Shooting in Orlando

My God:

Fifty people were killed inside Pulse, a gay nightclub, Orlando Police Chief John Mina and other officials said Sunday morning, just hours after a shooter opened fire in the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.

At least 53 more people were injured, Mina said. Police have shot and killed the gunman, he told reporters.
“It’s appears he was organized and well-prepared,” the chief said, adding that the shooter had an assault-type weapon, a handgun and “some type of (other) device on him.”
Officials warned that a lengthy investigation was ahead, given the number of victims and the scope of the violence.

Once again, be suspicious of initial reports and fuck anyone who tries to use this to advance their pet political cause before they know what happened.

(I won’t print the name of the shooter. Suffice it to say there are good reasons to suspect the motive.)

Comments are closed.

  1. Christopher

    God, I woke up yesterday morning to news of Christina Grimmie’s death, and today I wake up to this.  And both of them were in Orlando.  Thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families.

    Thumb up 1

  2. AlexInCT

    Yeah, the one thing I am seeing very little mention on from the people covering this tragedy and the political class racing to score cheap points, is that this fucking lunatic made it very clear he was doing it in support of ISIS and Islam’s celebration of Ramadan (likely because these scumbags are all on the gun grabbing bandwagon where mentioning this lunatic was not gonna be deterred by any law against gun ownership wouldn’t work well if they pointed out the obvious fact that none of the victims was likely to be armed).

    And he is not the only instance of this problem this weekend. I hear some other nutjob was grabbed in California heading for a gay pride parade carrying bombs and guns. Its about to get real, I guess, for the very people that are telling us that we should be disarmed and that these fucking lunatics pose us no risk.

    Thumb up 1

  3. CM

    Alex isn’t advancing his political cause before he’s knows what happened, because he knows what happened. ;-)

    Nice to see Trump congratulating himself because 50 people are dead this morning in a horrific tragedy. Class. But, you know, he’s not-Hillary, so give him another pass.

    Thumb up 1

  4. repmom

    Nice to see Trump congratulating himself because 50 people are dead this morning in a horrific tragedy. Class. But, you know, he’s not-Hillary, so give him another pass.

    No pass for Donald Trump. His congratulating himself is as disgusting as it gets. Everything he has tweeted this morning has been disgusting. He’s just as sickening as Obama using this to push his gun control agenda.

     

    Thumb up 1

  5. CM

    He’s just as sickening as Obama using this to push his gun control agenda.

    He has? I saw he made these comments within a much larger statement, is that what you’re referring to?

    The shooter was apparently armed with a handgun and a powerful assault rifle. This massacre is therefore a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon that lets them shoot people in a school, or in a house of worship, or a movie theater, or in a nightclub. And we have to decide if that’s the kind of country we want to be. And to actively do nothing is a decision as well.

     

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/12/president-obamas-complete-remarks-on-orlando-shooting/

    Thumb up 0

  6. AlexInCT

    Alex isn’t advancing his political cause before he’s knows what happened, because he knows what happened. ;-)

    Actually CM I do. There are plenty of verifiable facts about WTF this was about, who did it, why they did it, even how they did it, the name of some of the victims, as well as mention that we will get more of it, and you, as happens every fucking time you try to one-up me, will end up with splooge on your face when I am proven right, yet again. I am not surprised that this is the shit you resorted to though, because that bias you want to so desperately project on me is full bore on your side. And here is the the typical reaction from the left about this, but off all the shit things you can say, this one was my favorite. Un-fucking believable…

    Thumb up 0

  7. CM

    Actually CM I do.

    No, you don’t. None of us do. That is the point. Hal even pre-emptively reminded you of that.

    There are plenty of verifiable facts about WTF this was about, who did it, why they did it, for what reason they did it, and even how they did it

    Sure you can find what what suits, pretend it’s verifiable fact, put it together to create the narrative, and pretend the narrative ‘proves’ something, but it doesn’t change reality. Reality is a bitch like that.

    as happens every fucking time you try to one-up me, will end up with splooge on your face when I am proven right, yet again

    Except this doesn’t happen, and pretending so doesn’t change reality. Again, it’s a bitch like that.

    I am not surprised that this is the shit you resorted to though, because that bias you want to so desperately project on me is full bore on your side.

    It’s ‘bias’ to point out that you responded to “Once again, be suspicious of initial reports and fuck anyone who tries to use this to advance their pet political cause before they know what happened” by doing exactly that? Sorry, that makes no sense.

    Hard to know whether you or Trump is the biggest narcissist.

    Thumb up 0

  8. CM

    Wow…your linked Breitbart headline:

    “Afghanistan Migration Surging into America; 99% Support Sharia Law”

     

    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/12/afghanistan-migration-surging-america-99-support-sharia-law/

    Which implies that 99% of Afghanis’ migrating to America support Sharia Law in America.

    But that’s not what the poll result was, at all. It didn’t poll Afghanis’ migrating to America, let alone whether they sought Sharia Law in America.

    Yet again, no wonder you’re all kinds of fucked up, if this is the sort of place you get your ‘facts’.

    Thumb up 0

  9. Section8

    “No, you don’t. None of us do. That is the point. Hal even pre-emptively reminded you of that.”

    That comment by Hal was several hours earlier. It’s pretty obvious what happened at this point and who was behind it. Who put you in fucking charge as to what point we can say we know enough to start talking about it, or did you just figure since you’re the most awesome in the world that was your job?

    “Hard to know whether you or Trump is the biggest narcissist.”

    It would be you by far, CM. You’re just too awesome to see it.

     

    Hey Jim, I really hope you’re not still paying to keep this blog going. Between Hal deciding what political flavor he’s going to be for the day, and this dipshit, you can see this place has just become a disgrace can’t you? Hal can cover his own costs on his own blog and I’m not sure what value CM provides at all. But “Right Thinking” this place ain’t, so I guess CM with the help of Hal or vice versa did win the battle to run this blog into the ground so they have my congrats there. Mission accomplished no doubt about it. Sad that the guy you came up with “Right Thinking” now has this as his legacy. Just a suggestion, but maybe keep Lee’s archives for reading, and Hal and is left leaning friends can have their own place on their own dime?

    Thumb up 1

  10. AlexInCT

    No, you don’t. None of us do. That is the point. Hal even pre-emptively reminded you of that.

    Yes I do. You don’t want me to because you look like a tool again, but this guy called 9-1-1 before he attacked the club to tell them he was doing it in ISIS’ name, so fuck you.

    Sure you can find what what suits, pretend it’s verifiable fact, put it together to create the narrative, and pretend the narrative ‘proves’ something, but it doesn’t change reality. Reality is a bitch like that.

    Again, this guy went to grate pains to make sure everyone knew why he was doing this, but you can pretend otherwise like the LSM has been doing so they can pretend the issue is guns and not this vile religion.

    Except this doesn’t happen, and pretending so doesn’t change reality. Again, it’s a bitch like that.

    The only person that thinks this is you. And maybe Hal, because he is a lib pretending to be something else and just can’t help defending you. But you are constantly so wrong here that people have called you on it. Not that it has mattered. Reality will never impact your delusion.

    It’s ‘bias’ to point out that you responded to “Once again, be suspicious of initial reports and fuck anyone who tries to use this to advance their pet political cause before they know what happened” by doing exactly that? Sorry, that makes no sense.

    It certainly is when the facts are there already. What I did was point out that this time there was plenty of evidence because this douchebag made sure there was. There is no need to wait for a bunch of cock suckers in the LSM to get facts when the guy that does this calls 9-1-1, tells them he is about to do it, tells them why, then does it. The LSM has these details but this story doesn’t fit the narrative.  I wish the LSM was this reluctant and careful about what to report when it is something they hope pushes their narrative. They might have a lot less egg on their face if that was the case. I mean, one could almost wonder WTF they were thinking considering how quickly they jump the gun when they think they can blame the other side, but suddenly turn ultra careful, even when they have the facts, when it works against their narrative.

