50 dead at Orlando club shooting.

[prisonermonkeys]

I think they have already confirmed ties to supporting ISIS.

The FBI says that they need to fully investigate before publicly committing to that. Donald Trump says he absolutely was a terrorist, which sounds suspiciously like the rhetoric following the Lindt Cafe siege in Sydney.

 

[Dennisch]

The FBI says that they need to fully investigate before publicly committing to that. Donald Trump says he absolutely was a terrorist, which sounds suspiciously like the rhetoric following the Lindt Cafe siege in Sydney.

When you kill 50 people, you're a terrorist. Period. No matter what your motive is.

 

[ECGadget]

I fail to see how being a Sunni Muslim links to his motives. First of all, since the Sunni sect as it were makes up the majority of Muslims on earth, it would be logical to assume that any terrorists that are doing things using Islam as a motive would more likely be from Sunni Islam. Furthermore, Sunni Islam can be broken up even more, in sub sects, schools of thought and what not. Why label a sect in such a manner. This was the doing on one man. And if he was supported by IS, then one group. A group who has outright condemnation from Muslims across the world, regardless of sect or whatnot.

Also, I am Muslim. I am Sunni. So from my perspective where does this attack fit into my ideals? Answer? It does not. So Islam has a stance that homosexuality is a sin. Well so does pretty much every other religion. But that is not between say me and a gay person. That is between the person in question and God. Islam also is of the stance that Jesus is not the son of God. And that Abraham was to sacrifice Ismael, not Isaac. So our beliefs differ. Does that mean we are meant to go out on a rampage and kill anyone who we feel is wrong? Heck no. I have a mate who is gay. Do I have a problem with it? No. He is my mate. End of story. I don't care if he is gay or not, that is not my business. And nor was it the business of this gunman/terrorist/horrible human being.

TL;DR Terrorism cannot be linked to Sunni Islam, as it has no place in it and never will. Murderer/Terrorist is a horrible person and will now pay for his murders by the hand of God. And everyone has the right to be how they wish to be without imposing on others. Is this guy a terrorist? Without a doubt. He killed 50 people. And this was a horrible loss of life and my thoughts are with the families and friends of the victims.

 

[mustafur]

I fail to see how being a Sunni Muslim links to his motives. First of all, since the Sunni sect as it were makes up the majority of Muslims on earth, it would be logical to assume that any terrorists that are doing things using Islam as a motive would more likely be from Sunni Islam. Furthermore, Sunni Islam can be broken up even more, in sub sects, schools of thought and what not. Why label a sect in such a manner. This was the doing on one man. And if he was supported by IS, then one group. A group who has outright condemnation from Muslims across the world, regardless of sect or whatnot.

Also, I am Muslim. I am Sunni. So from my perspective where does this attack fit into my ideals? Answer? It does not. So Islam has a stance that homosexuality is a sin. Well so does pretty much every other religion. But that is not between say me and a gay person. That is between the person in question and God. Islam also is of the stance that Jesus is not the son of God. And that Abraham was to sacrifice Ismael, not Isaac. So our beliefs differ. Does that mean we are meant to go out on a rampage and kill anyone who we feel is wrong? Heck no. I have a mate who is gay. Do I have a problem with it? No. He is my mate. End of story. I don't care if he is gay or not, that is not my business. And nor was it the business of this gunman/terrorist/horrible human being.

TL;DR Terrorism cannot be linked to Sunni Islam, as it has no place in it and never will. Murderer/Terrorist is a horrible person and will now pay for his murders by the hand of God. And everyone has the right to be how they wish to be without imposing on others. And this was a horrible loss of life and my thoughts are with the families and friends of the victims.

Again with people taking things out of context, Yes Sunni is the biggest sect populace of Islam in the world but merely mentioning the words of could or possibility should not be rubbished off, nor should it be condemned to even say such a thing.

What might be your Islam may not be someone else's Islam, Wahhabism whilst a small sect is still a sizeable figure and even has a presence in the US with the Muslim Brotherhood.

To deny possibility is just being ignorant with the facts, especially when such a violent crime is being committed that the near entire Muslim population Sunni or whatever wouldn't do.

We should be allowed to have discussion about this subject without being made to look like a Bigoted/Racist whatever.

The FBI says that they need to fully investigate before publicly committing to that. Donald Trump says he absolutely was a terrorist, which sounds suspiciously like the rhetoric following the Lindt Cafe siege in Sydney.

