In the same day of the Orlando Fl. massacre AND before the bodies are even cleared from the crime scene , our leader Pres. Barrack Obama calls out the perpetrators of this terrorist attack with much strength , character and true leadership ,
He blames that radical American gun owner .
He was allowed to purchase firearms AND pass a background check allowing him to become a Security Guard, even though he was interviewed three times by the FBI in 2013 and 2014 following separate reports of extremist behavior and connections to terrorism, and having relations with known terrorists that had traveled back and forth from Afghanistan and Syria to America.
These are the facts, make of them what you want.
Finally in and because of election year politics - President Obama , Calls it an act of terrorism ,
I'm impressed .
This man , in spite of being investigated by the FBI- 3 times , was able to purchase 3 firearms !
Doe's anyone see the missed connections with FBI background checks and politics ?
In other words , If we allow gun violence , we can then project the direction of the anti gun debate ?
Don't think it cannot happen .
There were no missed connections. A mentally unstable man was allowed to buy an assault rifle and murder 49 people because the NRA destroys any politician who favors background checks or bans on assault rifles.
Um, a radical American gun owner was 100% responsible. Police spoke to him at the scene before he was killed, there was no mystery as to who did this, how, or why.
You are an idiot to speak this profound blasphemy ! He is a stated terrorist supporting Islam !
He was an American citizen born in New York. He was also a licensed security officer.
He also qualifies as "radical" by virtue of his actions. That makes him a radical American gun owner. Facts.
Yes, he was also a radical iPhone user, a radical watch-wearer, a radical myopic, a radical owner of a Facebook account.
I shouldn't have to explain to you why those 'facts' do not explain why he targeted gays while praising ISIS and shouting Allahu Akbar.
Yes, his iPhone, watch, and glasses were as relevant to his actions as the guns he used to massacre or injure over 100 people.
Omar Mateen was a registered Democrat since 2006. Psychoticism and neuroticism is higher in liberals than conservatives according to scientific studies.
Guns don't kill people, people do! No gun has ever been convicted of a crime. Guns are not the problem, Islam is the problem.
Omar was a Muslim, and spoke of killing gays for years. It says in the Quran to kill gays (stone them). The original certified Islamic Qurans are very violent and say to kill infidels (anyone who does not believe in Islam.
The underlying facts of this entire case are so politically and P.C. revealing agenda ! The perpetrator was a long standing , Family Supported Terrorist ! What is the matter with extreme liberal stupidity ,it just baffles me !
I almost can't wait until America awakens to its pre-destined reality ! An internally or externally driven nationalistically supported civil war , one where we return to a pro-nationalist American belief . The facts of this entire case were entirely preventable ! Entirely !
Omar Mateen worked for G4S, formerly known as Wackenhut, currently the largest security firm in the world. His employer serves as a front for the CIA.
Funny how the liberal media avoids certain important details.
* http://www.infowars.com/omar-mateen-wac … d-the-cia/
ah! So know we are much the wiser! It's now political motivation that allows a man to stand over his intended victims, laugh at their fear and pleading, then shoot them dead.
Have you ever wondered about the origins of his "radicalization?" It was sick leaders of religion who helped him on his mission to destroy people whom he disliked. Whatever the particular religion of those leaders, they must be held to account for their dogmatic and stubborn judgments of gay people. They push their evil agendas on weak-minded individuals and cause them to aim for martyrdom.
Then we must face the fact this young man, and apparently his partner, sought out a group of people they judged guilty and condemned them to death. THIS is psychopathic illness. No "normal" person would do such a crime. So, that murderer is better out of the way. No sympathy for him. ALL our sympathy must be directed to the persons who survived the massacre and the families/friends/loved ones of those who lost their lives. For they will have to live with their memories for the remainder of their lives...together with the pain and anguish they will find it so difficult to overcome.
Whether you are Christian, Muslim, or whatever background, please, please extend your unconditional love to them and try to help them through the grieving in what ever way you can.