    But hey, you can pretend I am the one that is wrong as long as it helps you sleep dude.

    Thumb up 0

  11. CM

    There are plenty of questions – whether the individual was an Islamic State sympathiser, whether he was directed, or whether he simply cloaked his prejudices against the gay community in Islamic State propaganda.

    However you’ve rather take what you like (some of which is clearly bullshit, see my earlier post about one of your links), ignore what you don’t, and construct a narrative which you then call ‘fact’ and personally abuse anyone that doesn’t 100% agree with you. So the same MO as Trump then.

    Thumb up 1

  12. ilovecress

    Yeah, the one thing I am seeing very little mention on from the people covering this tragedy and the political class racing to score cheap points, is that this fucking lunatic made it very clear he was doing it in support of ISIS and Islam’s celebration of Ramadan

    I heard this straight away (from a Guardian breaking news alert) – did US news sources not report this?

    Thumb up 0

  13. repmom

    Section 8 and Alex have taken down CM better than I ever could, but I just have to comment on this.

    Yes, CM, let’s go with the Dad’s comment that the dude got pissed when he saw two guys kiss. Ignore reports that ISIS has claimed responsibility. And the 911 call Alex mentioned. That’s right up there with Hillary Clinton blaming Benghazi on a stupid video.

    On Obama — he says we need stricter gun control laws. Please tell me what would have kept this man from getting these guns? He was a licensed armed security guard. He passed the tests.

    And he was a United States born citizen. So Trump”s ban would have been worthless in this case.

    Thumb up 0

  14. CM

    Ignore reports that ISIS has claimed responsibility. 

    Where the fuck did I say that? Come on now, at least try.

    On Obama — he says we need stricter gun control laws.

    Can you provide me with the quote?

    Section 8 and Alex have taken down CM better than I ever could 

    Pffffft, how so? It’s all just the usual banal whinging and obvious nonsense from people who just want an echo chamber so their thinking can never be challenged. You really want to sign yourself up to that? Is your partisanship that severe?

    Thumb up 0

  15. repmom

    And Section 8, stop bitching about the site. It is what it is. Don’t like it, leave it for good. Or do something about it. Volunteer your own services. You could add a great deal with your thoughts/ideas. Or at least comment more on the individual posts. It would serve more purpose, it seems to me.

    Thumb up 1

  16. CM

    Ah ok, you can’t actually show where I ignored facts, you can just repeat yourself. Good one.

    It’s what good liberals do.

    Can you quote Obama saying, since the shooting, that stricter guns laws are needed? Or is ignoring that ok?

    The title of this thread should be changed to “Yet More Binary Garbage”.

    Thumb up 1

  17. CM

    So, CM, are you denying that ISIS took responsibility?

    Not at all, and I never did. You’ve just made that up.

    Are you sticking with the Dad’s comments?

    That it MAY have been PART of his son’s motivation? How can you just dismiss it? Unless you’ve signing yourself up to what the others are peddling.

    What specifically did Obama say today (arguing that stricter guns laws are needed)?

    Thumb up 1

  18. repmom

    What did Obama NOT say?

    So, in your warped mind, the dude got pissed at two guys kissing, and decided to follow ISIS orders.

    You are too fucking funny for words, CM. And I am done with you. My iPad has died. I moved to computer to respond, but will now sign out, and move on to “Game of Thrones”.

     

    Thumb up 1

  19. CM

    What did Obama NOT say?

    WTF? You’re the one making the claim repmom. Are you referring to the comments he made in the quote, or something else he’s said today?

    So, in your warped mind, the dude got pissed at two guys kissing, and decided to follow ISIS orders.

    Not even remotely what I’ve claimed. Again, you need to stop making shit up in order to make the world so black and white (your “what good liberals do” comment is also entirely consistent with this).

    You are too fucking funny for words, CM. And I am done with you. 

    Yep that’s what Alex does when it all gets too hard because he’s backed himself up into a corner yet again.

    Thumb up 2

  20. AlexInCT

    I heard this straight away (from a Guardian breaking news alert) – did US news sources not report this?

    You wouldn’t believe the contortions the media and political class went through here before alternative sites, especially those outside the US, provided the facts, ilovecress. The first thing they all tried to do was to blame it on guns, and then, they followed it up by claiming it was being caused by the nasty campaign language (coming obviously only from Trump), before finally admitting the scumbag had actually called in why he was doing this for and that it was Islamic radicalism. They are still dancing around the fact that it was a terror attack. Like every other one of these they will label it something else, even when the guy that did it specifically identified the attack as a terror attack. That evil fuck Nidal tried to get the court he was in to enter into evidence that his attack was not a workplace violence attack, but a terrorist attack, but they dismissed that all because of our political masters and their agenda. This stuff is incredulous.

    Thumb up 0

  21. AlexInCT

    Yep that’s what Alex does when it all gets too hard because he’s backed himself up into a corner yet again.

    Actually that is what anyone with any sense does when they realize you never argue in good faith and are actually a fucking collectivist a-hole.

    Thumb up 1

  22. Hal_10000 *

    I’m still holding back a bit from commentary, but a few things are becoming clear.  It would appear that none of the proposed gun laws would have done anything about this.  It would appear that this guy did act in allegiance to ISIS an their ideology.  The “two men kissing” thing strikes me as a red herring. This was not someone who just snapped.  This was planned.  This was premeditated.  This was targeted.  He had to figure out where to strike, gather weapons, plan his attack and coldly calmly execute it along with 50 innocent people whose only crime was having a sexual orientation that ISIS does not approve of.  This was cold-blooded mass murder by a man in thrall to Islamism and Jihad.  If he hadn’t had an “assault weapon”, he would have used a bomb.

    And I don’t think this is the last time this will happen.  The entire country is one big soft target.

    Thumb up 3

  23. CM

    Actually that is what anyone with any sense does when they realize you never argue in good faith and are actually a fucking collectivist a-hole.

    How strange that it’s always at the same point in the discussion.

    Collectivism? WTF has that got to do with anything?

    Oh, that’s right, BINARY BINARY BINARY.

    Woeful.

    Thumb up 0

  24. CM

    It would appear that this guy did act in allegiance to ISIS an their ideology.

    Could be another example of  that “Islamicization of radicalism”.

    Like with the San Bernadino shootings the attack seemed to mix personal motives with an ISIS brand. In both cases the suspected shooter also died as part of the response to the attack. Also, gays aren’t particularly high on the ISIS hit list. Have they actually made a direct connection between this guy and ISIS yet, other than the claims made by both?

    Thumb up 0

  25. Iconoclast

    But, you know, he’s not-Hillary, so give him another pass.

    CM, what in Marx’ name is wrong with you?  Do you seriously think Hillary gets no passes?  Do you seriously think everyone here has a raging hardon over Trump?  Why, oh WHY are you such an insufferable tool?

    Thumb up 1

  26. Iconoclast

    Also, gays aren’t particularly high on the ISIS hit list.

    What does that even mean? And how did you become such an authority on ISIS?

    ‘Being gay in the Islamic State': Men reveal chilling truth about homosexuality under Isis

    Have they actually made a direct connection between this guy and ISIS yet, other than the claims made by both?

    Who are “they”, exactly, and why is it so important that “they” make a “direct connection”?  Why ain’t the words of ISIS and the shooter enough for you?

    Thumb up 2

  27. AlexInCT

    I’m still holding back a bit from commentary, but a few things are becoming clear.  It would appear that none of the proposed gun laws would have done anything about this.

