Observer Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 (edited) Unless we are arguing semantics, it appears to be a case of terrorism. I'm not sure this guy killed a bunch of people in a gay club because he identifies with ISIS. Time will tell. The San Bernidino people were homegrown terrorists. OK City was a homegrown terrorist. This guy might just be a nutcase who said the magic terror words when he was in the middle of his rampage. EDIT--just read Tom's point and appreciate it. Even the Illuminati allowed Rhino to post below on this point. Terrorism is directed to political aims. Not a complete definition, but not sure this dude was motivated by political aims. Edited June 14, 2016 by Observer
Deranged Rhino Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 While all that is true, I think it's a safe bet that gays, especially gay people in Orlando, are feeling pretty terrorized right now. This is why the issue is thorny, even for me. I empathize with that argument, and clearly think that any horrific crime of this nature does terrorize the victims and the rest of us. But when we've had a federal government using a "War on Terror" to justify suspending and rolling back civil liberties and constitutional protections as a means of keeping us safe, calling every crime "terrorism" is exactly what they are hoping for. That way, federal power can grow unabated. It's a parsing of the language, yes. But that's the game they're playing. As said earlier, the conditioning is evident in the media. Every crime must be terrorism, because that way the government can use its power to "protect" us from further attacks. It's actually more complicated than that - it requires not just a political goal, but an a priori context and framework in to which it fits. "Political revolutionaries" and "disaffected morons lashing out" are two sets with some overlap...but they are still two different sets of people, no matter their allegiances, beliefs, or motivations. Unless we are arguing semantics, it appears to be a case of terrorism. We are arguing semantics because semantics is exactly what the government is using to roll back constitutional protections as they wage their "war on terror". That's why it'd be irresponsible to play that game by their rules. This wasn't terrorism. It was a terrible act and a horrific crime. But it was not terrorism in the way the government wants to use the term.
B-Man Posted June 14, 2016 Author Posted June 14, 2016 Does It Matter if Orlando Jihadist Was a ‘Member’ of ISIS? Disney reportedly warned FBI of Omar Mateen and Noor Salman in April. What If Mateen Wasn’t Targeting Gay People At All? FTA: But what if Mateen didn’t specifically target a gay nightclub? What if the choice of the club and the victims were incidental to the killer’s intent? What if Mateen simply hated America, loved ISIS, considered himself an Islamist, and wanted to kill as many infidels as possible? Why else would Mateen have scouted out other locations like Walt Disney World? Could it be that this, too, is a place where large numbers of people gather and where Mateen could have launched a surprise attack against unsuspecting civilians? Mateen’s wife, Noor Sahi Salman, reportedly told People that recently he had been “scouting Downtown Disney and Pulse [nightclub] for attacks.” Downtown Disney, reports People, doesn’t have a security and bag check at the entrance, unlike the other four Disney World theme parks. If Mateen’s specific purpose had been to target not just Americans, but gay Americans, why did he never mention this in his 911 call? According to multiple law enforcement sources, Mateen called 911 about 30 minutes after launching his attack and pledged allegiance to ISIS and its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. But that’s not all he said. Mateen claimed he was doing this in solidarity with Boston marathon bombers Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, and Moner Mohammad Abu-Salha, the first U.S. citizen to carry out a suicide attack in Syria. He also said he was protesting “the U.S. bombing in Syria and Iraq and the killing of women and children.” No mention of carrying out an Islamic punishment for homosexuality, no mention of gay or lesbian Americans, no mention of his victims at all. Of course, it’s no secret that Islam condemns homosexuality, and that ISIS has executed gay men by throwing them from rooftops in Mosul. So it’s possible that Mateen decided to attack Pulse, a well-known gay nightclub, to carry out a punishment he believed Islam demands for homosexuality
reddogblitz Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 If we're at the point of all out war against the government, I'd rather be Swiss cheese than hauled off in a cattle car to whatever rehabilitation camp they'd be sending me to. Yeah, well I hope this never happens because if it does, us citizens are serious toast because we are way outgunned and it ain't even close.
Nanker Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 It is. CRT includes gender - any self-described minority, basically. It should be called "Critical Victim Theory," to be honest. I think that's a more honest name for it.
Azalin Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 There's no arguing with that. Only because it's a childishly empty dismissal of any argument. "It's terrorism, and anyone who disagrees is just arguing semantics." So the definition of terrorism would be more closely associated with intent rather than effect? I'm going to have to think about that one.
DC Tom Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 Does It Matter if Orlando Jihadist Was a ‘Member’ of ISIS? Disney reportedly warned FBI of Omar Mateen and Noor Salman in April. What If Mateen Wasn’t Targeting Gay People At All? FTA: But what if Mateen didn’t specifically target a gay nightclub? What if the choice of the club and the victims were incidental to the killer’s intent? What if Mateen simply hated America, loved ISIS, considered himself an Islamist, and wanted to kill as many infidels as possible? What if his pledged allegiance to ISIS was incidental to his intent? You'd still be calling it terrorism. All of this is just attempts at ex post facto justification of a preconceived notion.