They are the people who matter most now.
Awesome response Johnny , and that is true pretty much in any case . It does prove only one thing , that you cannot have the totally free mixing of cultures without problems , like some of the beliefs of Islam , the Koran , the bible and Christianity , And now , I see that Google is being accused of stacking search results , politically deciding that favoring one party over another is the way to build a honest library of search results ? I tell people all the time that statistics are important , that truth is paramount .
"ah! So know we are much the wiser! It's now political motivation that allows a man to stand over his intended victims, laugh at their fear and pleading, then shoot them dead. "
Media and pundits have been constantly doing this by claiming that the right wing and Donald Trump are responsible for such attacks. If I wanted to disprove such silly accusations I'd point out that Mateen voted Democrat.
"No sympathy for him"
I don't have sympathy for his actions, but I do have sympathy for his condition. There are many who struggle with their beliefs and their sexual orientation. They have a choice of escaping their beliefs or burying their sexuality. The former can shatter ties with family, friends and their community, and is dangerous in the Islamic world. The latter amounts to suffering from repression, which can lead to suicide.
Mateen attempted to bury his sexuality with martyrdom. It's inexcusable, but we can still sympathize with his condition, and we must if we want to understand how internalized homophobia comes about in the Islamic world, and help those afflicted before they hurt themselves or others.
It's a wonderful choice of descriptors. It was "radical Americanism" and/or "radical gun ownerism" that was 100% responsible for the massacre.
Not radical Islamism though. Funny how that works.
He was a radical American gun owner. He also hated gays and was a Muslim. All facts. No one said radical gun ownerism was 100% responsible for the massacre. Stop twisting.
Both Obama and the person I responded to omitted the most explanatory descriptor for his motivations and you accuse me of twisting? Incredible.
It's simple, he was not radicalized because he was an American nor because he owned a gun.
She wanted to set the facts straight. I'm sorry the facts offend you, but they are relevant.
What offends me is your suggestion that intentionally omitting his religious motivations amounts to "setting the facts straight."
Sigh. No one stated anything that isn't true. No one said his religion had nothing to do with his actions. You're getting your panties in a wad over words that happen to be true.
Clearly you don't understand the concept of lying by omission. I have not been challenging the veracity of these statements, I am challenging their relevance to the killers' motivations and why the one thing that actually explains his motivations is missing.
Clearly, you are ignoring the post where I said: "He was a radical American gun owner. He also hated gays and was a Muslim. All facts. No one said radical gun ownerism was 100% responsible for the massacre."
You must feel like arguing today. For the record, I own guns and I know how to shoot, so maybe you've chosen an imaginary adversary. I also don't want to take away people's guns, in case you made that assumption, as conservatives often do.
I have to leave now for a meeting, so maybe someone else will serve your need to argue tonight.
Clearly, you are ignoring the post where I directly responded "Both Obama and the person I responded to omitted the most explanatory descriptor for his motivations and you accuse me of twisting? Incredible."
Hint: statements like Obama's and your original post omitting the descriptor of Muslim/Islamic are what I was referring to, not your later posts that added such descriptors (although the fact that you think it's satisfactory to not mention the guy's religion when it is so directly involved in violence against homosexuals and was directly responsible for this event speaks volumes).
Speaking of imaginary adversaries and assumptions: I don't own guns, don't care for them, live in Canada and am not a conservative. I'll just assume that's projection on your part.
Geez, I mentioned his religion. Chill out. What the he'll are we arguing about, anyway?
The point is not that you did or did not mention religion after being prompted to do so.
The point is the fact that Obama and co. have consistently refused to identify Islamism as the primary motivation behind events like Orlando, Paris and Brussels, and have often made apologia in Islam's defense immediately after these attacks.
You could describe all of those events as "radical French gun owners," "radical Belgium gun owners" and "radical American gun owners" (and in the case of the Boston bombers, "radical American pressure cooker owners") but to do so would be to obfuscate the real motivations behind these attacks. What made them radical? Why not mention the cause of radicalization? To do so for years at a time is deliberate lie by omission.
