A Changin'"... saying if my daughter tomorrow came to be and said she was a lesbian herself, as a parent, I can do nothing else but advice her and support her. Her being a lesbian does not stop her being my daughter nor will that stop me from going to heaven or hell... or food for worms. Who knows.

 

Here's the thing though - if you (the general you) are religious, if you have beliefs in whatever god rocks your boat, that is perfectly fine.  I awm quite happy, even supportive, if you want to attend a meeting every Sunday, don't want to eat certain animals because they are either dirty or holy, like to say grace, want to go a day without eating or whatever else "the book" demands of you.  I won't interfere.  That it purely your decision. 

 

The converse of this - do not impose your beliefs on me. Do not deny me the things other people have a right to because you don't like what I do in my bedroom. Do not vilify me for the person I love.  

 

Being religious, moral, conservative, traditional asian values - or whatever other term you want to use to try to wrap you bullying, ostracism and hatred in does not make you correct - you are still pushing people into a position of inferiority, making them into "second class" people.  Throughout history - that has NEVER worked out well, people that are treated this way always end up fighting back, often violently and in ways that shock and upset everybody. 

 

This is not to say that I support or think the shooter is justified, right, or any other accusation that some will throw towards me.  What I am saying - you can be sure that an environment of homophobia & intolerance sure played a role in pushing this guy into insanity.  (if indeed it does turn out that he was gay - which is becoming increasingly likely) 

 

Anyway... today, out of a global population of less than 7b, the people of the Three Books make up more than 3.7b of that...

 

Even if you only counted the people in the "news" now... Muslims make up 1.6 billion people... how many of those are the deluded types? I'd wager the vast majority are moderate, just wanting to live a life. Sure, there is a small subset that seeks to impose their view... have a holier than thou attitude. And there's an even smaller subset that think violence is the answer to everything **

 

So here's the thing... around the world, a lot of people identify themselves as atheists... It could be that eventually... the entire world will be free of any doctrine of religion. But what's to say that in this new utopia... man won't find something else to discriminate against his fellow beings? 

 

 

 

 

** I've often wondered about this... if a religious text instructs that thou shalt not kill an innocent, and a man kills in the name of that religion... where is the blame? Ambiguous texts and stupid people are to blame.

Edited June 15, 2016 by ins1dious

[Jamesc]

I really hope that people can be more sensitive and discerning 

 

when discussing religion. As all religion are different and some

 

can be opposite to each other. Now a lot of religions have this 

 

a holier than thou attitude

 

but not the church of the devil. You will never find  

 

a holier than thou attitude here.

 

What you usually find is 

 

an unholier than thou attitude here.

 

I hope people won't mix up and lump the other religions with those

 

devil worshipers. Especially lump into the same boat as CHC.

 

 

Edited June 15, 2016 by Jamesc

[Jamesc]

No - But one sure has a habit of breeding the other doesn't it? 

 

Just reference the latest case here in Singapore of the "figurative" shooting of people - where did that thread come from? 

 

Which group is it that condemns and vilifies, denigrates and denies, blames and says "they got what they deserved"? 

Why is it that some groups feel the right to impose their standards on others? 

 

I am fairly liberal in some regards - I make no secret of the fact that I "support" gays.  Although I don't much talk about it, I also don't like religion in general.  

 

Here's the thing though - if you (the general you) are religious, if you have beliefs in whatever god rocks your boat, that is perfectly fine.  I awm quite happy, even supportive, if you want to attend a meeting every Sunday, don't want to eat certain animals because they are either dirty or holy, like to say grace, want to go a day without eating or whatever else "the book" demands of you.  I won't interfere.  That it purely your decision. 

 

The converse of this - do not impose your beliefs on me. Do not deny me the things other people have a right to because you don't like what I do in my bedroom. Do not vilify me for the person I love.  

 

Being religious, moral, conservative, traditional asian values - or whatever other term you want to use to try to wrap you bullying, ostracism and hatred in does not make you correct - you are still pushing people into a position of inferiority, making them into "second class" people.  Throughout history - that has NEVER worked out well, people that are treated this way always end up fighting back, often violently and in ways that shock and upset everybody. 

 

This is not to say that I support or think the shooter is justified, right, or any other accusation that some will throw towards me.  What I am saying - you can be sure that an environment of homophobia & intolerance sure played a role in pushing this guy into insanity.  (if indeed it does turn out that he was gay - which is becoming increasingly likely) 

 

And we all need to think about and "own" that - already in the US there are people coming out from religious groups saying things like "the gays got what they deserved" or that "god is smiting the gays" without even having the self awareness to examine the role they are playing in propagating more hatred and pushing people towards that uncrossable line. 

 

Financial support or just verbal?

 

If its just verbal then I support them too.

 

I for one don't like to impose my own lifestyle on others.

 

I always tell other men please don't be lesbian be more

 

gay if you want. I just don't need the competition for women.

 

[Kb27]

Gay is happy.

Don't disturb them.

[Darryn]

Financial support or just verbal?

 

If its just verbal then I support them too.

 

I for one don't like to impose my own lifestyle on others.

 

I always tell other men please don't be lesbian be more

 

gay if you want. I just don't need the competition for women.

 

Moral / Emotional

 

Would not be wise to donate money to the "cause" 

I encourage people to live their lives howsoever they wish so long as there is no harm to anyone else

[Jamesc]

Moral / Emotional

 

Would not be wise to donate money to the "cause" 

I encourage people to live their lives howsoever they wish so long as there is no harm to anyone else

 

Good answer.

 

Me too I always like to give anyone moral / emotional support.

 

And if its lesbian syt I also don't mind giving them immoral / physical 

 

support too.

