Can't solve a problem until you admit you have a problem!

[Athos]

I'm not sure who holds the chalk, you get the point, though.

Only point I saw was glaring naivety being exercised.

 

[Roman Snow]

Only point I saw was glaring naivety being exercised.

On who's part? Please clarify.

Naivety that the police will be able to protect us from harm?

 

[LesBaker]

I was talking to a coworker who's father is LA Country SWAT, he was talking to me about how they move very slowly through houses. The military version of clearing houses is very fast, overwhelming the enemy with violence, etc, but SWAT is totally different. When the military clears a house there's split seconds of having your back exposed without someone covering it as the point man goes in, and the second man goes the opposite way. SWAT however goes through a really slow weird thing with a man high, middle, and low, facing all ways. The way he described it was that it was like a flower blooming, and everywhere is covered. The reason behind that is that SWAT can't afford to lose anybody, where the military can.

Movies tend to show the military version, quick, but SWAT moves very slow. He said he was playing a hostage in one, and it took them 30 minutes to clear a small one bedroom apartment to get to him. So a club with multiple areas at night would make sense it would take them so long to clear everything except the bathroom, to ensure there wasn't more shooters.

Additionally I heard that some civilians may have been hit by police fire as well, but without more information it's hard to say.

Yeah there is a lot we don't know yet for sure.

I understand a SWAT team going slowly to minimize collateral damage, I just don't know why they weren't deployed sooner. Maybe as more comes out we will have a better understanding.

@Roman Snow there is no way to know that if guns were allowed in that bad that lives would have been saved. And how many drunks may have been shot over the years too?

 

[Roman Snow]

@Roman Snow there is no way to know that if guns were allowed in that bad that lives would have been saved. And how many drunks may have been shot over the years too?

Ever seen a mass shooting at a gun show? Never

I get it though, Les. It is not black and white. I'm not trying to be argumentative with you. The police may have very well bungled this mess.

 

[Athos]

Yes. Putting a gun in every kids hand will out an end to violence the word over.

I mean, it's worked out pretty well for the U.S. so far.

Not.

I don't want some crazed fucking loony with a hero complex getting into a gun fight with someone when I'm around. And I don't want a horse of hero complex loonies around me either because I guarantee they'll be shooting innocents by accident or otherwise.

 

[Mackeyser]

The problem here was that you had a gay man who couldn't come out because he was living in a fundamentalist environment.

We've seen similar actions with Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim and even Buddhist fundamentalist cultures.

The last grasp to try and play off his actions were infantile. He tried to align himself with warring terrorist groups. That'd be like a gay person in the 80s who was closeted and couldn't come out due his family's strict fundamentalist beliefs and was filled with self-hate committing a hate crime against gays and then saying he was a gang-banger by saying to the cops, "I'm down with the Playboy Gangsta Crips! Oh...and...uh...I'm down with the Bloods, too!" Anyone who knew ANYTHING about gangs would realize that...um...no. You can't do that. Just like you can't be down with both Shia and Sunni terrorist groups as they are as oil and water as Bloods and Crips were in the 80s if not more so.

Btw, that wouldn't stop plenty of people from using that incident to slam gangs even though that incident had nothing to do with gangs. Were gangs bad? Yep. But they had nothing to do with that incident.

Dude had gay dating apps on his phone and they have proof from people he talked to ON those apps that he used them. There were 3 different apps, so it wasn't an accident and he wasn't just a smidge gay-curious. He was either fully on the down low or headed there fast. So we don't know if he was sexually active, but it seems pretty clear that he was attracted to men sexually....and he couldn't reconcile his outlet for that.

Is there a crisis of Islamic Fundamentalist based terror activities that are only exacerbated by poorly thought out and executed foreign interventions in Libya, Iraq and Syria where we now have a CIA backed militia fighting a DOD backed militia??? Yeah, that's not idiotic enough... No doubt, there IS a crisis that ISIL and other groups represent.

It's just that THIS guy wasn't part of that.

THIS guy was part of something ELSE.

We don't solve one problem by focusing on a different problem.

 

[Roman Snow]

@Roman Snow there is no way to know that if guns were allowed in that bad that lives would have been saved. And how many drunks may have been shot over the years too?

Including, or excluding NFL players?

Yes. Putting a gun in every kids hand will out an end to violence the word over.

Nice straw man, Athos. We're talking, generally about deterrence. Not the OK Corral.