To add a point of comparison, Dylann Roof's attack was not described by Obama and Hillary as a "radical American gun owner" attack. There was discussion about gun control, but they also pointed to the racial element of the attack. To call Dylann a "radical American gun owner" is to ignore the racist motivations of his crime. I am sure if you were to see a pattern of obfuscation with racist killers vaguely labeled as "radical weapon users" to obfuscate their actual motivations for years, you'd be outraged as well.
Back again, Mr. P
Dylann Roof was both a radical gun owner and racist, the two need not be mutually exclusive. Any gun owner that would kill 9 unarmed people in a church, I would describe as 'radical'. The fact that the motivations behind the crime were of racist origins is evidence of the second part of the definition.
Yes, incidentally I've been going over your sources in some depth. I'll send a reply shortly.
Of course they aren't mutually exclusive, I never said they were. But Mateen's radicalization has nothing to do with him owning a gun, and that reason has been omitted from the description consistently.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42jpuXJ … l=melehost
You could call these perpetrators "radical object owners" "radical fist owners" "radical foot owners" and "radical car owners" if you like. You'd be correct on a technical level. But would that be adequate descriptors of these individuals? Would that explain why they are being violent?
Looking back on the history of your country, would you be satisfied with terms like "radical noose owners" to describe lynch mobs?
You can get back with me at your convenience.
Mateen madness, or radicialism as you call it, had nothing to do with the fact he owned a gun. But that madness has been projected far beyond his person to kill and maim over 100 people. I don't want that kind of power in unauthorized hands for any reason.
While it is legal to own, using a semiautomatic weapon outside the bounds of the law is radical. you can say that about your fist, your rope, whatever.
The truth is that I cannot use my foot, rope, or car to kill 50 people in a matter of a minute or two? Trying to a make some sort of logic comparision between the proliferation of semi-automatic firearm problem in America and these other innocuous things is like comparing apples to hand granades.
Obviously gun control can and is being discussed, with some merit. That talks of the killer's method.
Yesterday, a French policeman and his wife were stabbed to death by a radical knife owner. In Brussels, radical bomb owners killed dozens of people and injured hundreds. Does that tell you why they did it?
My point is that if we are to bend over backwards to omit the motives when they point to radical Islam, then we are being complicit in these barbaric crimes.
"Trying to a make some sort of logic comparision between the proliferation of semi-automatic firearm problem in America and these other innocuous things is like comparing apples to hand granades."
*sigh* I am not comparing the lethality between selected tools of violence. I am pointing out that using the term "radical weapon user" does not tell anyone anything about a perpetrator's motivations or why they are radical, regardless of the weapon. In other words, the use of the term "radical" without the cause of radicality is meaningless.
If you are stuck on the innocuousness of the comparison, then think of the homemade bombs used in Paris, Brussels and Boston, and which are commonly used in attacks outside of Islamism. "Radical bomb owner" does not tell me whether the radical element is Islam, Christianity (abortion clinic bombers), Irish separatism (IRA), a really interested chemist, or flat out lunacy.
Point 1 is that "radical weapon user" does not say anything about the cause of radicalization or the person's motives, regardless of the weapon.
Point 2 is that the term "radical" is rarely used in isolation when the perpetrator's motivations are outside of Islam. That's because they (media, politicians) clearly label the perpetrator with something that would describe the radical motivations for their crime, as long as those motivations are not Islamic.
Dylann Roof was not merely labeled a radical, he was labeled a white supremacist/racist. Do you see the difference? Calling him a white supremacist clearly outlines the source of his radicality.
Obama and Hillary are capable of doing this when the radical element is racial, but they have refused to do this when the radical element is of a particular religion.
My point is that to jump to conclusions about the motives of this killer or others without closer analysis is dangerous. There is much more evidence to support this person as a gay fellow that ran afoul in his social interactions. There does have to be some sort of overriding Islamic ideology involved. It may well be possible that he is just a nut. You might consider that.