 

[New_Atlantis]

So now is whose fault?

the Homophobic public pushing the guy to kill them?

or the extremist Islamist teaching?  

or the gays getting backlash from getting too much media attention? 

[Darryn]

So now is whose fault?

the Homophobic public pushing the guy to kill them?

or the extremist Islamist teaching?  

or the gays getting backlash from getting too much media attention? 

In any farkup, just like an accident, there is generally more than enough "fault" to fill more than one cup... 

 

But I do take issue with a couple of your characterisations

1. Is there currently any evidence of "extremist" islamist teaching?  (it is a genuine question, I know his father was supposedly extreme, but that doesn't immediately lead to Islamism being the instigator) 

 

2. gays getting "backlash" from too much media attention...can explain how that works?

 

3. I do think the "homophobic public" does bear a healthy dose of blame - as does a home life of vilification of homosexuality (which is really a subset of homophobic public).

 

IMHO - from what I have read - while religion may have been part of what motivated this particular madman, there is nothing to indicate that he had any formal goals of Islamism, which to me indicates part of an organised goal to institute Islamism / Sharia Law in secular countries.  

 

I think it is very important to draw a distinction here between a lunatic that used religion to try to justify his actions and an organised political movement. 

[New_Atlantis]

In any farkup, just like an accident, there is generally more than enough "fault" to fill more than one cup... 

 

But I do take issue with a couple of your characterisations

1. Is there currently any evidence of "extremist" islamist teaching?  (it is a genuine question, I know his father was supposedly extreme, but that doesn't immediately lead to Islamism being the instigator) 

 

evidence? like a line in the book that advocates killing of infidels (open to interpretation)?  or a organization pushing for the global dominance under islam? or an Islamic leader issuing a fatwa? what is your issue with my use of "extremist" islamist?. or would you rather i use the term Islamic fundamentalist? 

 

 

2. gays getting "backlash" from too much media attention...can explain how that works?

 

you know...like how they use media to drum up the whole gay pride / pink dot events. 

strutting around in pink underwear seems a little too in your face to me. 

ironically they can do that while complaining that society is not accepting them.   

 

 

3. I do think the "homophobic public" does bear a healthy dose of blame - as does a home life of vilification of homosexuality (which is really a subset of homophobic public).

 

homo -- > gay / homosexual 

phobia --> scared / worry 

i dont know about you if i was scared or worried about getting something up my ass i'll get the hell out of there!! LOL this guy went in with guns blazing! 

joke. 

 

i think you are being to sensitive to the the whole marginalized gay issue. i dont think majority of the public gives a damn what they like to screw or suck.

 

. . 

 

IMHO - from what I have read - while religion may have been part of what motivated this particular madman, there is nothing to indicate that he had any formal goals of Islamism, which to me indicates part of an organised goal to institute Islamism / Sharia Law in secular countries.  

 

I think it is very important to draw a distinction here between a lunatic that used religion to try to justify his actions and an organised political movement.

 

 

While i agree with your conclusion.. it doesn't mean that Islam is off the hook, since he pledge to ISIS before the attack.

 

 

 

Edited June 15, 2016 by New_Atlantis

[Darryn]

 

My issue would be in linking this act to some form of "organised" islamic terrorism, to some group that had definable goals and helped him in some way. 

 

Just beause he was Islamic, it doesn't automatically mean that this was Islamic Terrorism, any more than Khong's rantings are Christian oppression. Yeah, he's going to try to say "god told me to do it"...he's a crazy farker after all, but just because he was religious doesn't making it Islamic Terrorism - for that to be the case there needs to be a broader goal of achieving Islamic goals than just "killing the sinners" - if you like, to my mind a more accurate way would be to call the attack partially motivated by religious extremism. 

 

Sure there are phrases and utterances in Islam, and from so called scholars about what should happen to gays - just as there are phrases in King James about what should happen to the same.  And in both books there are calls for tolerance and acceptance.

 

As to fear of getting it up the arse - do you wander around malls in Orchard Road worried that some random female is going to knock you down, whip out your dick and get pregnant, making you pay?  Yeah, you're making a joke, and it can be taken in that light, by why should we fear anal sex any more than rape by heterosexual ladies?  

 

 

[New_Atlantis]

My issue would be in linking this act to some form of "organised" islamic terrorism, to some group that had definable goals and helped him in some way. 

 

Just beause he was Islamic, it doesn't automatically mean that this was Islamic Terrorism, any more than Khong's rantings are Christian oppression. Yeah, he's going to try to say "god told me to do it"...he's a crazy farker after all, but just because he was religious doesn't making it Islamic Terrorism - for that to be the case there needs to be a broader goal of achieving Islamic goals than just "killing the sinners" - if you like, to my mind a more accurate way would be to call the attack partially motivated by religious extremism. 

 

Sure there are phrases and utterances in Islam, and from so called scholars about what should happen to gays - just as there are phrases in King James about what should happen to the same.  And in both books there are calls for tolerance and acceptance.

 

As to fear of getting it up the arse - do you wander around malls in Orchard Road worried that some random female is going to knock you down, whip out your dick and get pregnant, making you pay?  Yeah, you're making a joke, and it can be taken in that light, by why should we fear anal sex any more than rape by heterosexual ladies?  

 

 

 

 

if he really is a follower of ISIS, how can this not be organised? surely he must have follow them on facebook, tweeter.. etc. 

his action of spreading fear is inline with the goals of ISIS maybe no direct assistance was given or maybe some money to buy the gun was wired to him. this we have to wait for the report..

 

dude .. you joking rite? taking it up the arse and getting laid is 2 very different things! 

i'm sorry i'm not a bleeding heart liberal like you, i think they have the right to their sexual preference, but that does not mean it does not disgust me nor am i going to give it my stamp of approval.