Islamic Terrorism

[Nanker]

[4merper4mer]

 

Since the shooter is dead I think we have to take him at his word and certainly there is a long trail of evidence pointing to his islamic jihadist cause starting with his comments right after 9/11 when he got on the school bus as a teen and mocked the attacks and told classmates that America deserves this. One has to be in total denial not to see this for what it is.

 

 

This attack occurred in 1984. Actually it did not even occur as the unterrorist will be an unperson soon enough.

 

The workplace violence dude is no different than this recreationalplace violence dude? What can we do about it other than ban guns?

[Magox]

 

My neighbor won't mow his lawn. If I go into a rage, say the words the shooter said about pledging allegiance to ISIS, then trespass onto his property, mow his lawn, and take a steaming dump in the middle of the freshly cut grass, does that make me a terrorist?

 

I doubt this guy had any agenda besides wanting to make himself feel that in the closing moments of his worthless existence, people (in a certain sect) might praise his beautiful idealism, when in fact he was just a social outcast who wasn't getting his allotment of p#$$y, or in his case, hairy man-ass. Maybe he really cared about advancing "the cause" or maybe he was just a guy who was around the rhetoric. I suspect the later but can't be more sure than anyone at this point.

 

If I was going to go out in a murderous rampage, I'd want people to think I did for a better reason then that I was a big loser.

 

This could be the case, but that wouldn't explain the previous suspicions from the FBI which led to him being on the terrorist watch list. This isn't the first time he's sympathized with those folks out east. Also, for a guy that likes hairy man-ass why would he want to visit the middle east? It's not the Mecca of hairy man-ass lovers, ya know.

 

Having said that, I do think he targeted Gays because of some sort of internal conflict that he has going on, but I also believe that he was inspired by the Jihadist movement. So, I think it's a combination of the two.

[B-Man]

Loretta Lynch: Our most effective response to terror is compassion, unity, and love.

 

Note the disparity: Obama’s response to Americans he disagrees with? “Get in their faces and punch back twice as hard.” His attorney general’s response to the worst terror attack on American soil since 9/11? Peace, love and sunshine, which speaks volumes with who the White House believes it’s really at war with.

 

Or as I wrote in 2009, “Roll Over Von Clausewitz.”

 

 

For years, people have debated what the response would have been if Al Gore or Obama had been president on 9/11. Now we know.

 

 

UPDATE: Great catch by the Media Research Center today: “2014: Obama Blasts Censorship, Says Some People ‘Need to be Offended’…But, not radical Islamists, apparently.”

 

 

As Roger Simon asks today, “Who Are the Real Islamophobes?”

[Deranged Rhino]

I know what your stance has been (and is). The second largest mass killing on U.S. soil is certainly terrorism and you trying to make it something else doesn't help your agenda.

 

Disagree. The reason we're in this current civil liberties mess and are at risk of sliding into a totalitarian state, is because of a vaguely defined war against an invisible enemy that, in the aftermath of 9/11, our government decided must be destroyed regardless of the cost in blood, treasure, and constitutional impediments.

 

This is a nuanced and complex problem. Attempting to simplify it or boil it down to one buzzword is what the folks who are trying to push us out of a democracy and into a totalitarian state want. They want us afraid to question. They want us to give over our constitutional rights in order for protection.

 

We shouldn't make it easy for them. We should be able to have complex and nuanced discussion about the true causes of attacks such as this. If we can't, then we've already lost.

 

So in conclusion, his pledging allegiance to ISIS makes him a terrorist.

 

It's just that simple.

 

Maybe a day will come when the world will look at a guy like this and collectively agree, 'this is no terrorist.'

 

But that day ain't today.

 

See above. Trying to make it that simple is what those who want to destroy protect this country want.

 

 

This could be the case, but that wouldn't explain the previous suspicions from the FBI which led to him being on the terrorist watch list. This isn't the first time he's sympathized with those folks out east. Also, for a guy that likes hairy man-ass why would he want to visit the middle east? It's not the Mecca of hairy man-ass lovers, ya know.