What is your point as to the source of radicalism? I never said that owning a weapon makes you radical, it is how you choose to use it. So, is your logic telling me that I am a radical gasoline owner because I use gasoline? But, I am radical about something if I used the stuff to burn down my neighbors house.
There is all kinds of radicals outside that found in Islamic extermism, not Islam (note that).
We have racist radicals, anti-government radicals, that have killed scores of people.
Accusing Clinton and Obama of cherry picking their villians is so rightwingish, and you say that you are not a conservative. You would fit here well among them here. The very suggestion is quite inane, really now.
"My point is that to jump to conclusions about the motives of this killer or others without closer analysis is dangerous."
Who is jumping to conclusions? He pledged allegiance to ISIS in a 911 call and deliberately targeted gays out of homophobia. The fact that he was gay himself and laden with self-hatred does not mean that that self-hatred did not come from religion.
"There is much more evidence to support this person as a gay fellow that ran afoul in his social interactions."
No, there's evidence that he was gay and that he hated himself for it. Where is the evidence that he was spurned by a lover? This is where you are jumping to conclusions.
"So, is your logic telling me that I am a radical gasoline owner because I use gasoline? But, I am radical about something if I used the stuff to burn down my neighbors house."
Jesus, why is this so difficult to get through to you.
My "logic" is not telling you that you would not be a radical gasoline owner if you use gasoline for an innocuous purpose, i.e. to fill your car.
You would obviously be a radical gasoline owner if you use gasoline to burn down your neighbour's house, or if you were to bathe yourself in it, or if you were to water your plants with it, or if you were to spray it on people, or if you were to do a thousand other things that can be considered "radical" regarding gasoline usage.
Now, why did you burn down your neighbours house? Was it revenge? Was it racism? Was it carelessness?
The very basic point that you should be taking from this is that "radical gasoline user" "radical gun user" "radical pen user" "radical Facebook user" does not tell you anything about that person's radicality, and is ultimately meaningless.
"Accusing Clinton and Obama of cherry picking their villians is so rightwingish"
It baffles me how you consider any criticism of political leaders to be "rightwingish." I hold political leaders to high standards especially if they match my political beliefs. If those leaders are not being consistent in their application of outrage I will call them out on it.
Now, I suggest instead of attacking my "rightwingishness" you disprove the accusation.
You playing semantic games again.
I don't care how you use your gasoline, water you flowers with it, if you want. But everything has a situation its use can be unlawful
Whatever the reason for my burning down my neighbors house, it in almost every case would be unlawful use of gasoline, would it not? So who cares about the motive.
Why the examination as to why you burn down a house?
There is nothing but your conjecture to support the premise that Obama and HC are ignoring the influence of Islamic terrorism, while recognizing racism. I hear stuff like that from Rush Limbaugh every day.
"You playing semantic games again."
I'm playing the semantics? You are the one calling this man a radical gun owner, instead of an Islamist! That's the semantics!
What astounding lack of self awareness.
"Whatever the reason for my burning down my neighbors house, it in almost every case would be unlawful use of gasoline, would it not? So who cares about the motive.
Why the examination as to why you burn down a house?"
I genuinely can't believe you're saying this in earnest.
Historically, there were a series of lynchings in your country that amounted to a disproportional amount of African Americans and other minorities being hung from trees.
Would you be okay in classifying those events as "radical noose owners"? Would you say "who cares about the motive"?
"There is nothing but your conjecture to support the premise that Obama and HC are ignoring the influence of Islamic terrorism"
Hillary saying terrorism has nothing to do with Islam: https://twitter.com/hillaryclinton/stat … 9885301761
Obama refusing to use the term Islamic terrorism: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/presiden … d=39815449
You astound me as well.
Radical noose owners? That is ridiculous.