    Nothing prevents evil people bent on killing from doing so. Remember that France has one of the most restrictive gun legislation in the world, and they still managed to find not just guns, but bombs to use to kill people there on multiple occasions. And lets not talk about draconian gun laws and crime. Brazil has one of, if not the, world’s most restrictive and heavily punished gun legislation, and yet crime there is out of control. Especially crime by gun armed criminals on citizens with no ability to protect themselves. But in Brazil the rich and the political class have plenty of armed security, so fuck the stupid plebes. Can you imagine what an armed population might have done to the corrupt leadership of that country when they realized these people, like the members of the left all over this fucking planet, but especially democrats in the US, thought they were above the law?

    It would appear that this guy did act in allegiance to ISIS an their ideology.  The “two men kissing” thing strikes me as a red herring. 

    There is no appear here. He was clear about it. And yes, the two men kissing thing is bullshit. His father is well known for some kind of show where he has on numerous occasions praised the Taliban and Sharia. What you see now is the muslim practice of employing taqiyya. The same shit Obama has been doing for some 8 years on about the fact that Islam isn’t translated to submission and that it demands its followers conquer the world for Allah, but a religion of peace. Fuck that.

     This was not someone who just snapped.  This was planned.  This was premeditated.  This was targeted.  He had to figure out where to strike, gather weapons, plan his attack and coldly calmly execute it along with 50 innocent people whose only crime was having a sexual orientation that ISIS does not approve of. 

    I have already heard that the only reason there are no more bodies, is that he was more interested in making the final moments of his victims hell, buy telling them why he was butchering them, than racking up a body count, but I doubt that will ever be released to the public by these people that continuously feel obligated to cover for evil and murderous Islamic fanatics. And have no doubt that there is an orchestrated campaign to give these murderers cover by the people in charge.

    This was cold-blooded mass murder by a man in thrall to Islamism and Jihad.  If he hadn’t had an “assault weapon”, he would have used a bomb.

    He had both: the bomb failed to detonate.

    And I don’t think this is the last time this will happen.  The entire country is one big soft target.

    Ayup, these people mean business now. They have smelled weakness or think they have an ally in the WH, and they are stepping things up. There are a ton of radicalized evil fuckers in this country that nobody will touch for fear of political repercussions, and contrary to the constant bullshit from DC, these are all radicalized islamist fucks and not christian militias or other such wet dream agents of the radical left. And our elite tell us that the answer is to disarm the law abiding citizens, because a disarmed populous should expect less people will feel far safer doing more of this shit. Fuck them.

    Note to the gun grabbers: one of the main reasons that radical fucks have avoided these kinds of operations you see here is precisely because they can’t account for the one wild card in America: armed citizens. But the left wants us disarmed too because it is for some inexplicable reason in league with these fucks.

    I am not gonna bother with the “I told you so” shit either. The facts speak for themselves. I was right again.

    Thumb up 0

  28. CM

    CM, what in Marx’ name is wrong with you? 

    I don’t suffer from extremism, political or religious or otherwise. I guess that’s my problem.

    Do you seriously think Hillary gets no passes?

    Not at all, she gets plenty. My point was that there is so much hatred here that Trump looks better to people because he’s the not-Hillary candidate.

    Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like either of them. Hillary voted for the ridiculous war that lead to rise of IS.

    Do you seriously think everyone here has a raging hardon over Trump?

    I definitely think some are getting on-board. Because he’s not-Hillary. And because he says out loud what they privately think.

    Why, oh WHY are you such an insufferable tool?

    Thankfully I’m not. You’re just unable to see clearly because of your extremist political and religious views. Everything I’ve posted is completely reasonable (which is likely the problem as far as you’re concerned). I’m not the one making shit up about what others have said. Perhaps rather than just humping the same old leg you should take a look around for other options. There are plenty here. Variety is the spice of life.

    What does that even mean?

    Read it in context. This attack doesn’t really fit a pattern. Lone wolf guy, has claimed links to Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and then IS. The FBI kept a tab on him and his communications etc for months, and then again another time, and found nothing. As I said, it seems to be a mix of personal motives with an ISIS brand. I’m sorry if that doesn’t fit the required narrative.

    And how did you become such an authority on ISIS?

    I never claimed to be an authority. How do you get to make comments about anything that you’re not an authority in? Why are you not asking the same of others? Again, perhaps try a different leg.

    ‘Being gay in the Islamic State': Men reveal chilling truth about homosexuality under Isis

    Your point? I never claimed that IS has nothing against gay people. Very clearly they do. My point was that gay people have never been a direct target, particularly in the West (just like they don’t usually go after health clinics). Like with San Bernadino, this looks like another homegrown violent extremist inspired by foreign terrorist groups. I.e. they weren’t directed by such groups and were not part of any terrorist cell or network.We know the shooter was likely a homophobe, and not just via what his father said.

    Who are “they”, exactly, and why is it so important that “they” make a “direct connection”?  Why ain’t the words of ISIS and the shooter enough for you?

    ‘They’ are the people investigating into what happened.

    No, not at all. It shouldn’t be ‘enough’ for anyone. Well unless you’re more interested in furthering a narrative than finding the truth. Was he actually a part of any group, or was it more of a case of wishing to be. It matters in terms of future possible attacks are dealt with.

    Thumb up 0

  29. CM

    But the left wants us disarmed too because it is for some inexplicable reason in league with these fucks.

    Nonsense, it’s just a much more intelligent response:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/obama-doctrine-goldberg-communism-islamism-isis/475833/

    I am not gonna bother with the “I told you so” shit either. The facts speak for themselves. I was right again.

    Is that right Donald.

    What were you ‘right’ about exactly? As usual you’ve just created a narrative to fit your existing world-view, and then claimed victory and congratulated yourself. Again, just like Trump.

    Thumb up 0

  30. CM

    Who are “they”, exactly, and why is it so important that “they” make a “direct connection”?  Why ain’t the words of ISIS and the shooter enough for you?

    Was the killer truly acting under orders from the Islamic State, or just seeking publicity and the group’s approval for a personal act of hate?

    For the terror planners of the Islamic State, the difference is mostly irrelevant.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/13/us/orlando-omar-mateen-isis.html

    It’s not relevant to sections of the American right either.

    Thumb up 0

  31. AlexInCT

    This story is going to get even more interesting I am betting, after revelations like this one:

    G4S Secure Solutions USA Inc. is the same security contractor that has been quietly transporting vanloads of illegal aliens to selected urban areas around the country, as was reported here at PJ Media earlier this month.

    According to Wall Street Journal the company has been plagued by a series of high-profile gaffes in recent years and in the wake of its most recent failure, is seeing its stock take a dive in Monday trading.

    This might end up not panning out… Ah who the hell am I kidding. This is just the beginning of us finding out how hard this administration has fucked us over.

    Thumb up 1

  32. CM

    Again Alex, you’ve linked to a piece where the headline says something quite different to what it actually relates to. Did the company bring illegals into the country (the headline) or move them within the country (claimed in the piece and within another linked piece)? If it’s the latter then why does the headline claim something quite different?

    Thumb up 2

  33. Section8

    “Again Alex, you’ve linked to a piece where the headline says something quite different to what it actually relates to. Did the company bring illegals into the country (the headline)”

    Headline:

    “Judicial Watch: DHS Quietly Releasing Vanloads of Illegal Aliens Into the United States”

    Where the hell does it say they brought them across the border in this headline? Learn to read.

    The article says they were transported FROM the border to other locations and let go (aka released). Where were they released? In the US.

    You do realize there are two sides of a border don’t you? They crossed illegally THEN got picked up and transported further into the nation and let go instead of being sent back to the OTHER side of the border. I know all binary but incredibly simple to understand.

