-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Florida terrorist massacre
- Thread starter LeeToRainesToRoach
- Start date
antman said:
So who's doing the point-scoring now?
I've conceded that it is effectively terrorism. Not sure what more you want.
Now this man is in custody, which of his brethren should we be afraid of?
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
Change the title of this thread. Unless you have strong evidence the Orlando shooter had 'bretheren'.
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
Looking at it from a political science perspective, its in the political interests of Isis to claim their gunman, so they did. But it isn't in the political interests of the right wing group to claim theirs, so they didn't, even if he may have been acting according to their philosophy.
Not saying he was, just making the point that this isn't as cut and dried as some might believe.
Frankly I don't get the significance of branding a particular act of violence as "terrorism" or not.
Murder is murder. It's against the law. Lock them up and throw away the key (if they survive the act).
Murder is murder. It's against the law. Lock them up and throw away the key (if they survive the act).
23.21.159 said:
I'm with you on this 100%. Takes all the *smile* out of the debate if you strip it back to the law.
People use the word 'terror' to suit their agendas.
martyshire said:
Lots and lots of brethren. Millions.
https://counterjihadreport.com/tag/omar-mateen/
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
OK. Read this. It reads like more blatant fear-mongering than you'd expect from Murdoch. I also read the CBS article that it cites. The only meaningful part I can find is the last bit in the CBS article.
...
Thus far, however, there has been no indication that Mateen had any tangible connection to the terrorist group prior to the shooting spree.
...
From all reports he was a violent husband with mental instability. He was reportedly a closet gay man or had gay tendencies and was not very religious, even though his father was.
So who are his bretheren? People struggling with their sexuality? People with mental issues? Yep, there's millions of those.
23.21.159 said:
It doesn't sounds like you agree 100%.Tigers of Old said:
Yes, it would take the BS out of the debate but the media have laden the word with meaning now. Now the branding has a huge significance. If nutbags with middle eastern background are called terrorists, when all other nutbags are just called nutbags, what do you think that does? It reinforces the "us VS them" mentality. That muslims are terrorists. This is what ISIS wants us to think. The only chance ISIS has of achieving their ultimate aim is to drive a wedge between muslims and non muslims in western countries.
If 8 million aussies buy papers that insist on using that language, 2 million of them sucked into the terminology and 1 million of them change the way they treat muslim people. Meanwhile a million australian muslims feel the change in the way they are treated, 500,000 if them are offended, 100,000 of them mention it in front of their kids, 5000 of them have dysfunctional relationships with their teenage boys who are struggling to find a place in society. 1000 of them spend too much time online...you get the message. We should be doing what we can to reduce those numbers. Doesn't sell papers though...
martyshire said:
Did you read the article I linked to and the suggestion of Shaheed as a motive? Not religious - but made two religious trips to Saudi Arabia despite being born and bred in the US.
Muslims are moving to the West in droves and many are angered by the society they find. Fact. Mateen expressed hatred for the US government and a wish for the FBI to raid his house so he could martyr himself. I've heard Muslims here voice hatred for the Australian government, Liberal and Labor alike. And they're perfectly moderate, by any definition; the ones we need to worry about won't let you hear it.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/14/admit-it-these-terrorists-are-muslims.html
From the article above:
"The killer of Orlando was a homophobic Muslim extremist, inspired by an ideological take on my own religion, Islam."
From the article above:
"The killer of Orlando was a homophobic Muslim extremist, inspired by an ideological take on my own religion, Islam."
martyshire said:
No doubt bro. But is there a place for calling a spade a spade? Is there room in the conversation to be honest about the disproportionate numbers of Muslims that are involved in acts of violence? Can that conversation be had without accusations of racism and bigotry?
I am in a small but growing minority that would advocate an end to the "respect" given to religious ideology. As long as we protect people from having to be honest about their ideas and give them reason to think their "beliefs" are free from scrutiny we open ourselves up to intolerance and isolationist thinking. We provide grist for the "us vs them" mill.
It is a feature of modern media, it's a long time since it deserved to be called journalism, that it does exactly what you say and separates us from them. If a white Christian fundamentalist shoots up that club then there is a good chance it gets labelled "hate crime" but not "terrorism". How do you change that? Our media gets more sensationalist and less interested in fact and expert analysis every day. News bulletins are more like magazines. Click bait passes for reporting. I wish had a good answer for how you change it.
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
Its true that its hard to identify dangerous persons, but isn't this why its better to limit access to the tool rather than the user? Far easier.
All the useless crap they are putting up for federal votes now are useless and would have done nothing to stop this attack. He purchased the guns legally and was taken off a terrorist watchlist so would have got the guns anyway. Its just rubbish to make it seem like they are doing something. If they actually cared maybe more than the single republican that voted for the bill just 5 months ago to block anyone on a terrorist watchlist would have voted then, now it just seems like vote pandering bearing in mind there is an election coming up.
Yep. Your living room. The pub with intellectual mates. An ASIO meeting room. Maybe even on here. But I reckon the tabloid media should be very careful in what they call a spade.KnightersRevenge said:
As you know, this is a ridiculously complex issue and many people have no interest in trying to understand it. They just want someone (or a newspaper) to make them emotional; given them an excuse to be angry with Muslims/immigrants OR with Australia/the West.
FWIW I don't doubt your assertion about a greater proportion of Muslims being involved in acts of violence, but I don't think the solution is to tell Muslim people that their religion is the problem. Part of the solution I think is to facilitate an environment where Islam can modernise. That requires baby steps and warmth, not lecturing, especially not from people as far removed from their world view as atheists.