You can adhere to conservative points of view but that is far from saying that they are correct. Obama was the one that nailed Bin Laden, so how is it that he is soft on terrorism? Islam is not the problem but extreme factions of the religion are, just as we have extreme factions of Christianity. So let's deal with these issues while not having our heads instead of stuck in the mire of rightwing hysteria.
Did I say that Mateen was a radical gun owner? Yes, anyone that is using anything for an un lawful purpose, I would call radical, indeed. Shooting people in a tavern without provocation is using the weapon unlawfully and consequently, radically.
"Radical noose owners? That is ridiculous."
As ridiculous as stating radical gun owner. I will correct myself though, I ought to have stated "radical rope owners."
"You can adhere to conservative points of view but that is far from saying that they are correct"
Okay, prove my "conservative" viewpoints wrong. Did Obama ever mention Islamism as a motivation for terrorist attacks?
"Obama was the one that nailed Bin Laden, so how is it that he is soft on terrorism"
Would you like a corn field for that strawman? I never said he was soft on terrorism. I said he refuses to state the religious motivations behind terrorism.
"Islam is not the problem but extreme factions of the religion are, just as we have extreme factions of Christianity."
"Extreme" Islam results in 50+ dead. "Extreme" Christianity results in what, exactly?
"Did I say that Mateen was a radical gun owner? Yes, anyone that is using anything for an un lawful purpose, I would call radical, indeed. Shooting people in a tavern without provocation is using the weapon unlawfully and consequently, radically."
Did I say that lynch mobs were radical rope owners? Yes, anyone that is using anything for an unlawful purpose, I would call radical, indeed. Hanging people from trees without provocation is using rope unlawfully and consequently, radically.
He accused me of playing semantic games a couple of days ago. When it is clear that you are or do not love that game, ...but, Cred loves to play.
Mateen was a radicalized Muslim terrorist. The certified Quran says to kill gays and infidels (anyone who doesn't belong to Islam).
Anyone who owns an assault rifle is a radical gun owner. Anyone who fights laws to protect Americans from assault rifles is a radical gun owner. Anyone who is a paying member of the NRA is a radical gun owner.
Funny, this man was found to have been frequenting this bar several times a month over the last 2-3 years, is this really ISIS or Al Quida?
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/report-or … 20444.html
He sounds a lot more like some troubled gay person, who lost it. It is looking less and less like terrorism and more like a extreme response to failed social interaction within his homosexual circle.
How much sense does it make for someone who despises homosexuality to continue to frequent their hangouts?
I will disappoint the rightwinger who is looking for some sinister terrorist link to all this when I don't see this guy fitting the pattern.
He is just another nut, like the guy that did the theatre in Colorado back in 2012, who is just about as ideologically driven as Bugs Bunny.
Tragic. A tortured soul with a rapid fire killing machine. This sad story is too comminplace.
Ya ! Because everybody knows angry , gay , Muslim , mass shooters come from the gun toting right-winger class of patriots , Right ! I have an idea for liberals , lets let a few more criminals out of jails , lets let a few more mosques into your neighborhoods , let's let your leaders create a few more law enforcement departments and fill them up with the organized unions , hey , how about if we create one more bathroom for the angry , Islamic , gun toting gay , security cops . But lets not stop there , lets let Obama elect a few hundred more liberal activist judges , you know ? Those that close prisons , plea bargain crimes , release more violent criminals to the streets , and generally allow this type of mayhem to spread . Works every time !
You're de-evolving now into a stance of total hysteria. Saner minds must prevail, unfortunately, there are not many of those on the reactionary Right...
While on the left - its the usual La- la land mentality ! Right another bill in legislature , create another gun law , maybe invent another bathroom policy , elect one more liberal judge AND stand back ,watch the results , and cry when nothing changes !
The NRA and the love of its members for assault rifles -- which used to be illegal -- are much more to blame for the massacre than a man who was known to be mentally unstable.