    See how that all comes together? Probably not as spelling something out to someone who can’t read anyhow is a lost cause even when dealing with such an amazing intellectual like you.

    At least this explains why you couldn’t figure out why Obama was talking gun control when he was talking gun control.

    But hey you’re the brightest bulb in the room don’t ever forget that.

    Thumb up 1

  34. CM

    Releasing them “into” tells us that they’re bringing them over the border. What else could they mean by “into”? You’re right, nothing complicated about it. Also, repmom couldn’t even answer the question about which Obama comments she was referring to. What I quoted certainly wasn’t a specific call for gun control but rather a call for a discussion and an acknowledgement that if nothing changes then that is a decision.

    Thumb up 1

  35. repmom

    Good God, CM! Are you for real? You know exactly what comments I was referring to. Your denial of the obvious is unbelieveable. Anyone with any common sense — and not in total denial — knows that while Obama did not say the exact words “we need tighter gun control laws”, he implied it.

    All you have to know is his history. Every time we have a crisis — a mass shooting — he immediately spouts this agenda.

    But I’m sure you will deny that as well. Just stay in your little world of denial. The rest of us will focus on reality.

    Thumb up 1

  36. CM

    Good God, CM! Are you for real? You know exactly what comments I was referring to. 

    No, that’s why I asked. Apparently Trumps comments were only “as sickening as Obama using this to push his gun control agenda”. You never confirmed whether they were the ones I quoted, or not. No harm in asking. Well, there shouldn’t be. I couldn’t see how Obama’s comments were in any way comparable, in terms of being ‘sickening’, to Trumps. So I assumed you must have been talking about other comments he made on the same day.

    I’m about 93% real.

    Anyone with any common sense — and not in total denial — knows that while Obama did not say the exact words “we need tighter gun control laws”, he implied it.

    Ah ok so it was those words I quoted. Thanks for finally confirming.

    All you have to know is his history. Every time we have a crisis — a mass shooting — he immediately spouts this agenda.

    The words he used appear to have been carefully chosen. Trumps too. But there is a world of difference between them.

    But I’m sure you will deny that as well. Just stay in your little world of denial. The rest of us will focus on reality.

    Sure, right, ok then. Not sure what I’m meant to be denying. By asking whether you meant those comments in particular I was denying something? Obviously words have different meaning where you come from. It’s weird that you couldn’t just immediately confirm that those were the words you were referring to, or that you couldn’t just clarify that you’re talking more generally about him (even though you were making a specific comparison of a reaction).

    Obama’s personal preference is clear. However his comments are about the discussion, and noting that doing nothing is a decision. As opposed to Trump, who engaged in demagoguery, fearmongering, outright lies, accused Obama of consciously keeping law enforcement from doing its job, he scolded Hillary Clinton for saying Muslims were peaceful, he claimed he was right to call for a Muslim ban, he talked of huddling with the NRA to help prevent attacks, he talked of “these people”, he implied that almost all Afghans were extremists, he lied about the place of birth of the alleged shooter,  he said “Can you imagine what they will do in large groups?”, he said Obama had tried to bring “large groups” of Muslims from abroad, he claimed that immigrants would constitute a Trojan horse, implying that Muslims coming to the US were part of some secret plan.

    But yeah, how equally sickening that Obama said “And we have to decide if that’s the kind of country we want to be. And to actively do nothing is a decision as well.”

    Reality? Please.

    Thumb up 1

  37. AlexInCT

    People, let me give you some advice and spare you lots of trouble and resentment. I admit that a long while ago I tried real hard to hold a decent argument and debate with CM. I spent months using logic, facts, and truth only to always end up going around in circles. The one day it hit me. CM isn’t here to debate but to derail every conversation and basically then claim victory. My advice to you is to either ignore him or basically insult him – and man does he provide opportunity for that with his lack of intellect –  for his stupidity. Assuming he actually wants to have a conversation is akin to assuming that a pissed off venomous snake is actually looking to give you a nice kiss.

    Again: ignore, make fun of, or insult him, but don’t waste time trying to use logic, truth, or facts on them. CM is immune to all that stuff. He is a true believer, and reality will never ,ever break that bubble of stupid he lives in. Never.

    Thumb up 2

  38. CM

    I spent months using logic, facts, and truth only to always end up going around in circles.

    Probably because you didn’t use those at all, but refused to accept it. That’s what always happens. In reality that is.

    CM isn’t here to debate but to derail every conversation

    How have I ‘derailed’ anything here? I’m 100% on-topic. I think you really mean I’m not arguing the right things. I.e. my presence stops the place from simply being an echo chamber and soapbox for your simplistic rantings.

    Anyway, repmom has made it clear that she’s right on-board with your nonsense. So I don’t think you’ve got any further convincing to do.

    Thumb up 1

  39. repmom

    Facts, CM. Stay with them. I made it clear that I thought Donald Trump congratulationing himself on Twitter and Obama using this terrorist attack to push his gun control agenda were equally disgusting.

    So stop throwing in all this other crap that I supposedly compared to Obama, but didn’t. Reality.

    Thumb up 0

  40. CM

    Not quite, you included “everything he has tweeted this morning”, not just the one congratulating himself (Alex-like). But yeah I’d agree the rest of what Trump said was through the day.

    However it seems that you aren’t comparing his tweets to what Obama actually said, but Obama’s personal opinion on gun control. Which makes no sense to me, but then I’m not a right-wing American and I think I’d need to be to understand how that’s even remotely “as disgusting”. IMO Trump’s tweets were significantly more disgusting then Obama’s careful comments AND his personal opinion.

    Thumb up 1

  41. CM

    You are absolutely right, Alex. He is a waste of time.

    And there we have it. Backed into a corner, so you run away. Just like Alex always does.

    Thumb up 1

  42. repmom

    Ha! Backed into what corner? I didn’t run away from a damn thing and you know it. You just want to have the last word, don’t you, CM. Makes you feel like you won the argument.

    Thumb up 0

  43. CM

    You refused to confirm what you were specifically referring to. Now, when you sorta do confirm, it doesn’t really work because you’re talking about much more than what Obama said yesterday.

    Thumb up 1

  44. CM

    I get that you don’t agree with Obama’s personal opinion on gun control. But what he actually said yesterday was not imposing his personal opinion. It was quite different. On the other hand, Trump is purely engaging what his supporters (whether they admit to being supporters or not) want to hear – definitive, crass, designed to divide, and about as far from responsible leadership as it’s possible to get. The reactions are Obama and Hillary were sympathetic and measured and careful. Trump was the opposite.

    Thumb up 1

  45. Iconoclast

    I don’t suffer from extremism, political or religious or otherwise. I guess that’s my problem.

    You’re a narcissistic, conceited little turd.  That’s your problem.

    Not at all, she gets plenty. My point was that there is so much hatred here that Trump looks better to people because he’s the not-Hillary candidate.

    And the way you made that “point” illustrates how you’re a narcissistic, conceited little turd.  And sanctimonious as well.

    I don’t like either of them.

    Neither do we, but that doesn’t mean we keep giving Trump a “pass”, like you so stupidly claim.  But we do have to decide between them, and yes, for all of his faults, Trump is ever-so-slightly less nauseating than Clinton.

    I definitely think some are getting on-board. Because he’s not-Hillary. And because he says out loud what they privately think.

    Like I said, we do have to choose one or the other.  It’s the choice we’ve been given, as things currently stand.  And yes, his utter disdain for political correctness is definitely one of his assets, perhaps his greatest one.

    But that is still a far cry from our having a collective hard-on for the guy.

    Thankfully I’m not.

    On the contrary, but you’re knee-jerk denial is hardly surprising.

    You’re just unable to see clearly because of your extremist political and religious views.