 

Having said that, I do think he targeted Gays because of some sort of internal conflict that he has going on, but I also believe that he was inspired by the Jihadist movement. So, I think it's a combination of the two.

 

It most likely is.

 

**********************************************

Fear not, more war and neocon neoliberal interventionalism is on the way!

 

Even U.S. military officials have said that these sorts of no-fly or no-bomb guarantees Flournoy is promising — which Hillary Clinton herself haspreviously advocated — would risk a military confrontation with Russia. Obama’s defense secretary, Ash Carter, told a Senate hearing last Decemberthat the policy Clinton advocates “would require ‘substantial’ ground forces and would put the U.S. military at risk of a direct confrontation with the Syrian regime and Russian forces.” Nonetheless, the Pentagon official highly likely to be Clinton’s defense secretary is clearly signaling their intention to proceed with escalated military action. The carnage in Syria is horrifying, but no rational person should think that U.S. military action will be designed to “help Syrians.”

It’s long been beyond doubt that Clinton intends to embark upon a far more militaristic path than even Obama forged — which is saying a lot given that the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner has bombed seven predominantly Muslim countries in seven years. Repeatedly, Clinton has implicitly criticized Obama for excessive hostility toward Israel, and she has vowed more uncritical support for Israel and to move closer to Netanyahu. Just yesterday, Clinton surrogates battled Sanders’s appointees in the Democratic Platform Committee meeting over Israel and Palestine, with Clinton’s supporters taking an even more hard-line position than many right-wing Israeli politicians. Clinton was the leading voice that successfully convinced a reluctant Obama to involve the U.S. in the disastrous intervention in Libya.

Her past criticisms of Obama’s foreign policy were based overwhelmingly in her complaints that he did not use enough military force, including in Syria. As the New York Times put it in 2014: “That Mrs. Clinton is more hawkish than Mr. Obama is no surprise to anyone who watched a Democratic primary debate in 2008. … She favored supplying arms to moderate Syrian rebels, leaving behind a somewhat larger residual military force in Iraq and waiting longer before withdrawing American support for President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt during the historic protests in Cairo.”

But the fact that Hillary Clinton has a history of advocating more war and killing and support for heinous regimes and occupations is the one thing Democratic pundits have, with remarkable message discipline, completely ignored. From Bernie Bros to Sanders’ Secret Service costs to Hillary’s kick-ass, mic-dropping, slay-queen tweets, they’ve invented the most embarrassingly childish and trivial distractions to ensure they don’t have to talk about it. But now Clinton’s almost-certain defense secretary is already — months before she’s in power — expressly advocating more war and bombing and dangerous interventions. That makes the costs of a Clinton foreign policy — at least for those who assign any value to lives outside of American soil — much harder, and more shameful, to ignore.

 

https://theintercept.com/2016/06/22/hillary-clintons-likely-pentagon-chief-already-advocating-for-more-bombing-and-intervention/

Edited June 22, 2016 by Deranged Rhino

[FireChan]

 

I already gave you my definition. You don't agree with it, which now puts the onus on you to correct it with what you consider to be the proper definition.

 

Unless, y'know, you're just going full gatorman and have no intention of answering the question yourself.

.

If they're brown and kill gays, they're terrorists? I don't think that even necessitates a response.

 

Glad to see your hypocrisy exposed again, though.

 

Donald Trump isn't a TRUE Republican. WBC aren't TRUE Christians. But that gay Islamic guy? Totally a TRUE Muslim, folks.

Edited June 22, 2016 by FireChan

[IDBillzFan]

If they're brown and kill gays, they're terrorists? I don't think that even necessitates a response.

 

Glad to see your hypocrisy exposed again, though.

 

Donald Trump isn't a TRUE Republican. WBC aren't TRUE Christians. But that gay Islamic guy? Totally a TRUE Muslim, folks.

 

Look, all you had to do was say you misunderstood my initial response to Tom. That's all you had to do. Reading can be hard sometimes.

 

But instead, you decided to pretend you understood it, and then went full gatorman.

 

That's okay. It happens.