The difference being the amount killed is 50 times larger then the 1 Killed by the Gunman and the fact IS has claimed responsibility for it, the only thing now is to investigate if it indeed was an IS attack or they are just claiming responsibility for it.

 

[ECGadget]

Again with people taking things out of context, Yes Sunni is the biggest sect populace of Islam in the world but merely mentioning the words of could or possibility should not be rubbished off, nor should it be condemned to even say such a thing.

What might be your Islam may not be someone else's Islam, Wahhabism whilst a small sect is still a sizeable figure and even has a presence in the US with the Muslim Brotherhood.

To deny possibility is just being ignorant with the facts, especially when such a violent crime is being committed that the near entire Muslim population Sunni or whatever wouldn't do.

We should be allowed to have discussion about this subject without being made to look like a Bigoted/Racist whatever.

My apologies. It was not my intention to make you come across as bigoted nor racist. Mentioning possibilities is all good and proper, but this person could have been from any form of Islam. Or maybe not even a Muslim and carrying a name only. The point I am trying to make is that you cannot say ask a question for example 'was he a Sunni Muslim', because that is not enough to substantiate his role as a terrorist. In my humble opinion, a better type of question would be 'What links did he have with known terrorist cells or organisations?' Then say there was a link to one that was known for having a significant number of 'Muslims' from the Sunni sect, we can they say right where did his teaching come from that motivated him to commit such a terrible act or terror.

Once again, my apologies if my post appeared accusatory. It was not.

 

[mustafur]

My apologies. It was not my intention to make you come across as bigoted nor racist. Mentioning possibilities is all good and proper, but this person could have been from any form of Islam. Or maybe not even a Muslim and carrying a name only. The point I am trying to make is that you cannot say ask a question for example 'was he a Sunni Muslim', because that is not enough to substantiate his role as a terrorist. In my humble opinion, a better type of question would be 'What links did he have with known terrorist cells or organisations?' Then say there was a link to one that was known for having a significant number of 'Muslims' from the Sunni sect, we can they say right where did his teaching come from that motivated him to commit such a terrible act or terror.

Once again, my apologies if my post appeared accusatory. It was not.

The main reason I Said this is because Shia philosophy would be different enough to make the probability lower, and the Afghan background meant if he was Muslim there was a 80% likelihood of that being Sunni.

 

[1241Penguin]

When you kill 50 people, you're a terrorist. Period. No matter what your motive is.

But that's not what a terrorist is. A terrorist by definition has political goals in mind. Killing 50 people in and of itself does not make you a terrorist, more of a mass murderer. Until we know the person's motives I think it's safer to stay away from that label.

 

[mustafur]

But that's not what a terrorist is. A terrorist by definition has political goals in mind. Killing 50 people in and of itself does not make you a terrorist, more of a mass murderer. Until we know the person's motives I think it's safer to stay away from that label.

At this point it's either a terrorist act or genocidal one(the ''technical'' definition will need to catch up a bit but if religion counts then surely sexual orientation would count in the definition).

 

[mister dog]

Let's face it; there's a big part of Muslims that adhere to radical Islam and they are a danger to the rest of the world. Moderate Muslim people can't stop them and us westerners are too political correct to even name the issue for what it is.

This discussion here illustrates that again.

 

[1241Penguin]

too political correct to even name the issue for what it is.

This discussion here illustrates that again.

What? Wanting to use words as they were defined is politically correct?

 

[mustafur]

Let's face it; there's a big part of Muslims that adhere to radical Islam and they are a danger to the rest of the world. Moderate Muslim people can't stop them and us westerners are too political correct to even name the issue for what it is.

This discussion here illustrates that again.

Exactly, regardless of who we are and what we believe we should be allowed to have this conversation.

 

[sumbrownkid]

What an :censored:hole. And during Ramadan too. Condolances to the victims and families.

And I think it's pointless to argue whether or not it's a terrorist attack when people have died regardless of such labels.

 

[mirial]

Let's face it; there's a big part of Muslims that adhere to radical Islam and they are a danger to the rest of the world. Moderate Muslim people can't stop them and us westerners are too political correct to even name the issue for what it is.

This discussion here illustrates that again.

You're right, but you're going to be prompted very shortly on the forum for your sources in the midst of all the denial.