Some people are as hateful as the religious extremists. Just shut up your racist and xenophobic mouths at least for a couple of days. Respect the grieving families.
We all should learn from this great man.
Cesar Flores is heartbroken that his 26-year-old daughter was killed.
"I forgive the boy because I cannot take that hate in my life. My life is more important than hate. ... It hurts so much," Flores said.
"We must all come together, we must all be at peace, we must all love each other, because this hatred cannot continue for the rest of our lives."
The criticizing a religion = racism and xenophobic comments never gets old.
Every day there are casualties of religious violence, every day there will be grieving families. If we are to grieve for days at a time every time there is a tragic event before we can have an honest discussion, we'd be grieving endlessly. In any case, it's already been a couple of days, so I'm not sure what you're complaining about.
As commendable as that man is for finding forgiveness in his heart, forgiveness does not address the problem and will not prevent future attacks.
You ALL have to understand , the first place extreme liberals come from in any debate is the "no - fault " mentality for a crime , " no responsibility" in prosecution and "no blame" in the outcome of the trial for punishment . If you ever served on a jury , you'll notice liberal jurors are always for not guilty , there is no changing their minds.
That is until they or those close to them become victims . Watch these extreme liberal's kids experience victimhood and they will turn into pit bulls.
There is just so much hypocrisy on the left .
Brian, brother of Amanda Alvear (Orlando shooting victim)
"I've seen on social networks many hate messages towards that person (Mateen)... I will not mention his name because I do not want to remember him, I do not want him to exist in our lives ... but hate is not right. He was sick. He had contempt for LGBTT people and needed help and no one helped him. We can not judge his family, his religion or culture. I want this tragedy to help us to unite as Latinos, as family so we can share the message of love toward gay people, " he said, expressing that his sister was heterosexual, but really enjoyed the company of her LGBTT friends and believed in defending their rights.
I guess I'm a radical gas can owner , I have several of them .
I'm not aware of mass murders being done by someone with gas cans.
I am aware of mass murders being done with assault rifles.
For a journalist, your lack of reading comprehension is astounding. 1959 Southern Boulevard is an address. Read just a few words further and you'll reach the date.
Yes, I am imperfect like most people. I don't reach the level of perfection like you. So 1990 is much better than 1959.
It doesn't change the fact that mass murders with gas cans doesn't come close to right-wing extremists and their obsession with assault rifles.
You're right. I apologize for the snark.
Not sure why you're comparing mass murderers (of any kind) to people with a gun obsession. Are people with gun obsessions committing murders?
Thanks for the gracious response, mrpopo.
I'm mainly concerned with the mass murders being committed by people who have assault rifles despite reports about their mental instability and other concerns.
Do you think the blame lies with access to assault rifles or weak background checks?
Likewise, thank you for being gracious in kind.
I would not blame this case on background checks or ease of access to rifles. He was a security guard and passed several comprehensive background checks to obtain his licenses.
The FBI investigated him twice, both times due to suspicion of affiliation with Islamic terrorist groups or religious radicalization, and found insufficient evidence to do anything about it. During the investigation periods (in 2013 and 2014) the FBI would have been flagged had he purchased weapons.
When asked if anything could have or should have been done differently in regard to Mateen and the FBI's intelligence and actions in relation to him, FBI director James Comey replied, "So far, the honest answer is, I don't think so."
"so far the honest answer is, I don't think so, is the reply the FBI Director gave when being asked if they could have done anything to circumvent this guy sooner. So, law enforcement and by extension the administration should not be tarred and feathered for this unfortunate event. Unless you have some sort of 'minority report' technology as part of your determinations and such? Suspicion is not proof, and that is the only thing any of us are interested in. Everybody could be doing their jobs and things happen, regardless.
The article that I referenced did say that Mateen claimed allegiance to both Hizballah and ISIS. These factions have been fighting each other, I don't think that he knows what he is talking about. I still think that all this Islamic terrorism stuff is just a hoax to save the conservative's face on the issue of homophobia which they work hard to conceal. The proof is in the pudding, as I have told you. We will see, just don't disappear when it is time to 'eat crow'...