 

But hey...if you ever get to a point where you can come up with your own definition of terrorism, you let us know, mmmkay?

 

In the meantime, the next time a brown guy named Omar makes two trips to Afghanistan, comes back to the US, calls 911 to announce his allegiance to a known terrorist organization while using a semi-automatic weapon to murder 50 gay people to avenge his people getting bombed by the US, you'll understand if I'm less inclined to think he was just a confused, unstable homo from Altamonte Springs.

[FireChan]

 

Look, all you had to do was say you misunderstood my initial response to Tom. That's all you had to do. Reading can be hard sometimes.

 

But instead, you decided to pretend you understood it, and then went full gatorman.

 

That's okay. It happens.

 

But hey...if you ever get to a point where you can come up with your own definition of terrorism, you let us know, mmmkay?

 

In the meantime, the next time a brown guy named Omar makes two trips to Afghanistan, comes back to the US, calls 911 to announce his allegiance to a known terrorist organization while using a semi-automatic weapon to murder 50 gay people to avenge his people getting bombed by the US, you'll understand if I'm less inclined to think he was just a confused, unstable homo from Altamonte Springs.

You haven't given a definition, but an example. The condescending thing doesn't work when I'm wiping the floor with you.

Edited June 22, 2016 by FireChan

[B-Man]

POLITICOVerified account ‏@politico 2h2 hours ago

Lynch won't say who edited Orlando 911 transcript

 

We'll probably never know the motivation of the lone wolf transcript editor....................................

 

.

[FireChan]

I'm repeatedly told lately that what I hear is what I am to believe, regardless of why my lying eyes tell me.

 

When a man tells me he must use the little girls' bathroom because he thinks he's a girl, I'm told he is, in fact, a girl and not only can he use the little girls' bathroom, but we will call this person courageous and give them an award.

 

When a lifelong Democrat who has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to put Democrats in office over a 40-year span tells me he is suddenly the most conservative Republican around, I'm told that this is also true and I should join with other conservative Republicans to ensure he becomes the next president.

 

So when a brown-skinned person named Omar has multiple guns, has been to Afghanistan twice in the last four years, openly claims allegiance to a terrorist group, and murders 50 gays in a nightclub as payback, in his words, for the US bombing his people, I'm supposed to now NOT believe what I'm told but rather believe that he's really a confused gay having a bad day?

 

Yeah, okay.

The powers that be or the "Left" believe retarded things, so me believing retarded things is okay. Why? Well because the "Left" does it!

 

This is honestly an embarrassing post. I wouldn't cite it ever again. Go sit in the corner and think about what you've done.

[4merper4mer]

You haven't given a definition, but an example. The condescending thing doesn't work when I'm wiping the floor with you.

 

Well, his example left about 50 people dead. And it was terrorism. I find it interesting that people give a crap abut a definition so precise and minute that almost anything can be said to be missing one of the factors. It's a word trap played for strange and inexplicable reasons. Maybe it just helps feed arrogance. You know when it it will be harder to talk down to people about laser precision definitions of terrorism?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When your head is rolling down the ivory tower, that's when.

[DC Tom]

‘Fanatic’ Muslim mob torches 80 Christian homes in Egypt over church rumour

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/682091/muslim-mob-torch-christian-homes-Egypt

 

 

Because no one ever freaked out in the US over a mosque being built in the "wrong place."

 

Exactly as much, to be fair.

 

I'm repeatedly told lately that what I hear is what I am to believe, regardless of why my lying eyes tell me.

 

When a man tells me he must use the little girls' bathroom because he thinks he's a girl, I'm told he is, in fact, a girl and not only can he use the little girls' bathroom, but we will call this person courageous and give them an award.

 

When a lifelong Democrat who has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to put Democrats in office over a 40-year span tells me he is suddenly the most conservative Republican around, I'm told that this is also true and I should join with other conservative Republicans to ensure he becomes the next president.

 

So when a brown-skinned person named Omar has multiple guns, has been to Afghanistan twice in the last four years, openly claims allegiance to a terrorist group, and murders 50 gays in a nightclub as payback, in his words, for the US bombing his people, I'm supposed to now NOT believe what I'm told but rather believe that he's really a confused gay having a bad day?