One of the things that has always fascinated me is how liberals with their greater preference for a lifestyle of almost unlimited personal freedoms and atheism, rather than a dogmatic religious one seem to also be equally enthusiastic about embracing a religion like Islam which, by its followers, will collectively hold the higher moral ground.....which is at complete odds with our western decadence. The two lifestyles just ain't compatible side by side, and dare I say it, Muslims only put up with it because they are in a relative minority in the west and don't have a strong enough voice (yet).

 

[A2K78]

After hearing this news I'm just glad my niece doesn't go clubs anymore..she means too much to me seeing how her dad(my brother) as killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Anyhow stuff is getting too crazy in this city..first the the murder of Christina Grimmie and now this..

 

[Snaeper]

I'm sure conservative gun owners will be thrilled with the idea that their rights will be challenged due to a crime committed by a radical Muslim murdering dozens of gays.

Just thrilled.

As a gun owner myself, I just have to say that wanting to ban guns or certain types of guns and thinking this will stop these types of crimes is nonsense. "It's no longer legal to purchase this type of weapon? Well I know a guy, I'll get it anyways." Guns are legal in america, which makes them the convenient choice for those wanting to do harm. Take away that convenience and you don't stop the crime, they just move on to the next most convenient choice.

Given the shooters mention of the Boston Marathon bombers, that would've likely been the next logical option which could be just as dangerous if not more so.

 

[Bo]

Let's face it; there's a big part of Muslims that adhere to radical Islam and they are a danger to the rest of the world.

I don't usually dive into political discussions on GTP, but this sentence takes the cake.

Define "a big part". To suggest that anything more than a minority of all Muslims are extremists is woeful scaremongering.

Moderate Muslim people can't stop them

It's amazing that "Moderate Muslim" is even a term being used. What role do those practicing a religion have in stopping a terrorist organisation - what role can they have?

us westerners are too political correct to even name the issue for what it is.

No, it's just that (on the most part) we can see sense and see the situation for what it is.

 

[Dennisch]

Define "a big part". To suggest that anything more than a minority of all Muslims are extremists is woeful scaremongering

More than a minority are sympathetic with Radicals like IS.

A Dutch survey amongst Turks in the Netherlands showed that 90% of them see those who fight for IS as heroes.

Amongst Moroccans it's 18% and that still isn't a small number.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Let's face it; there's a big part of Muslims that adhere to radical Islam

Utter rubbish. Source required.

More than a minority are sympathetic with Radicals like IS.

A Dutch survey amongst Turks in the Netherlands showed that 90% of them see those who fight for IS as heroes.

Amongst Moroccans it's 18% and that still isn't a small number.

Turkish youths, isn't it? That speaks more to a radicalised predisposition more than anything else, surely?

 

[mister dog]

I don't usually dive into political discussions on GTP, but this sentence takes the cake.

Define "a big part". To suggest that anything more than a minority of all Muslims are extremists is woeful scaremongering.

Ah yes here we go again, let's say for example it would be 100 million of them who support and condone ISIS. Relatively speaking it would be a minor part of total Muslims. But for me that part is more than big enough to be seen as a threat to our societies, hence a big part.

It's amazing that "Moderate Muslim" is even a term being used. What role do those practicing a religion have in stopping a terrorist organisation - what role can they have?

Well seeing moderate Muslims are the ones who most likely live among the extremist ones, and have a bigger chance of coming in contact with them (at the Mosque for example); the answer to your question is pretty straightforward no?

No, it's just that (on the most part) we can see sense and see the situation for what it is.

Please do explain how you end up sensing the situation better than me then.

You're right, but you're going to be prompted very shortly on the forum for your sources in the midst of all the denial.

Utter rubbish. Source required.

 

[TenEightyOne]

More than a minority are sympathetic with Radicals like IS.

A Dutch survey amongst Turks in the Netherlands showed that 90% of them see those who fight for IS as heroes.

Amongst Moroccans it's 18% and that still isn't a small number.

Looking at the Motivaction figures elsewhere.. 90% of Turks (compared to 67% of Moroccans) were also against a Caliphate. That's a very odd balance of figures.

 

[queleuleu]

Let's face it; there's a big part of Muslims that adhere to radical Islam and they are a danger to the rest of the world. Moderate Muslim people can't stop them and us westerners are too political correct to even name the issue for what it is.

This discussion here illustrates that again.