Joe Miner Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 This wasn't terrorism: http://www.salon.com/2016/06/13/overcompensation_nation_its_time_to_admit_that_toxic_masculinity_drives_gun_violence/
IDBillzFan Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 This wasn't terrorism: http://www.salon.com/2016/06/13/overcompensation_nation_its_time_to_admit_that_toxic_masculinity_drives_gun_violence/ Toxic masculinity. What about toxic feminism? Is that a thing, too, or am I suffering from toxic masculinity for thinking there is such a thing? From Meternity to Toxic Masculinity, you leftists are the biggest bunch of phucking nutbags I've ever seen. Please just stop printing every moronic thought that hits your head. Please. I'm asking nicely.
Nanker Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 This wasn't terrorism: http://www.salon.com/2016/06/13/overcompensation_nation_its_time_to_admit_that_toxic_masculinity_drives_gun_violence/ Oh yes. Because we haven't been as successful as we should in neutering little boys into docile little playmates for the girls in the classroom. Therefore we must double-down our efforts to castrate the minds of men, turning them into lobotomized limp-wristed followers of political correctness with no genuine feelings and emotions of their own.
IDBillzFan Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 Oh yes. Because we haven't been as successful as we should in neutering little boys into docile little playmates for the girls in the classroom. Therefore we must double-down our efforts to castrate the minds of men, turning them into lobotomized limp-wristed followers of political correctness with no genuine feelings and emotions of their own. I think we all know what these nutbags expect a man to be:
Magox Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 There's no arguing with that. Only because it's a childishly empty dismissal of any argument. "It's terrorism, and anyone who disagrees is just arguing semantics." It may have been lazy but not a "childishly empty dismissal of any argument". There are lots of moving parts and no one here can reasonably definitively say one way or another. Also, just because it appears he didn't have coordination with any sleeper cells overseas does not mean that it's not the sort of "terrorism" as defined by Greg (although it is his definition so I suppose he could define it any way he'd like). The M.O of many Jihadists nowadays is to be inspired online or from what they see on social media/tv. They become inspired, radicalized and then they plan out and attempt to execute their plan of terror. What we do know is that 1) He pledged allegiance to ISIS. 2)That he had gone to the middle east a couple times within the last few years. 3)That he had been questioned by the FBI and temporarily put on the terror watch list because he had allegedly spoke about terrorism 4) That ISIS has called on Muslims to attack western targets during the month of Ramadan. 5) He had connections with an American Terrorist who died in Syria 6) Sympathized with the Tsaernaev brothers 7) Said he wanted to exact revenge because of the bombings in Syria. Does this definitely prove that he was radicalized and took action because of his possible Anti western leanings? No, but it certainly could be. There is no one here that can reasonably make the definitive claim one way or another at this point.
sodbuster Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 So the definition of terrorism would be more closely associated with intent rather than effect? I'm going to have to think about that one. By definition, yes. Just like how third degree and first degree murder are different, based on the intent of the suspect.
Ozymandius Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 Amarillo Wal-Mart. This is the Ramadan that keeps on giving. Of course, Amarillo is not a soft target. No casualties except the Somalian.
Justice Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 I agree with DR's take. I'm not so sure this is terrorism. Self hating homosexual. Maybe he wanted to take this route so people wouldn't suspect he's gay. If so, it backfired.
Ozymandius Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 I agree with DR's take. I'm not so sure this is terrorism. Self hating homosexual. Maybe he wanted to take this route so people wouldn't suspect he's gay. If so, it backfired. lol, hide your sexuality by becoming the most scrutinized person in America? no one is that dumb. you would have to change the phrase to "hoisted by his own retard"
Maury Ballstein Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 I agree with DR's take. I'm not so sure this is terrorism. Self hating homosexual. Maybe he wanted to take this route so people wouldn't suspect he's gay. If so, it backfired. What ? He's a Muslim and he pledged allegiance to Isis. He's a terrorist. Hang his whole family and put it on the cover of the HuffPo.
B-Man Posted June 14, 2016 Author Posted June 14, 2016 Anderson Cooper is really getting to the root causes of Orlando. CNN: “Anderson Cooper grills [Florida AG] Bondi on LGBT support.” Related: Progressive Silence Over Islamic Extremism Is Homophobic
Azalin Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 By definition, yes. Just like how third degree and first degree murder are different, based on the intent of the suspect. Not sure i can agree with you. While I get the point, I believe that attempting to ascertain intent is the kind of thinking that gave us "hate crimes", the concept of which I'm not in agreement with, at least as it pertains to making a crime worse than it already is on it's surface.
Recommended Posts