 

Yeah, okay.

 

That's not a definition of "terrorism," that's a definition of the rampant, idiotic hypocrisy of the left (and a perfectly valid one, I might add).

[B-Man]

 

Because no one ever freaked out in the US over a mosque being built in the "wrong place."

 

 

Really Tom, that's your response to that article ?

 

 

I guess there is such a thing as being too detached.

[Deranged Rhino]

I find it interesting that people give a crap abut a definition so precise and minute that almost anything can be said to be missing one of the factors. It's a word trap played for strange and inexplicable reasons.

 

It's not surprising when that "word trap" has been the single guiding force of our nation's foreign and domestic policy for the past 16 years, and has left in its wake our right to due process, privacy, not to mention hundreds of thousands dead -- including over 4k of our own fighting men and women -- and well over 3 trillion dollars from our national coffers.

 

The reasons this word game is being played is only inexplicable if you're not paying attention to how that word is being used to stoke the fires of fear, hate, and jingoism -- at the expense of the American citizens.

[FireChan]

 

Well, his example left about 50 people dead. And it was terrorism. I find it interesting that people give a crap abut a definition so precise and minute that almost anything can be said to be missing one of the factors. It's a word trap played for strange and inexplicable reasons. Maybe it just helps feed arrogance. You know when it it will be harder to talk down to people about laser precision definitions of terrorism?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When your head is rolling down the ivory tower, that's when.

It's not surprising. Use words you mean and be precise. Painting with broad strokes is never a good move, no matter how much fear-mongering you try to spread.

 

If you're going to post pages and pages about how some folks don't represent your group of people just because they say they do, I'm going to challenge you when you say it's clear he's a terrorist because he said so. Sorry, i know some folks hate being kept honest.

Edited June 22, 2016 by FireChan

[4merper4mer]

It's not surprising. Use words you mean and be precise. Painting with broad strokes is never a good move, no matter how much fear-mongering you try to spread.

 

If you're going to post pages and pages about how some folks don't represent your group of people just because they say they do, I'm going to challenge you when you say it's clear he's a terrorist because he said so. Sorry, i know some folks hate being kept honest.

 

 

Then you define terrorism in what you consider to be a complete and irrefutable fashion. Then show how the Orlando attack does not meet its standard. Then pick an historical act you consider to be terrorism. I will show you how it isn't using your own definition or I will show you how Orlando was. Or both.

 

Fear mongering huh? You know who'll never be afraid? Those people from the Orlando club. Because they're dead.

Edited June 22, 2016 by 4merper4mer

[....lybob]

I have yet met anyone who admits to feelings of terror - so how can there be terrorists?

[GG]

 

Because no one ever freaked out in the US over a mosque being built in the "wrong place."

 

Speaking of, the developer is moving right ahead with the 50 story development. So yeah, the fight was never about the mosque but about real estate rights.

[DC Tom]

 

Speaking of, the developer is moving right ahead with the 50 story development. So yeah, the fight was never about the mosque but about real estate rights.

 

Wouldn't be the least bit surprised if that's the case in Egypt, as well.

[FireChan]

 

 

Then you define terrorism in what you consider to be a complete and irrefutable fashion. Then show how the Orlando attack does not meet its standard. Then pick an historical act you consider to be terrorism. I will show you how it isn't using your or definition or I will show you how Orlando was. Or both.

 

Fear mongering huh? You know who'll never be afraid? Those people from the Orlando club. Because they're dead.

Nice one dude. Appeal to emotion. Helps keep a clear mind, I know.

 

Here's my definition of terrorism, modified from Bruce Hoffman's.

 

"Terrorism is: ineluctably political in aims and motives; violent—or, equally important, threatens violence; designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target; conducted either by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia) or by a small collection of individuals directed by some existent terrorist movement and/or its leaders; and perpetrated by a subnational group or nonstate entity."

 

Go ahead.

 

I consider 9/11 a terrorist attack. Enjoy chasing your tail.