"I don't think so, is the reply the FBI Director gave when being asked if they could have done anything to circumvent this guy sooner. So, law enforcement and by extension the administration should not be tarred and feathered for this unfortunate event. Unless you have some sort of 'minority report' technology as part of your determinations and such? Suspicion is not proof, and that is the only thing any of us are interested in. Everybody could be doing their jobs and things happen, regardless."
Are you under the impression that I'm tarring and feathering law enforcement, or demanding minority report technology? I've never blamed the FBI for failing to act on this issue. I've blamed your media and politicians for failing to report on it honestly.
"The article that I referenced did say that Mateen claimed allegiance to both Hizballah and ISIS. These factions have been fighting each other, I don't think that he knows what he is talking about."
You mean to tell me religious fundamentalists make uneducated and contradictory statements? Colour me shocked.
Mateen was influenced by jihadist propaganda. The fact that he was influenced by jihadist propaganda from competing Islamic factions does not mean his influence was not Islamic in nature.
"I still think that all this Islamic terrorism stuff is just a hoax to save the conservative's face on the issue of homophobia which they work hard to conceal."
This has no basis on reality. I have not seen one conservative deny that this was not a result of homophobia. What you're seemingly incapable of understanding is that fundamentalist Islam is homophobic, and you're bending over backwards to try and obfuscate that very simple reality.
"The proof is in the pudding, as I have told you. We will see, just don't disappear when it is time to 'eat crow'"
Pretty obvious he's a self hating gay with a religion that says "pray harder" if have gay feelings. It's called 'internalized homophobia'.: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-36534693
That's a broad brush, akin to saying the murderer is 'Christian' as if all in unity when there are 33000+ total "Christian" denominations. There are many people who call themselves Muslim, but have varying beliefs and do not usually recognize members of other groups as fellow Muslims.
Wouldn't it be a broad brush to state that the religion wants to pray the gay away, in light of the various denominations?
From what I can tell the religion does not say "pray harder" to cure homosexuality in any sect, but certainly not as a whole. In the Qur'an it says to punish homosexuality, though it does not specify how. The Haddiths have different punishments and several amount to death. Overall homosexuality is overwhelmingly considered a punishable offense and a sin. The disagreements are primarily on the type of punishment.
Does it really matter what sect he came from? He seemed to be ill-informed or contradictory regarding his allegiances to the terrorist groups, it's unlikely he had a solid foundation on the specific sect he was advocating for. What matters is that his homophobic attack was inspired by jihadist material.
I don't agree, I still think he is a self hating homo and it wouldn't matter is Islam, or Christian, Can't say what was inside his head, perhaps his wife can tell us some clues.
Islam does not have a monopoly on Gay Folks:
Pastor refuses to mourn Orlando victims: 'The tragedy is that more of them didn't die'
These are five Muslim countries where being gay is not a crime. What do they have in common? None of them were colonized by the British Empire. Mali, Jordan, INDONESIA, TURKEY, ALBANIA
Other countries with a large Muslim population and where homosexuality is legal include Abkhazia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Chad, Djibouti, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Niger, Northern Cyprus, Palestine, and Tajikistan.
Too bad the usual script is being played out as Muslim Lone wolf shit
"I don't agree, I still think he is a self hating homo"
No kidding. But why did he hate himself? As you said, and is most likely true, it's the religion. His Islamic beliefs are what created the cognitive dissonance between his sexuality and his morality.
"it wouldn't matter is Islam, or Christian"
How many homosexual Christians are self-hating enough to go on murderous rampages? You found necessity in distinguishing between the different sects of Islam, there is a far greater necessity in distinguishing between the different religions and their contributions to homophobic killings, given the greater differences in beliefs and their respective cultures.