A few responsible, registered Conceal-to-carry gun owners,(These gun owners generally are not your "trying to prove something" guys and gals.) I don't know where you get that notion. They generally have a very healthy respect for firearms.

Now, alcohol and firearms are generally not a good mix. But who says a few well-planted, sober CTC gun owners is worse than a bunch of helpless screaming fish-in-a-barrel patrons? Worked out pretty poorly for these people.

I know it seems naïve to you, Athos, but guns are a reality in a free society. More gun laws and restrictions increase the ratio of criminals with guns and decrease law abiding citizens ability to defend themselves, and live free.

Pot is illegal in most parts of the country. Practically impossible to get ahold of, huh? Do you think there is not an under ground economy for weapons? Let's disarm the citizenry! Hold up your gun free zone sign, next time you are in danger! That aughta do it. The police should be here any minute...

Not a lot of old Western shootouts you fear in Texas, Montana or Idaho. But there sure are in good old Liberal Meccas like New York City and Washington D.C., with their hermetically sealed gun laws. Huh. I wonder why? I'm a little too naïve to figure it out on my own.

 

[Ramhusker]

The problem here was that you had a gay man who couldn't come out because he was living in a fundamentalist environment.

We've seen similar actions with Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim and even Buddhist fundamentalist cultures.

The last grasp to try and play off his actions were infantile. He tried to align himself with warring terrorist groups. That'd be like a gay person in the 80s who was closeted and couldn't come out due his family's strict fundamentalist beliefs and was filled with self-hate committing a hate crime against gays and then saying he was a gang-banger by saying to the cops, "I'm down with the Playboy Gangsta Crips! Oh...and...uh...I'm down with the Bloods, too!" Anyone who knew ANYTHING about gangs would realize that...um...no. You can't do that. Just like you can't be down with both Shia and Sunni terrorist groups as they are as oil and water as Bloods and Crips were in the 80s if not more so.

Btw, that wouldn't stop plenty of people from using that incident to slam gangs even though that incident had nothing to do with gangs. Were gangs bad? Yep. But they had nothing to do with that incident.

Dude had gay dating apps on his phone and they have proof from people he talked to ON those apps that he used them. There were 3 different apps, so it wasn't an accident and he wasn't just a smidge gay-curious. He was either fully on the down low or headed there fast. So we don't know if he was sexually active, but it seems pretty clear that he was attracted to men sexually....and he couldn't reconcile his outlet for that.

Is there a crisis of Islamic Fundamentalist based terror activities that are only exacerbated by poorly thought out and executed foreign interventions in Libya, Iraq and Syria where we now have a CIA backed militia fighting a DOD backed militia??? Yeah, that's not idiotic enough... No doubt, there IS a crisis that ISIL and other groups represent.

It's just that THIS guy wasn't part of that.

THIS guy was part of something ELSE.

We don't solve one problem by focusing on a different problem.

I don't doubt this nut job was looking to get his sissie on but he was well entrenched in the Islamic culture. He had a history of being aggressive with others and expressing his want to martyr himself. I mean the guy celebrated on 9/11. He is a symptom of a major problem the world faces today, radical Islamic terrorism. There's not much doubt about it. That's the biggest problem the world faces today.

 

[Roman Snow]

The problem here was that you had a gay man who couldn't come out because he was living in a fundamentalist environment.

We've seen similar actions with Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim and even Buddhist fundamentalist cultures.

The last grasp to try and play off his actions were infantile. He tried to align himself with warring terrorist groups. That'd be like a gay person in the 80s who was closeted and couldn't come out due his family's strict fundamentalist beliefs and was filled with self-hate committing a hate crime against gays and then saying he was a gang-banger by saying to the cops, "I'm down with the Playboy Gangsta Crips! Oh...and...uh...I'm down with the Bloods, too!" Anyone who knew ANYTHING about gangs would realize that...um...no. You can't do that. Just like you can't be down with both Shia and Sunni terrorist groups as they are as oil and water as Bloods and Crips were in the 80s if not more so.

Btw, that wouldn't stop plenty of people from using that incident to slam gangs even though that incident had nothing to do with gangs. Were gangs bad? Yep. But they had nothing to do with that incident.

Dude had gay dating apps on his phone and they have proof from people he talked to ON those apps that he used them. There were 3 different apps, so it wasn't an accident and he wasn't just a smidge gay-curious. He was either fully on the down low or headed there fast. So we don't know if he was sexually active, but it seems pretty clear that he was attracted to men sexually....and he couldn't reconcile his outlet for that.