    There you go again, demonstrating how you’re a narcissistic, conceited little turd.

    Read it in context. This attack doesn’t really fit a pattern. Lone wolf guy, has claimed links to Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and then IS.

    Islamic State’s taunting speech calls for killing civilians

    The speech called on Muslims in the West to kill civilians in so-called lone wolf operations planned and executed by a single person.

    “Do not ask for anyone’s advice and do not seek anyone’s verdict,” Adnani said. “Kill the infidel, whether he is civilian or military.”

    I’ve already provided links showing how ISIS feels about gays.

    As I said, it seems to be a mix of personal motives with an ISIS brand. I’m sorry if that doesn’t fit the required narrative.

    And would he have still carried out the attack if not for encouragement from ISIS, or the potential reward of 72 virgins?  I mean, why even make the ISIS connection if you just hate gays?  What gave him the nerve to proceed with the attack?  And note that the attack wasn’t spur of the moment — it required planning, the purchase of weapons, and so forth.  There was at least one report claiming the shooter frequented the night club for weeks beforehand, possibly as part of planning the attack.

    There is no “narrative”, but there is the connecting of dots.

    I never claimed to be an authority.

    But you certainly act like one.

    How do you get to make comments about anything that you’re not an authority in?

    I start by going to lengths to qualify what I say, but you just blurted out, “Also, gays aren’t particularly high on the ISIS hit list.”  That ain’t a qualified statement by any stretch.  It’s a direct claim, which implies the authority to make such a claim.

    Your point?

    You’re obtuse, that’s my point.

    No, not at all. It shouldn’t be ‘enough’ for anyone. Well unless you’re more interested in furthering a narrative than finding the truth.

    The only “narrative” I’m interested in is the one where we are in danger of being killed by individuals who are inspired by, or who identify with, Islamicist hate groups and terrorist organizations.  It simply doesn’t matter whether there are “direct links”, because the danger is still there.  We need to be on alert for lone wolf operations, and not try and pretend they’re somehow irrelevant because we can’t find “direct links”.

     

    Thumb up 1

  46. Iconoclast

     Which makes no sense to me, but then I’m not a right-wing American and I think I’d need to be to understand how that’s even remotely “as disgusting”.

    You’re probably right about that — it’s probably impossible for you to fathom, at any level, how disgusting it is for gun-control advocates to stand on the graves of dead children (Sandy Hook) and dead gays (Orlando) and preach how we should take away the rights of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, which is effectively what gun-control is.  It’s disgusting because it’s using dead children and dead gays as shields against criticism of the gun-grabbing agenda.  “You wanna keep your guns?  Well, obviously you don’t care about dead children, do you?  And you don’t care if fags get killed, do you?  You probably want them to get killed, don’t you?”

    And so forth.

     

     

    Thumb up 1

  47. CM

    But we do have to decide between them, and yes, for all of his faults, Trump is ever-so-slightly less nauseating than Clinton.

    Right, so Trump mostly gets a pass (and lately actual support from Alex). You’ve essentially agreeing with me. And yet turning it into a pointless abusive argument.

    But that is still a far cry from our having a collective hard-on for the guy.

    You’re the one who said that, not me. I merely commented, once, that because he’s not Hillary, he gets a lot of passes here. Seems like you’re in agreement on that, and are now attempting to create an argument by pretending I said you all have a hard-on for him.

    but you’re knee-jerk denial

    You’re still using that as your go-to response when people simply disagree with you? Weird. It still doesn’t even remotely make sense.

    I’ve already provided links showing how ISIS feels about gays.

    I simply noted  (or observed, as you would put it) that they haven’t been particularly high on the list of Western targets so far. As part of the exploration of motive and connection.

    And would he have still carried out the attack if not for encouragement from ISIS, or the potential reward of 72 virgins?

    As a gay friend said to me yesterday: “I hope the shooter’s 50 Virgins are all super hung power tops”.

    Don’t know. There were the sorts of questions I was asking, as well as wanting repmom to clarify what she was talking about. And then it became about splooge on my face when Alex is proven right, and abuse from Section 8 (none of which you have a problem with, which is why all your abuse about my posting is so meaningless – it’s just because I’m not on the right ‘side’, clearly you have no actual issue with how I’ve said anything).

    I mean, why even make the ISIS connection if you just hate gays? 

    To give it a purpose, to make himself a hero.

    And note that the attack wasn’t spur of the moment — it required planning, the purchase of weapons, and so forth.  

    Sure but all successful attacks, whether motivated by extreme ideology or simply because you’ve been picked on at school, require the right amount of preparation and planning.

    There was at least one report claiming the shooter frequented the night club for weeks beforehand, possibly as part of planning the attack.

    Possibly. Or possibly he went because was gay (and increasingly hate dhimself for it, and hated everything gay as a result). The planning aspect doesn’t really help us determine whether he was simply slapping on the IS tag to justify his actions and to give it purpose and make himself a hero, or whether he genuinely felt this was a duty as a devout follower of IS.

    There is no “narrative”, but there is the connecting of dots.

    This was my original point – Alex had already put together a definitive narrative within, what was it, 12 hours of the attack? As usual, he worked backwards.

    But you certainly act like one.

    Most people here (including you) act like experts most of the time. The problem is that you’re only interested in humping one leg, so you don’t seem to notice.

    I start by going to lengths to qualify what I say

    So do I.

    but you just blurted out, “Also, gays aren’t particularly high on the ISIS hit list.”  That ain’t a qualified statement by any stretch.  It’s a direct claim, which implies the authority to make such a claim.

    Wow, it’s really astounding that you think you can get away with being so blatantly dishonest.

    What I actually said was (in an earlier post):

    “There are plenty of questions – whether the individual was an Islamic State sympathiser, whether he was directed, or whether he simply cloaked his prejudices against the gay community in Islamic State propaganda.”

    Then in the post you’ve cherry picked from:

    “Could be another example of  that “Islamicization of radicalism”.
    Like with the San Bernadino shootings the attack seemed to mix personal motives with an ISIS brand. In both cases the suspected shooter also died as part of the response to the attack. Also, gays aren’t particularly high on the ISIS hit list. Have they actually made a direct connection between this guy and ISIS yet, other than the claims made by both?”

    Not only did I qualify the specific sentence TWICE within the short sentence, with “particularly” and “also” (making it clear that it was “in addition to”, i.e. not the primary point), but the sentence was in the context of the comments surrounding it – the key being that there are questions and considerations that COULD all point in a particularly direction. Or not. Anyway, I certainly did not just “blurt” something definitive (and it wasn’t wrong either, despite your attempt to argue the wrong thing in response).

    You’re obtuse, that’s my point.

    Again, you seem to have decided to find something to pick on, but didn’t pick very well. It wasn’t even remotely obtuse.

    The only “narrative” I’m interested in is the one where we are in danger of being killed by individuals who are inspired by, or who identify with, Islamicist hate groups and terrorist organizations.  It simply doesn’t matter whether there are “direct links”, because the danger is still there.  We need to be on alert for lone wolf operations, and not try and pretend they’re somehow irrelevant because we can’t find “direct links”.

    And yet it’s clear (to me anyway, and most others in the world it seems) that Trump will make things far worse on this score, by ramping things up against Muslims and giving IS exactly what they want. And yet apparently that’s preferable to Hillary?

    Thumb up 0

  48. CM

    You’re probably right about that — it’s probably impossible for you to fathom, at any level, how disgusting it is for gun-control advocates to stand on the graves of dead children (Sandy Hook) and dead gays (Orlando) and preach how we should take away the rights of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, which is effectively what gun-control is.  It’s disgusting because it’s using dead children and dead gays as shields against criticism of the gun-grabbing agenda.  “You wanna keep your guns?  Well, obviously you don’t care about dead children, do you?  And you don’t care if fags get killed, do you?  You probably want them to get killed, don’t you?”
    And so forth.