There is nothing simple in this world. The process of radicalization is so fast, lately I witnessed it myself with one of my best friends. From a funny, almost the most popular guy of the town, he's now in jail after being accused to be a recruiter for ISIS. And among these people, many were his friends, one of them is just dead now in Syria. He was only 25 and I knew him in high school. To be honest, there were signs but nobody paid attention to it or thought : "He's free, he can do what he wants."

It's not when they are radicalized that you have to do something because it's too late. It's like talking to a wall. It's well before, at the first signs. I stop to speak with him because his view of Islam was too far from mine. But I want to be clear : no one could have guessed one year ago he will be a recruiter.

By the way, I'm sad to see so many friends turn to islamism. My city in France has changed so much in 15 years. Religion is for a lot to reject the French society.

Sorry for the bad English, wanted to share with you my view on the subject.

 

[Dennisch]

Looking at the Motivaction figures elsewhere.. 90% of Turks (compared to 67% of Moroccans) were also against a Caliphate. That's a very odd balance of figures.

They want a radical democracy.

 

[1241Penguin]

One of the things that has always fascinated me is how liberals with their greater preference for a lifestyle of almost unlimited personal freedoms and atheism, rather than a dogmatic religious one seem to also be equally enthusiastic about embracing a religion like Islam which, by its followers, will collectively hold the higher moral ground.....which is at complete odds with our western decadence.

I don't really care about religion one way or another. I think all religions are stupid institutions that go against logic and I cannot wait for the day that society completely abolishes religion as it slowly fades into history as a relic of the past.


But, that doesn't mean we should start redefining words or meanings just because it's convenient to our feelings. It doesn't mean we should start jumping to conclusions about certain people or groups. I'm all for due process. I don't suppose you've heard about Japanese internment camps during WWII?

 

[ExigeEvan]

More than a minority are sympathetic with Radicals like IS.

A Dutch survey amongst Turks in the Netherlands showed that 90% of them see those who fight for IS as heroes.

Amongst Moroccans it's 18% and that still isn't a small number.

Stats aren't always so clear cut. The Sun Newspaper in the UK had to retract a similar story.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/mar/26/ipso-sun-print-statement-british-muslims-headline

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34967994

 

[Dennisch]

Stats aren't always so clear cut. The Sun Newspaper in the UK had to retract a similar story.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/mar/26/ipso-sun-print-statement-british-muslims-headline

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34967994

Ah. But this hasn't been retracted. It sparked more discussion how to deal with it. And then nothing else happened.

 

[GTPorsche]

I'm sure conservative gun owners will be thrilled with the idea that their rights will be challenged due to a crime committed by a radical Muslim murdering dozens of gays.

Just thrilled.

As a gun owner myself, I just have to say that wanting to ban guns or certain types of guns and thinking this will stop these types of crimes is nonsense. "It's no longer legal to purchase this type of weapon? Well I know a guy, I'll get it anyways." Guns are legal in america, which makes them the convenient choice for those wanting to do harm. Take away that convenience and you don't stop the crime, they just move on to the next most convenient choice.

Given the shooters mention of the Boston Marathon bombers, that would've likely been the next logical option which could be just as dangerous if not more so.

There's absolutely no practical reason for anyone to own or possess an assault rifle outside of military service. Even then it could be argued that it's not that necessary either.

Handguns for personal defense, shotguns and rifles for recreational use.

If anything, the ones that let the guns out into black market situations need to be held accountable.

 

[Bo]

let's say for example it would be 100 million of them who support and condone ISIS.

100 million? That's a bit of a figure.

But for me that part is more than big enough to be seen as a threat to our societies, hence a big part.

Any number of terrorists are a threat to society - even just one - so whilst I understand where you're coming from, simply saying "a big part" suggests something around or close to a numerical majority.

Well seeing moderate Muslims are the ones who most likely live among the extremist ones, and have a bigger chance of coming in contact with them (at the Mosque for example); the answer to your question is pretty straightforward no?

Not really, as my point still stands - what can those who are simply practicing a religion do to combat a terrorist organisation? Saying "well they're the people they're likely to come into contact with the most" doesn't mean they can realistically do anything about them. In reality, anyone standing up against a terrorist or extremist would probably find themselves dead very quickly.

Please do explain how you end up sensing the situation better than me then.

