Quote:Yeah, we should totally give up all our rights so that can protect us.
Who mentioned anything about giving up rights? The FBI was alerted this terrorist tried to purchase body armor. A guy already on the watch list. A guy they have already investigated twice. Epic fail.
Quote:Anchorman, it has now come to light that Mateen was cheering on the September 11th attacks at school. The school talked to his parents and they didn't seem concerned or do much about it. What highschooler cheers on such horrendous acts? Why wouldn't the parents be concerned? This would suggest he was radicalized back in high school. As I said, I wouldn't believe anything the Dad has to say.
That's pretty messed up, if true.
I'm pretty sure I've also pointed out that both the terrorist and his dad are wack jobs...
Though I would like your source on how his parents reacted, I didn't find anything about that...
Not sure how you can defame an entire religion because these parents are freaks and their son was a self loathing gay man who turned into a monster...
Quote:Anchorman, it has now come to light that Mateen was cheering on the September 11th attacks at school. The school talked to his parents and they didn't seem concerned or do much about it. What highschooler cheers on such horrendous acts? Why wouldn't the parents be concerned? This would suggest he was radicalized back in high school. As I said, I wouldn't believe anything the Dad has to say.
His father is a pro taliban Afghan national. During his bayat he claimed that thus was "not his country." further proof that the geography of your birth does not determine your allegiance.
By the way, it's really annoying that it's necessary to have to point out that a religion, Islam specifically on this case, is not the enemy of the United states.
Every major religion has verses that can be used for barbarism. Less than 200 years ago a religion was used in the USA to rationalize the enslavement of an entire group of people.
Quote:Who mentioned anything about giving up rights? The FBI was alerted this terrorist tried to purchase body armor. A guy already on the watch list. A guy they have already investigated twice. Epic fail.
Who
hasn't mentioned giving up our rights?
Quote:By the way, it's really annoying that it's necessary to have to point out that a religion, Islam specifically on this case, is not the enemy of the United states.
Every major religion has verses that can be used for barbarism. Less than 200 years ago a religion was used in the USA to rationalize the enslavement of an entire group of people.
Two hundred years ago practitioners of religion were at the forefront of ending Institutionalized Slavery in the western world, both by law and by violence.
Quote:Two hundred years ago practitioners of religion were at the forefront of ending Institutionalized Slavery in the western world, both by law and by violence.
Some were, others were not.
Quote:Two hundred years ago practitioners of religion were at the forefront of ending Institutionalized Slavery in the western world, both by law and by violence.
Exactly. And folks also used religion as a justification for slavery, as Anchorman said. From this one might determine that many if not all ideologies can be used to justify both good and bad actions.
There doesn't seem to be much discussion about what policies should be adopted to get rid of the problem. Some claim gun control would help. A ban on 'modern sporting rifles' or whatever the term is as well as limiting magazine size might decrease the number of folks killed per incident, or allow for others to have more of a change to disarm/counter-fire during reload. Even so, at most this seems to be mitigation, and those intending to do mass violence might switch to even more dangerous means such as explosives, etc. Off the cuff I might thing that such guns are really made for battlefields. However, while I personally don't see much value in 'modern sporting rifles' for hunting or home defense, I do feel we should probably discuss things well before deciding to restrict other people's liberty. I am not talking second amendment here, as historically, the SC has ruled that restrictions can be placed. Just a dislike of bans or restrictions without strong evidence the savings would very clearly outweigh the onus of placing the restriction.
The same goes for those wanting to put blanket bans or similar special treatment regarding Muslims. From what I have seen, there is absolutely no justification for doing something like banning Muslim immigration due to the actions of a few bad actors. Whether race, religion, nationality, or other factor is used as a justification for discrimination, such discrimination should be examined closely to determine what possible justification exists to warrant it. So far, I haven't seen any cogent reasoning that would do so.
And finally, there has been a good bit of reporting on comments the shooter made in the past. From what I understand, the guy in the past claimed he supported groups that were hostile to the U.S. , but also to each other. From what I understand, he did the same thing the night he attacked. While this might show him as even more of a nut-job (if possible), it also seems to point out the limitation of action regarding those who make comments that other might well deem dangerous.I am not sure what good placing someone on a 'watch' list does, in cases like this. In the event of an organized attack with multiple parties and coordinated communication, sure, intel can be gathered and perhaps events can be interrupted. But in an event like this, I have yet to see any effective and not ridiculously over-extensive action that would have prevented it. Doesn't stop me from hoping someone can come up with something.
Quote:That's pretty messed up, if true.
I'm pretty sure I've also pointed out that both the terrorist and his dad are wack jobs...
Though I would like your source on how his parents reacted, I didn't find anything about that...
Not sure how you can defame an entire religion because these parents are freaks and their son was a self loathing gay man who turned into a monster...
I never defamed an entire religion. My point I originally made was that I don't trust the Dad and his son said he did the killings in the name of ISIS. I have no idea where you are getting the other stuff from. You still haven't told me what your point was in all your ramblings on my post.
Quote:I never defamed an entire religion. My point I originally made was that I don't trust the Dad and his son said he did the killings in the name of ISIS. I have no idea where you are getting the other stuff from. You still haven't told me what your point was in all your ramblings on my post.
You want me to remember my specific ramblings from 3 days ago?? That's a tall order...
Jt, I actually agree with most of the things you write.
It's possible I took one of your posts and projected jj or another trumpettes' bias into you, incorrectly. If that was the case, I apologize.
Is there a specific ramble that was exceptionally incoherent that you'd like me to address?