    Yes, I love people dancing on graves. That’s it. Well done.

    Thumb up 0

  49. CM

    I said “well done” to Iconoclast and you’re interpreting to mean that I’m congratulating myself? You should spend more time on the joke (I’m sure there is one in there somewhere) as that one makes zero sense.

    Iconoclast is trying to pull another swifty. We’re actually talking about what Obama said on the day, and whether it was as “disgusting” as Trump’s tweets. But apparently words don’t matter (sometimes they matter completely to Iconoclast, sometimes they don’t matter at all, depends what suits at the time). Apparently we can ignore the detail and go straight to the wider argument and use it to bash me over the head, even though I’ve never advocated for gun control. I acknowledged that I didn’t understand and that’s probbably because I’m not American, and Iconoclast has provided another excellent example of why I stay out of those discussions. There is too much frothing at the mouth and personal abuse, and assigning of motive. Iconoclast went to lengths in his attempt to be as offensive as he could be.

     

    Thumb up 0

  50. Iconoclast

    You’ve essentially agreeing with me.

    Wrong.  You are insisting that “giving a pass” to someone is the same as holding one’s nose and choosing what seems to be the least nauseating between two utterly loathsome choices.  They don’t mean the same thing, no matter how much you stamp your feet and insist they do.  Choosing X because it, at some level, is a hair’s width less utterly disgusting than Y, is NOT the same thing as “giving X a ‘pass'”, you hopeless twit.

    I merely commented, once, that because he’s not Hillary, he gets a lot of passes here.

    And I’m telling you that “gets a lot of passes” is you talking out your ass about the subject.  Using such rhetoric makes you look like the judgmental twit you appear to be.

    It still doesn’t even remotely make sense.

    Correction:  It doesn’t make sense to you personally, but that’s inconsequential.

    To give it a purpose, to make himself a hero.

    And why would he need to do either one, if he wasn’t a true believer? Why would he care about such things if he was simply some random gay-hating killer?  Why didn’t he call himself a Christian and link his actions to the Westboro Baptist Church and the Phelps gang, if he were doing this in some kind of vacuum as you are implying?

    The problem is that you’re only interested in humping one leg….

     

    You seem to really like this “leg hump” reference, but the truth is, your presence here is one massive leg hump, and that’s pretty much ALL it is.

    Not only did I qualify the specific sentence TWICE within the short sentence, with “particularly” and “also”…..

    You seem to have a different meaning for “qualify” than I do.  The mere fact that it wasn’t a “primary” point doesn’t qualify as “qualification”, so “also” is out.  And “particularly” fails because it simply attempts quantification, but not dependence.  If you said something like, “Also, it doesn’t seem that gays are particularly high on the ISIS hit list”, then you would have uttered a qualified sentence, because it would have been identified as your personal viewpoint. “Also” and “particularly” don’t identify the statement as your personal viewpoint, but allow the statement to be taken as universal.

    So, no being “blatantly dishonest” on my part.

    Trump will make things far worse on this score, by ramping things up against Muslims and giving IS exactly what they want.

     

    There you go again, pretending to be an expert on what ISIS wants.  Maybe Obama’s (and by extension, Hillary’s) policies are providing the conditions which allow groups like ISIS to thrive.  It certainly doesn’t seem that Obama is taking the whole Islamist jihad thing seriously, and it doesn’t seem H would either.  She seems more interested in gutting our 2nd Amendment than fighting Islamist threats.

     Yes, I love people dancing on graves. That’s it. Well done.

    Like I said, impossible for you to fathom, by all appearances.

     Iconoclast is trying to pull another swifty. We’re actually talking about what Obama said on the day, and whether it was as “disgusting” as Trump’s tweets.

    Obama used the mass killing as yet another opportunity to whine about how “easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon that lets them shoot people in a school, or in a house of worship, or a movie theater, or in a nightclub”.   So yeah, standing on the graves of dead children (“shoot people in a school”) and gays (“or in a nightclub”).

    He went on to say, “And we have to decide if that’s the kind of country we want to be.  And to actively do nothing is a decision as well.”

    That certainly looks like yet another reference to more gun control to me, your forthcoming disagreement notwithstanding.

    So explain the “swifty” I’m allegedly “trying to pull”, if you think you can.

    Iconoclast went to lengths in his attempt to be as offensive as he could be.

     

    Yeah, poor abused CM.  Never mind how offensive you are with your choices of rhetoric and overall judgmental attitude.

     

    Thumb up 1

  51. Iconoclast

    Yes, I love people dancing on graves.

    There you go again.  Saying that you probably can’t fathom something is NOT the same thing as saying you “love” it.

    Asshole.

     

    Thumb up 3

  52. CM

    Using such rhetoric makes you look like the judgmental twit you appear to be.

    Just once it would be good if you applied even 10% of your judgement to others here. Again, the whole ongoing banal ‘sucking Obama’s cock’ comes to mind. You might have some semblance of credibility if you weren’t such a massive and obvious hypocrite – for example Alex claims to be an expert on pretty much everything pretty much everyday. I can’t recall you calling him out even once. Clearly you don’t really care about rhetoric, your knee-jerk denials notwithstanding.

    And why would he need to do either one, if he wasn’t a true believer? Why would he care about such things if he was simply some random gay-hating killer? 

    Because he didn’t want to go out as a random gay-hating killer. As much as you’ll no doubt try to make it one, it’s not a stretch by any means.

    if he were doing this in some kind of vacuum as you are implying?

    You’ve inferred that, incorrectly. I’m wasn’t saying that he did it in a vacuum. It doesn’t have to be 1 or 0. Almost always it isn’t, despite people hear frothing at the mouth that it is.

    You seem to have a different meaning for “qualify” than I do.

    I doubt it. You’re just scrambling to find something to attack me over. But I’m more than happy to change it to “Also, it doesn’t seem that gays are particularly high on the ISIS hit list”. Makes no difference to the point I was making.

    There you go again, pretending to be an expert on what ISIS wants.

    They’ve told us they want the West to engage and to anger Muslims. It’s also logical. So hardly a stretch. Are they not experts in what they want? I was told earlier that the attacker claiming to be doing it for ISIS and ISIS claiming it themselves was all we needed to know about any of it. I was mocked and apparently was going to have splooge on my face for suggesting we should probably know more before rushing to complete judgement.

    It certainly doesn’t seem that Obama is taking the whole Islamist jihad thing seriously, and it doesn’t seem H would either.

    What do you base that on? What should they be doing, that wouldn’t make it worse? What is specifically wrong with the doctrine being followed (as outlined in the Atlantic piece)? But of course even if you disagree with it, that doesn’t mean it isn’t being taken seriously.

    Is pissing off Muslims the world over “taking it seriously”?

    That certainly looks like yet another reference to more gun control to me, your forthcoming disagreement notwithstanding.

    I certainly disagree. What Obama said was entirely factual not even remotely unreasonable. If you disagree, which particular part wasn’t reasonable? Is any talk about what guns can do and their availability disgusting? How about with reference to mentally ill people being able to buy machine guns, for example? Disgusting? Dancing on the graves of victims?

    No shield was needed, so it’s essentially a straw man argument.

    Without a dog in the fight (I don’t care if the US has gun control or not, really makes no odds to me, unless I’m there and get caught up in an attack, which is highly unlikely), it comes across as extremely hollow and crass (and really quite desperate) to suggest that Obama mentioning what was used to kill all those people is, by extension, “dancing on their graves”. There already IS gun control – as Tripper says in the other thread, it’s just matter of what shade of grey you prefer. And Obama didn’t provide any specific control.