"Islam does not have a monopoly on Gay Folks:
Pastor refuses to mourn Orlando victims: 'The tragedy is that more of them didn't die'"
Who said Islam has a monopoly on hating homosexuals? Islamists are just the major exporters of homophobic hatred in the form of killings worldwide.
"These are five Muslim countries where being gay is not a crime. What do they have in common? None of them were colonized by the British Empire. Mali, Jordan, INDONESIA, TURKEY, ALBANIA"
I have no idea what you're trying to suggest here. Are you saying British Colonies criminalize homosexuality and therefore Islamic countries don't? Are you saying the only Islamic countries that criminalize homosexuality were British Colonies? Are you saying Commonwealth countries are more correlated with homophobia than Islamic countries?
I can tell from a quick glance at your examples that you're not showing the whole picture. While technically homosexuality is legal in Iraq and the West Bank of Palestine, both of those countries have horrendous LGBT records and violence against homosexuals is routine and not punished by the law. I imagine a closer inspection of the other countries in your list will reveal similar facts.
"Too bad the usual script is being played out as Muslim Lone wolf"
I don't know how you think this is a usual script. The latest major incidents of Islamic terrorism in the West (Paris and Brussels) were not lone wolf attacks, so they were not described as such. And in every case media and politicians have gone to great lengths to avoid mentioning the religion of the perpetrators. The real usual script is "radical terrorism attack by Muslim radicals has nothing to do with Islam. Islam is a religion of peace. #NotAllMuslims"
Are you people serious ?
Want to know what's wrong in America today ? This picture best describes America today ! No one wants to punish the perps anymore , America's entitlement society can't stand to investigate , prosecute or punish anyone for anything including terrorism ? A man planning a terrorist attack , broadcasting it for years , while the FBI watches from the legal shadows ? They can't put him on a list , they can't ask him too many questions ,they can't investigate him , OR those around him who have not only enabled and participated in his plans ,but knew about them ? Co -workers , neighbors , family ? Nobody !
But extreme liberal twits will blame an inanimate object for years , every single time that this happens in America , liberals wring their collective hands , "Oh , my ! What can we do ? maybe one more law will help" ? Let's blame the gun owner , that always works , pitiful !
I think it May be complex, but I dont think its radical islam or a hate crime. I think a gay guy went beserk and went to his favorite gay bar an shot everyone , just like kids do at school, because they dont fit in. But the pc World is spinning it because the truth aint pc.
I'm curious as to what Omar's dad does for a living. Cab driver, Store clerk, President of Afghanistan?
by Ralph Schwartz 17 months ago
Is America "at war" with radical Islam?The partisan argument between the left and the right on President Trump's immigration ban boils down to whether people see it as a ban on terrorism or a ban on Islam. The one question each of us need to answer before choosing a side appears to...
by LoliHey 2 years ago
Will not saying the name "Radical Islam" really keep us safe?Obama says that saying the name "Radical Islam" won't make a difference. Well, if it won't make a difference, why not just say the name? The mentality here is that if we call it what it is (Islamic...
by Jack Lee 2 years ago
Who is responsible for the Orlando attack on American soil?When will America wake up to the threat of ISIS and the attack on our homeland? Over 50 people have been killed. Will the White House finally recognize the real threat? And call it by its name? Extreme Islamic terrorist. Will the LGBT...
by A Thousand Words 5 years ago
I know that many, if not all, of you are aware of the tragedy that took place at the midnight premiere of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, Colorado. The "suspect," James Holmes, "allegedly" shot 70 people, killing 12 of them, including a 6 year old girl. He had four weapons with...
by JOC 2 years ago
Why are conservatives so intent on pissing off a whole religion that has like three billion members instead of singling out the extremist groups that have resorted to terrorism as their primary offensive strategy?
by G. Diane Nelson Trotter 3 years ago
What is the benefit of saying "radical extremist" as opposed to "Islamic extremist?"Is it less offense to Muslims to hear "extremist" instead of "Islamic terrorist?" Does debate over what to call it add fuel to the fire?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|