Is there a crisis of Islamic Fundamentalist based terror activities that are only exacerbated by poorly thought out and executed foreign interventions in Libya, Iraq and Syria where we now have a CIA backed militia fighting a DOD backed militia??? Yeah, that's not idiotic enough... No doubt, there IS a crisis that ISIL and other groups represent.

It's just that THIS guy wasn't part of that.

THIS guy was part of something ELSE.

We don't solve one problem by focusing on a different problem.

Yeah, a lot of good stuff here Mac, but the moral equivalency of Radical Islam with any of those other faiths requires a response.

EVERY CONFLICT ON THIS PLANET involves Islam as the aggressor. Link a story of Christian fundamentalists, or violent Buddhists cutting off the heads of dissenters. You cannot. This is a joke.

And the target, by the way, is Christ. The radicals hate Christ. Sorry. Truth. Ask them.

Some of the other stuff you note about this specific guy may be true, though. I haven't read enough about this case. Although @Ramhusker notes his background is: Radical Islamic statements and threats.

 

[Mackeyser]

It's a little disingenuous not to mention that the guns used in those "hermetically sealed" areas come from gun friendly states like Florida, Texas, Georgia and so on.

I find that facts matter far too little in these debates and get derailed into arguments over minutiae. Should we have guns becomes should we have assault weapons becomes what is an assault weapon becomes arguments over very technical issues defining assault weapons...and... the issue about how and that innocent people were slaughtered is lost. Every time.

I'm less concerned about the "gun" issue than I am about the "slaughter" issue. Can we address that? Cuz we have a mass shooting on average almost every DAY now. Guns or no guns, mental illness or no mental illness, terrorism or not, can we try to address that every DAY this happens somewhere in America and, frankly... does it matter anymore WHY? Isn't it enough that we care for our fellow citizens enough that we don't want them wantonly slaughtered? Can we just focus on that?

The OP was about Islamic Terrorism. Okay. Yes. It is a problem. Around the world it is a problem.

Btw, WE created it. OUR CIA essentially created it with two acts...

1) by overthrowing Mossadegh in Iran in 1953, we planted the seeds of the Iranian Revolution. Iran was a moderate secular democracy. Women had more rights in Iran in 1953 than they do today. Tehran was considered the Paris of the Middle East. It was definitely a cosmopolitan city. But the British were converting their fleet from Welsh coal to oil, they bought half of a wildcatting company that struck oil in Iran right as they were about to run out of money for the second time and...Mossadegh stepped in and nationalized the oil. He wouldn't just let the British and what was named British Petroleum simply take their most valuable natural resource for pennies on the dollar. He forced them to lease the rights to drill and purchase the oil. The British wouldn't stand for that. They wanted unencumbered oil as befit their national security interests aka to fuel their navy. So, they went to the Americans who also wanted oil and British and American secret services MI-5 and the CIA overthrew Mossadegh and installed one of the most brutal dictators of the 20th Century, the Shah. His quarter century rule of brutality involving Iranian secret police and smashing of any dissent in Iran led to the Iranian Revolution by the clerics. And they swung wildly to the strict religious fundamentalism.

2) About the same time as the Iranian Revolution, the Soviets were fighting in Afganistan. We, in a moment of unbelievable cognitive dissonance, saw the Islamic Fundamentalism and thought, "hey, that would be great to fight against atheists!". So we ENCOURAGED the Mujahedin to be even MORE radical and trained them to fight the Russians and armed them.

Seriously, without 1953 Iran and 1979 Afghanistan in which the US CREATED the damn problem, we wouldn't have it in the first place.

So, we as US citizens are not just innocent victims or righteous defenders of liberty and goodness in this. We bear a responsibility in this. Total responsibility? No, of course not. But a seed unsown can't be reaped.

So, Yeah, Islamic Terrorism IS a problem. All around the world. No doubt. AND...we were a part of it AND...we're a part of making it worse (I mean, we continue to fund, arm and train fundamentalist groups in a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" strategy that might work except we keep making more enemies and the enemy of my enemy almost never turns out to be an ally, so we end up fighting them).

There are real answers out there that don't fit on hats or bumper stickers to this problem that's been with us for 40 years now both within our military and outside of it. Like with most of our problems we could solve them, but our own people get in the way (people on both sides, this isn't political).

Was it, Islamic Terrorism, a problem in Orlando. No. No, it wasn't.

 

[Mackeyser]

Yeah, a lot of good stuff here Mac, but the moral equivalency of Radical Islam with any of those other faiths requires a response.