    I wonder if the families of the victims would agree with you about their graves being danced over. I would say they have the right to make that call. It’s a rather big call for you to be claiming that right, simply because you’re opposed to any (well, any further) gun control.

    BTW I’ve never advocated for gun control in the US.

    Thumb up 0

  53. Iconoclast

    Just once it would be good if you applied even 10% of your judgement to others here.

    To what end?  To placate YOU?  You appease YOU?  Get over yourself.

    You might have some semblance of credibility if you weren’t such a massive and obvious hypocrite….

    Yeah yeah yeah, “massive hypocrite” …. “narrative” …. “binary” …. “extreme” …..yadda yadda yadda ad nauseam.

    It should be obvious that I don’t care what you think of me.  All you got is your stupid labels.

    Because he didn’t want to go out as a random gay-hating killer.

    Which doesn’t really answer the question at all……

    But I’m more than happy to change it to “Also, it doesn’t seem that gays are particularly high on the ISIS hit list”.

    Good.  Progress.

    Makes no difference to the point I was making.

    But it does make a difference in the accusation you were making.

    What do you base that on?

    The article I linked in the other Orlando thread, the one that showed how Obama’s “doctrine” ain’t producing squat by way of results.

    What Obama said was entirely factual not even remotely unreasonable.

    Not even remotely, huh?

    How about with reference to mentally ill people being able to buy machine guns, for example?

    Mentally ill people cannot legally buy “machine guns”, for the love of Marx.  Implying that they can so that we can further restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens is indeed disgusting.

    Dancing on the graves of victims?

    Quit attributing that to me, fuckhead.  I originally said “standing on the graves….”.  Fuckhead.

    The rest of your rant is just more of your typical, misleading, mental masturbation, and is hereby ignored as such.  You keep repeating “dancing on graves” when my original statement was “standing on graves”.  But you seem to relish in ignoring that.  And you have the unmitigated gall go go on about MY credibility??????

    BTW I’ve never advocated for gun control in the US.

    BTW, I never said you did.

    Thumb up 0

  54. Iconoclast

    They’ve told us they want the West to engage and to anger Muslims.

    We “engage and anger” some Muslims by merely living our lives as free infidels.  What of it?  Are we supposed to kow-tow to them?  Obama seems to think so, but it still ain’t working.

    Maybe the Islamists really want us to elect Hillary, who will continue Obama’s failing policies.  Maybe they talk about Trump “enraging and angering Muslims” in some attempt to scare us into not voting for him.  I doubt that Islamists are above lying and propagandizing.

    But sure, let’s take what Atlantic Monthly tells us they’re saying at face value and elect Hillary accordingly.  I’m sure they’ll start being nice to us once we do that.  No worries, mate.

    Thumb up 0

  55. AlexInCT

    They’ve told us they want the West to engage and to anger Muslims.

    Funny how back in the days when the West had balls and any time these Jihiadist fucks reared their ugly heads a good show of retaliatory force tended to kill off all Jihad for a gneration or more. Now we can’t bend over quick enough for them, and all we keep getting is more violence. There is somethign to be learned there, but we seem to not want to do it, because as someone told me, we are now far more civilized. Me, I never figured getting more civilized meant we got to a point where we wrote our own death sentence, but it sure as hell feels like just that.

    Thumb up 0

  56. AlexInCT

    How about with reference to mentally ill people being able to buy machine guns, for example?

    Here is what federal law says about mental health and firearm ownership:

    Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(d), it is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.” 

    State laws, especially where I live in “The People’s Republic of Connecticut” are even more restrictive about the subject. I have heard cases of people being denied their right because they talked to a psychiatrist once.

    So, when Obama says we need to prevent people with mental disorders from getting fireams, he is fucking lying because we already do so. What is he proposing we do? Double down on the harsh langauage?

    The goal here is to disarm law abiding citizens so the left can go full tyrant without fear of retribution.

    Thumb up 0

  57. CM

    To what end? 

    So as to demonstrate that you actually mean what you say, rather than it all being dependent on someone having a different opinion from you.

    Yeah yeah yeah…

    Yeah.

    All you got is your stupid labels.

    If that’s what you think then it does explain a lot.

    Good.  Progress.

    Not really. It doesn’t change anything.

    The article I linked in the other Orlando thread, the one that showed how Obama’s “doctrine” ain’t producing squat by way of results.

    Well we have the problem of not knowing the counter-factual, which could be worse. Again, you can disagree with the approach, but that doesn’t mean the approach being taken isn’t ‘serious’.

    Not even remotely, huh?

    Not even. You’re having to go way wider than those comments, as they simply state facts including that doing nothing is a decision.

    Mentally ill people cannot legally buy “machine guns”, for the love of Marx.  Implying that they can so that we can further restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens is indeed disgusting.

    You’ve misinterpreted. That they can’t is already an ‘infringement’. All kinds of lines have already been drawn. How is referring to whether a line is shifted or not “disgusting”?

    Quit attributing that to me, fuckhead.  I originally said “standing on the graves….”. 

    Sure, standing. Apologies. The implication is presumably still that it’s extremely offensive (to the dead people) to talk about gun-buying after a load of people have been killed with a gun. Seems like a perfectly reasonable time to talk about it to me. Why is it offensive to them? If I were a family member of one of them, I can’t see how I’d consider it offensive. I might think it offensive if it wasn’t discussed simply because it might upset some people.

    The rest of your rant is just more of your typical, misleading, mental masturbation

    The “dancing” mistake aside, not at all. It’s all very relevant to the discussion.

    BTW, I never said you did.

    That’s fine. I just wanted to pre-empt what might happen next. I don’t have an agenda on this issue.

    Thumb up 0

  58. CM

    We “engage and anger” some Muslims by merely living our lives as free infidels.  What of it?  Are we supposed to kow-tow to them?  Obama seems to think so, but it still ain’t working.

    By ‘engage’ I mean strike at, just like Al Qaeda wanted nothing more than for the US to attack Iraq. Anyway, the West shouldn’t be angering the ones that matter, which is the whole point. The vast vast majority of the world’s Muslims aren’t extremists, but are regular people living their lives. How is it not counter-productive to alienate them by grouping them with the very very few that are? The difference between them being on the ‘good’ side and ‘bad’ side could ultimately be the difference.

    Maybe the Islamists really want us to elect Hillary, who will continue Obama’s failing policies. 

    Maybe, but I don’t see why they would. They only seem to make gains when the west does something stupid (like invading Iraq and doing a shit job of it, leaving many disillusioned and angry young Muslims to sympathise or join ISIS). Yes, Clinton voted for that invasion, I certainly haven’t forgotten that. Starting a war with Islam is going to be the best recruitment drive terrorists could ever have. Even the Trump rhetoric no doubt works well for them. The American right and the Islamic terrorists enable each other.

    But sure, let’s take what Atlantic Monthly tells us they’re saying at face value and elect Hillary accordingly.  I’m sure they’ll start being nice to us once we do that.  No worries, mate.

    Right, hahaha, good one. I think the point is that less terrorists will be created if you don’t do things that will result in more terrorists. If you do things that will result in more terrorists, you’ll likely get more terrorists. And no, I’m relying on what a single publication has reported.  Not even this one:

    http://pr.aljazeera.com/post/139594369930/isis-expert-tells-upfront-they-want-muslims-to

     

    Thumb up 0

  59. CM

    Funny how back in the days when the West had balls and any time these Jihiadist fucks reared their ugly heads a good show of retaliatory force tended to kill off all Jihad for a gneration or more. Now we can’t bend over quick enough for them, and all we keep getting is more violence. There is somethign to be learned there, but we seem to not want to do it, because as someone told me, we are now far more civilized. Me, I never figured getting more civilized meant we got to a point where we wrote our own death sentence, but it sure as hell feels like just that.