Edit--and regarding the information that is coming out, my point was specifically that we don't know exactly what was/is going on in these 2 people's minds... as more light is being shed, it's clear the family is jacked. But the information we had on Monday was nut clear, my point was we don't know.
Quote:You want me to remember my specific ramblings from 3 days ago?? That's a tall order...
Jt, I actually agree with most of the things you write.
It's possible I took one of your posts and projected jj or another trumpettes' bias into you, incorrectly. If that was the case, I apologize.
Is there a specific ramble that was exceptionally incoherent that you'd like me to address?
Edit--and regarding the information that is coming out, my point was specifically that we don't know exactly what was/is going on in these 2 people's minds... as more light is being shed, it's clear the family is jacked. But the information we had on Monday was nut clear, my point was we don't know.
OK, I hope this helps clear things up.
A-man was addressing a post jj made about the Taliban father teaching the ISIL-loving son to follow the father's teachings. Apparently jj sees Taliban and ISIL as interchangeable, but the dad certainly might have provided lessons for the son in other areas. As many have said, they both seem to have more than their share of issues. Post 365
JT comments regarding post 365 "He also said this wasn't a religious act. And of course that was not true. I wouldn't believe anything he has to say." Post 368 Not sure if this is where A-man got the whole "defaming religion" thing. Now having said this, this was before the reports that the shooter pledged allegiance to multiple competing terrorist groups on multiple occasions, including ISIL and Al-Nusra and generally sounds, well, whack. So maybe JT thought he was a laser-beamed hardened terrorist shock troop or something. Not sure.
I got in a bit later regarding the whole Taliban thing, the discrepancies between the post and WSJ articles, and got into the weeds with parsing JT's grammar in post 447, getting caught up in the fathers veracity vs wackadoodleness... I think JT's post above, as well as post 399 from him that might have caused a misreading that he was saying something about Muslims in general, although in post 440 he states the Christian pastor advocating violence is cut from the same cloth.
OK, that was a lot of backtracking, but I wanted to revisit it, as I think I got a bit of the whole religious thing at the time as well. Hope that helps.
Edit - formatting
I'm only going to say this one time (puts his sunglasses down) when my Name comes up, put some RESPEK on IT. and that goes for all ah y'all. Ya heard me?
Quote:You want me to remember my specific ramblings from 3 days ago?? That's a tall order...
Jt, I actually agree with most of the things you write.
It's possible I took one of your posts and projected jj or another trumpettes' bias into you, incorrectly. If that was the case, I apologize.
Is there a specific ramble that was exceptionally incoherent that you'd like me to address?
Edit--and regarding the information that is coming out, my point was specifically that we don't know exactly what was/is going on in these 2 people's minds... as more light is being shed, it's clear the family is jacked. But the information we had on Monday was nut clear, my point was we don't know.
And my point was I didn't trust the Dad and the kid said was he said about ISIS. Then you rambled on about my view of all Muslims. So yes, I think you projected someone else's take which is why I was so confused. No, nothing to addres. Anyways, that was fun. And remember, not all people's whose board name starts with a j have the same view points
.
Quote:I'm only going to say this one time (puts his sunglasses down) when my Name comes up, put some RESPEK on IT. and that goes for all ah y'all. Ya heard me?
OK, Birdman.
I did a callback to post 365, which included your quote, not pulling a fast one.
Quote:OK, I hope this helps clear things up.
A-man was addressing a post jj made about the Taliban father teaching the ISIL-loving son to follow the father's teachings. Apparently jj sees Taliban and ISIL as interchangeable, but the dad certainly might have provided lessons for the son in other areas. As many have said, they both seem to have more than their share of issues. Post 365
JT comments regarding post 365 "He also said this wasn't a religious act. And of course that was not true. I wouldn't believe anything he has to say." Post 368 Not sure if this is where A-man got the whole
"defaming religion" thing. Now having said this, this was before the reports that the shooter pledged allegiance to multiple competing terrorist groups on multiple occasions, including ISIL and Al-Nusra and generally sounds, well, whack. So maybe JT thought he was a laser-beamed hardened terrorist shock troop or something. Not sure.
I got in a bit later regarding the whole Taliban thing, the discrepancies between the post and WSJ articles, and got into the weeds with parsing JT's grammar in post 447, getting caught up in the fathers veracity vs wackadoodleness... I think JT's post above, as well as post 399 from him that might have caused a misreading that he was saying something about Muslims in general, although in post 440 he states the Christian pastor advocating violence is cut from the same cloth.
OK, that was a lot of backtracking, but I wanted to revisit it, as I think I got a bit of the whole religious thing at the time as well. Hope that helps.
Edit - formatting
I think I may be more confused now...
Thanks Biff...
So, my rant regarding JT's implecation really was a quick response to the fact that at the point in the discussion there were alot of moving parts which were not tied down yet. I still think that it wasn't a religious act or an act that was inspired by their devotion to Islam. If I recall correctly when I posted my response, we already knew that the shooter was confused (regarding his pledge of allegiance to 2 opposing terrorist groups)and that there was more to this than just being a radical Islamist.
At the time, the father seemed less sketchy than he does now. Let's not forget that at this time there was a Wall Street Journal article that mentioned that the father was not a terrorist leaning Afghani with a radical islamist slant, but identified very heavily in his tribal/national/ethnic background and sided against Pakistan based on this fact.
With that said, I do think I jumped down JT's throat regarding his bias, when in fact I was confusing him with other posters. For that, JT, I do apologize.