The fact that you associate a religion so closely with a terrorist organisation, and the fact that you believe such a huge amount of Muslims are really just terrorists waiting to attack, shows there's a lot of guesswork on your side of the argument.

With regards to the surveys linked, as @TenEightyOne has pointed out, nothing can really be deduced from the results as so many of the figures conflict.

 

[Snaeper]

There's absolutely no practical reason for anyone to own or possess an assault rifle outside of military service. Even then it could be argued that it's not that necessary either.

Handguns for personal defense, shotguns and rifles for recreational use.

If anything, the ones that let the guns out into black market situations need to be held accountable.

The typical response is: "Assault Rifles are illegal". The definition for Assault Rifle being a weapon that has select fire, typically capable of burst or full automatic firing modes. These are only in the possession of the military and some law enforcement agencies and are illegal to own outside of commercial purposes (say a gun range that wants to let you rent out an SMG/M16 for use on the range and only the range).

But I do understand that you meant AR-15's and in that sense, I do agree with you. There is no practical reason for anyone to own or possess an AR-15 rifle or something similar to it. You can hunt, defend yourself and use other guns for the same purposes as an AR style rifle (some would say they do the job even better). But then, there's no practical reason for anyone to own a Ferrari now is there? Thus, just because there isn't a practical reason to own it doesn't mean it should be illegal.

As long as any gun exists, there will be one person who will want to turn it on another person. You take away the guns, they pick up knives. You take away the knives, they pick up the next most available tool that can be used as a weapon. The violence never ends, the name just changes.

You create a culture of peace and properity, understanding and tolerance, and you can sell all the guns in the world you want because nobody will use them against their fellow man. Until that happens, banning a certain type of gun because it looks like the kind used in the military is just a band aid to make people feel better about themselves and a slight against the 99% of AR-15 owners who don't go around shooting people with their guns. It also sends the message that you can overcome an entire democratic system and make lasting changes to laws that affect millions of people with one simple act of gruesome violence. I have no desire to empower this monster.

Besides, if you really wanna save peoples lives, ban swimming pools.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Utter rubbish. Source required.

The fact that you associate a religion so closely with a terrorist organisation, and the fact that you believe such a huge amount of Muslims are really just terrorists waiting to attack, shows there's a lot of guesswork on your side of the argument.

Now don't dismiss it out of hand just yet. The punishment for homosexuality across all schools of Islam is indeed death.

The Prophet cursed effeminate men (those men who are in the similitude (assume the manners of women) and those women who assume the manners of men, and he said, ‘Turn them out of your houses.’ The Prophet turned out such-and-such man, and ‘Umar turned out such-and-such woman.

Whoever is found conducting himself in the manner of the people of Lot, kill the doer and the receiver.

That aside, remember that I said that Republicans will get blamed for this even though it was a Democrat who pulled the trigger? Here is the opening salvo:

ACLU blames GOP for today's terrorist attack - Washington Examiner

Unrelated, but...

Spoiler: Reddit now actively banning users for posting content in connection to Muslim terror

 

[mister dog]

100 million? That's a bit of a figure.

That's 6% of the Muslim population condoning and supporting IS or other Islamic terrorists. Seems a realistic figure in my opinion or it maybe even too modest. But seeing we will never be able to define the exact number it's just a figure which i fear might be realistic. So don't laugh to loudly.

Any number of terrorists are a threat to society - even just one - so whilst I understand where you're coming from, simply saying "a big part" suggests something around or close to a numerical majority.

As mentioned above, my rough estimate there might be close to the truth. 100 million people out there that would love nothing better than for our civilization to be destroyed, and us ending up as dead infidels is quite the threat wouldn't you say?

Not really, as my point still stands - what can those who are simply practicing a religion do to combat a terrorist organisation? Saying "well they're the people they're likely to come into contact with the most" doesn't mean they can realistically do anything about them. In reality, anyone standing up against a terrorist or extremist would probably find themselves dead very quickly.

For starters they could stop giving a stage to imams like the one i posted on page 2 (that spoke in Orlando recently). As a matter of fact they could actively report imams that are giving hate speeches in their mosques, but i don't see that happening actually.

The fact that you associate a religion so closely with a terrorist organisation, and the fact that you believe such a huge amount of Muslims are really just terrorists waiting to attack, shows there's a lot of guesswork on your side of the argument.

The facts are out there making headlines on a daily basis (if you are willing to see them that is).