EVERY CONFLICT ON THIS PLANET involves Islam as the aggressor. Link a story of Christian fundamentalists, or violent Buddhists cutting off the heads of dissenters. You cannot. This is a joke.

And the target, by the way, is Christ. The radicals hate Christ. Sorry. Truth. Ask them.

Some of the other stuff you note about this specific guy may be true, though. I haven't read enough about this case. Although @Ramhusker notes his background is: Radical Islamic statements and threats.

You do realize that the genocide in Bosnia was Christians killing Muslim men and raping Muslim women specifically because they knew they couldn't return to their husbands and would be punished under Muslim law (essentially, Muslim law is horribly mysogynistic, even when women are literally raped by genocidal, rapacious invaders)? So yeah. Christians were the bad guys in that. Actually, really bad.

I'm not gonna play "whose religion is better" because that's not the point. The point from a security and problem solving standpoint is capability and the issue becomes fundamentalism and we've seen over and over again that it doesn't matter which form of fundamentalism it is.

We solve the problem when we allow people to be who they are.

That's the lesson. You don't have to celebrate or even agree. Let's just start with allow.

 

[DenverRam]

lol @ people and the president blaming guns.

 

[BatteringRambo]

[GALLERY=media, 149]Dirty Laundry - YouTube by BatteringRambo posted Jun 16, 2016 at 7:54 PM[/GALLERY]

 

[fearsomefour]

The problem here was that you had a gay man who couldn't come out because he was living in a fundamentalist environment.

We've seen similar actions with Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim and even Buddhist fundamentalist cultures.

The last grasp to try and play off his actions were infantile. He tried to align himself with warring terrorist groups. That'd be like a gay person in the 80s who was closeted and couldn't come out due his family's strict fundamentalist beliefs and was filled with self-hate committing a hate crime against gays and then saying he was a gang-banger by saying to the cops, "I'm down with the Playboy Gangsta Crips! Oh...and...uh...I'm down with the Bloods, too!" Anyone who knew ANYTHING about gangs would realize that...um...no. You can't do that. Just like you can't be down with both Shia and Sunni terrorist groups as they are as oil and water as Bloods and Crips were in the 80s if not more so.

Btw, that wouldn't stop plenty of people from using that incident to slam gangs even though that incident had nothing to do with gangs. Were gangs bad? Yep. But they had nothing to do with that incident.

Dude had gay dating apps on his phone and they have proof from people he talked to ON those apps that he used them. There were 3 different apps, so it wasn't an accident and he wasn't just a smidge gay-curious. He was either fully on the down low or headed there fast. So we don't know if he was sexually active, but it seems pretty clear that he was attracted to men sexually....and he couldn't reconcile his outlet for that.

Is there a crisis of Islamic Fundamentalist based terror activities that are only exacerbated by poorly thought out and executed foreign interventions in Libya, Iraq and Syria where we now have a CIA backed militia fighting a DOD backed militia??? Yeah, that's not idiotic enough... No doubt, there IS a crisis that ISIL and other groups represent.

It's just that THIS guy wasn't part of that.

THIS guy was part of something ELSE.

We don't solve one problem by focusing on a different problem.

Comedy gold.

 

[Ramhusker]

You do realize that the genocide in Bosnia was Christians killing Muslim men and raping Muslim women specifically because they knew they couldn't return to their husbands and would be punished under Muslim law (essentially, Muslim law is horribly mysogynistic, even when women are literally raped by genocidal, rapacious invaders)? So yeah. Christians were the bad guys in that. Actually, really bad.

I'm not gonna play "whose religion is better" because that's not the point. The point from a security and problem solving standpoint is capability and the issue becomes fundamentalism and we've seen over and over again that it doesn't matter which form of fundamentalism it is.

We solve the problem when we allow people to be who they are.

That's the lesson. You don't have to celebrate or even agree. Let's just start with allow.

Good example Mack but it's probably just about the only one available isn't it? I mean dirty deeds are overwhelmingly committed these days in the name of Islam by the radical fuks that unfortunately have a following of over 6 million from the religion they claim. And I agree we solve a lot of problems by leaving people alone and allowing them to be who they are but you can't let that 6 million alone can you? If it's fair to say we (America and Great Britain) started it, it's most imperative we end it. There's no pretty ending in this thing. It's going to have to get uglier before it gets better unfortunately. But how do you identify that 6 million amongst the 1.6 billion Muslims of the world? Damn if I know where you begin with that endeavor.