    Yeah I guess that’s why the Middle East got sorted out so well by the West when it “had balls”.

    Where do you propose this ‘good show of retaliatory force’ exactly? And how won’t it just result in a huge number of disaffected Muslim youths joining the recruitment drive?

    The goal here is to disarm law abiding citizens so the left can go full tyrant without fear of retribution.

    Except that will never happen. The line might move from where is currently, but there’s no evidence or way it can move to one extreme or the other. Claiming an extreme just seems to be just the standard way of shutting down any discussion.

    Thumb up 0

  60. Iconoclast

    So as to demonstrate that you actually mean what you say…

    If you don’t think I mean what I say, then that’s simply on you.  Nothing I can do about that, and frankly, nothing I care to do about it.  I know you would delight in in-fighting, but I ain’t gonna play.  Alex ain’t my political opponent.  You are.  You’re a leftist and leftist/Obama/Hillary apologist, whether you care to admit it or not.  At least you appear to be, and you have said nothing to make me think otherwise.

    Not really. It doesn’t change anything.

    If that’s what you think then it does explain a lot.

    Again, you can disagree with the approach, but that doesn’t mean the approach being taken isn’t ‘serious’.

    If it ain’t getting jack for results then yeah, it does mean it ain’t serious.  It’s just posturing.

    You’re having to go way wider than those comments, as they simply state facts including that doing nothing is a decision.

    The implication is that we need more gun control, your obvious unwillingness to see that notwithstanding.

    The implication is presumably still that it’s extremely offensive (to the dead people) to talk about gun-buying after a load of people have been killed with a gun.

    No, the implication is that we need to take further steps to disarm law-abiding citizens after a NON-LAW-ABIDING CRIMINAL kills a load of people IN YET ANOTHER GUN-FREE ZONE.  There already were 2nd Amendment infringements in place at the Pulse — no guns were allowed there.  That sure was effective, yes?  And so the obvious solution is more infringement.  Right?  If you disagree, well, dead fags, and you’re a homophobe.

    That’s pretty much how the narrative works, your unwillingness to see that notwithstanding.

    The vast vast majority of the world’s Muslims aren’t extremists, but are regular people living their lives.

    What is a “Muslim extremist”, anyway?  According to this, “regular people Muslims” believe in the punishments the Koran specifies, which means death, stoning, etc., and that men & women should be segregated.  According to this, “Muslim extremist” doesn’t really mean anything.

    Are they not experts in what they believe?

    But that’s beside the point.  If taking common-sense steps to protect ourselves against “extremism” upsets “regular” Muslims, then “regular” Muslims are part of the problem.

    We are at war with an ideology, an ideology that is rooted in the religion of Islam.  That is a simple fact.  If stating this fact and acting on it upsets “regular” Muslims, then again, “regular” Muslims are part of the problem.

    This ideology is fundamentally incompatible with the American principles that serve as the foundation for the USA.  As long as we exist, and as long as that ideology exists, there will be war and conflict.  Just like there will be war and conflict as long as Israel exists.  The only way for these conflicts to end is for one side or the other to achieve total, uncompromised victory.

    If the USA falls, then New Zealand won’t be too far behind.  No matter how smart you are.  No matter how Islam-friendly you are.  If you aren’t a Muslim, you are an infidel and part of the problem.

     

    Thumb up 0

  61. JimK

    Sure, standing. Apologies. The implication is presumably still that it’s extremely offensive (to the dead people) to talk about gun-buying after a load of people have been killed with a gun. Seems like a perfectly reasonable time to talk about it to me. Why is it offensive to them? If I were a family member of one of them, I can’t see how I’d consider it offensive. I might think it offensive if it wasn’t discussed simply because it might upset some people.

    Oh hell, I’ll take a crack at it, even though you’re a disingenuous troll who won’t admit it if I actually fully answer and explain away your assertion.

    The reason that rational people think it’s offensive is this: It doesn’t matter what kind of gun was used, or how it was obtained. The hue and cry for “gun control” and outright bans is always the same, it’s always useless to prevent the current tragedy, and it very often involves unconstitutionally removing the rights of non-convicted citizens with absolutely no thought to due process.

    In other words, the gun control advocates on the American Left already have a playbook, and a set of proposals, and a bunch of speeches at the ready. They spring the plan into motion literally hours, sometimes minutes, every time there is a shooting. It doesn’t matter if it blatantly violates the 2nd and 5th Amendments.

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    By using the dead of Orlando, or Sandy Hook or any other infamous shooting, to push an already existing agenda – while at the same time making no adjustments that would have saved a single life – is distasteful at best to any free-thinking, rational human being.

    Let me stress this, so maybe you will see and acknowledge it: Not a single proposal put forth in the last week or so would have saved a single person at Pulse. However, if the current climate weren’t one of shouting “RACIST” every time someone of a minority was looked at for a crime or possible crime, the various government agencies that had contact with this nutcase, as well as his employers, could have built a picture of someone who was very, very likely to do this.

    THAT would have saved lives. Not banning a muzzle brake on a semi-automatic rifle. Not closing a non-existent “loophole.” Not removing someone’s constitutional rights based on some FBI employee ticking or not ticking a box on a form.

    Lastly, because you talk a lot about something you don’t understand…the shooter at Pulse did not use a machine gun. He used a semi-automatic. It’s the exact same function as literally any semi-auto. One pull of the trigger equals one bullet, the firearm uses the gases of the explosion to cycle the slide/bolt, which pushes the spent casing out and loads the next round, whereupon you must pull the trigger again to fire. It’s not a machine gun. Functionally there is no difference between Grandpa’s 1911 and the Sig Sauer MCX used by Mateen at Pulse. You can buy 30 round magazines that fit in a 1911, however stupid that may look. The MCX in civilian configuration is not an assault rifle. That term is meaningless, but your use of “machine gun” is even less meaningful. If you plan to pontificate, educate yourself on the topic.

    Thumb up 1

  62. Iconoclast

    http://pr.aljazeera.com/post/139594369930/isis-expert-tells-upfront-they-want-muslims-to

    From the article:

    Jurgen Todenhofer, the first Western journalist to be granted access to ISIL controlled territory, weighed in saying, “I think the brutality of these terrorists is their strategy. They want the Western governments to overreact, to send bombers, to kill civilians, and this is a terror breeding program.”

    “This is a clear strategy, to be brutal to change the behavior of the enemy,” he added.

    The first thing I note is that ISI-whateverthefuck clearly considers us to be an “enemy”.  Period.  Second, their brutality, such as burning alive 19 girls for refusing to have sex with their forced-into-marriage “husbands”, or beheading people, selling girls into sexual slavery, and so forth, is deliberate.  So what are we supposed to do when they do these things?  Nothing?  Sometimes they do these things to Americans — are we still supposed to do nothing?

    If these “experts” are correct, that means ISI-whateverthefuck is deliberately provoking us, yet somehow WE are to blame.  Typical leftist “logic”.  When you leftists think a conservative is doing it, you call it “blaming the victim”…..

    “The Islamic State is seeking, particularly in the West, to make Muslims face a choice,” he said. “They want Muslims to choose between being part of societies that don’t want them or joining the Islamic State.”

    Again, if these “experts” are correct, that means ISI-whateverthefuck cannot live and let live.  No, they want Muslims, who have made the choice to live in Western societies, to forsake those chosen societies and join ISI-whateverthefuck’s cause.  So again, they deliberately provoke us, in the hope that our response will cause those “regular” Muslims to get angry and join ISI-whateverthefuck.

    Well, again, if those Muslims are that easily manipulated, they’re part of the problem and always have been.

     

    Thumb up 0