 

[Ramhusker]

 

[tomas]

You do realize that the genocide in Bosnia was Christians killing Muslim men and raping Muslim women specifically because they knew they couldn't return to their husbands and would be punished under Muslim law (essentially, Muslim law is horribly mysogynistic, even when women are literally raped by genocidal, rapacious invaders)? So yeah. Christians were the bad guys in that. Actually, really bad.

I'm not gonna play "whose religion is better" because that's not the point. The point from a security and problem solving standpoint is capability and the issue becomes fundamentalism and we've seen over and over again that it doesn't matter which form of fundamentalism it is.

We solve the problem when we allow people to be who they are.

That's the lesson. You don't have to celebrate or even agree. Let's just start with allow.

You do realize: The disaster that Bill Clinton created in Bosnia by backing Muslims against the Serbs has now become next front for the Islamic State (ISIS) Caliphate.
Two decades later Bosnia is still suffering the consequences. ISIS has declared the Balkans the next front for the Islamic Caliphate, and in remote mountain villages, Muslims are already flying the ISIS flag. So, the liberal media is working to portray the Bosnian Serb republic in Bosnia as a “genocidal entity/creation”, further weakening the already weak Serbian position in the Balkans and by proxy strengthening the Albanian regime in Kosovo and pushing Montenegro towards NATO membership.

Going back to the Srebrenica case, this is a Srebrenica fact sheet one can rarely see in biased western liberal media reports: It has been recorded that more that 3,200 Serbian women, children, elderly, men and prisoners of war were massacred in Serbian villages around Srebrenica between 1992 and 1995 by soldiers on the Bosnian Muslim side based in Srebrenica. Muslim forces under Naser Oric “engaged in attacks during Orthodox (Christian) holidays and destroyed villages, massacring all the inhabitants. This created a degree of hatred that was quite extraordinary in the region.”
This was the first of many Srebrenica massacres by Muslims that are ignored by the liberals/media up to this day!

 

[tomas]

Btw...
The number of 8,000 Muslim victims in Srebrenica is inflated. Most of “7,000 Muslim men and boys” allegedly murdered were soldiers of the localy-formed 28th division of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina under Naser Oric. They died both as soldiers and as war prisoners, they were killed in combat and others as revenge for Bosnian Serb victims. In all 5,500 Muslim soldiers fought under Naser Oric.
Most of them were killed when after the fall of the Muslim-controlled Srebrenica enclave they refused to surrender, but instead performed a desperate fighting withdrawal over Serbian controlled territories. Along the way they were shelled and ambushed by Serb foces in what was uneven combat but was not a massacre of civilians.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I understand a SWAT team going slowly to minimize collateral damage, I just don't know why they weren't deployed sooner. Maybe as more comes out we will have a better understanding.

I thought they arrived like 30ish minutes after the shooting began... Still a slow response time. Either way, these guys are so incredibly safe and slow, I agree I'm not a fan. It took 3 hours for SWAT to clear up to my room during the UCLA lock down and that was a murder suicide. The response was amazing, four departments, and hundreds of officers came to the university, but the actual process of clearing was so slow, if he was an active shooter he could have gotten far more.

I wont get into any gun debates though, different topic, I have a unique opinion about it.

 

[tomas]

You do realize that the genocide in Bosnia was Christians killing Muslim men and raping Muslim women specifically because they knew they couldn't return to their husbands and would be punished under Muslim law (essentially, Muslim law is horribly mysogynistic, even when women are literally raped by genocidal, rapacious invaders)? So yeah. Christians were the bad guys in that. Actually, really bad.

I'm not gonna play "whose religion is better" because that's not the point. The point from a security and problem solving standpoint is capability and the issue becomes fundamentalism and we've seen over and over again that it doesn't matter which form of fundamentalism it is.

We solve the problem when we allow people to be who they are.

That's the lesson. You don't have to celebrate or even agree. Let's just start with allow.

By glossing over the massacres of 3,500 Orthodox Christians in and around Srebrenica; the role of the liberal media in turning a blind eye to 8,000 international Islamists (some members who did September 11 had learnt much in Bosnia); the actions of the Bosnian Muslim leader, Alija Izetbegovic, in abandoning the Muslim enclave; and other important factors. It entails that Srebrenica is being manipulated for all the wrong reasons and that the dehumanization of the Serbians is a convenient way for Western powers/liberal media to gloss over the reality on the ground

It also suits the Bosnian Muslim leadership which abandoned the enclave despite fighting against fellow Muslims in the west.