Thanks.
It’s all about Islam and killing infidels. I don’t think it matters at all which terrorist group’s name gets shouted. I don’t see it as a contradiction that a whack job American likes Al Qaeda, and the Taliban, and ISIS, and everyone else who advocates killing infidels. I don’t expect these people to be all that discerning.
As with Sandy Hook, I think the belief is that it was done to give the government an excuse to confiscate guns. As with Sandy Hook, nothing of the sort will happen afterwards.
The fact that these supposed false flags are never followed up by gun confiscation seems to escape these people.
So as long as they mention something Islamic, even if it’s a nonsensical jumble, it still “counts”? Do you then get to shout “Ha ha, he mentioned Allah, you guys have to take him”? This isn’t some playground game, you know.
To them, it’s the fact that they called out the false flag operation that prevented the gun confiscation; it’s a win-win way of looking at the world, sort of.
On the contrary, I think requiring Islamic terrorists to pick a team or it doesn’t count, makes it seem like a game.
Hell, I’d be more likely to believe that it was staged by the gun industry since an increase in gun sales is the one thing that does reliably happen after such events.
To be clear, I do not for one moment believe that. I’m just saying that it’s make marginally more sense than the gun confiscation theory.
I think the argument here is about whether or not he was directed or simply self motivated. Supporting contradictory groups would be evidence (not conclusive, but contributing) that he was not directed by one of those groups and therefore self-motivated.
All the evidence (and lack thereof) is pointing towards “self-directed”. And that’s even scarier, because it makes them even more difficult to discover. No cell phone calls or other communication between a “handler” and the shooter.
I’m fine calling him self-radicalized and calling it Islamist terrorism. I wouldn’t expect him to know all the ins and outs going on the ME. I don’t think people in the ME know all the ins and outs of everything going on over there.
I’m not so sure that it’s scarier. A single self-directed individual can kill 50 people in a night club, but it takes several trained and supported individuals to take down buildings and kill thousands.
And now I’m going to contradict myself and point out Timothy McVeigh. Even so I think that, overall, trained and supported people are more of a danger.
I think this becomes a semantics argument. Was radical Islam a part of his motivation? Absolutely. Was it his sole motivation? That’s more questionable. Suppose that it wasn’t his sole or even greatest motivation. Can we still can it “Islamist terrorism”? I don’t know.
Are suicidal Islamist terrorists motivated solely by religion or do some or all have other underlying issues? My understanding is that these groups search out isolated and troubled individuals for such tasks, since not all people, regardless of their religiosity, are willing to commit suicide.
I think the question is whether or not this guy was consciously trying to further the causes of ISIS (or whoever) or was more driven by homophobia and possibly self-hatred. If he was driven by other things, was he individually chosen and groomed by people who are working to further radical Islamist goals?
There is, quite simply, no way to stop a “lone nut.” We can only try to dial down the hatred and cheerleading to violence as a society, and (distant second) continue limiting easy access to tools of mass murder. The last few incidents have been at the hands of individuals who, only in retrospect, should have been clearly barred from purchasing and owning firearms, if only until they received a clear bill of mental health.
According to Putin (I don’t like him but he’s very smart) a lot of ISIS militants aren’t much more than mercs for hire and more than willing to kill, kill, kill for whomever is paying them and I wouldn’t be at all surprised that a lot of them are fucking guys behind the sand dune and then throwing suspected gays off buildings. This guy in Orlando, he’s probably a self-loathing closeted gay or bi and more than willing to kill in the name of Allah because I don’t know, he just wanted to kill. I don’t know. I think we can say he’s a closeted homophobe AND he’s an islamist terrorist. He doesn’t have to be one or the other or pick a specific team or it’s not *real *islamic terrorism. What is islamic terrorism? Who knows? Like you said, these groups seek out whackjobs willing to die.
Why do we have to choose what his “main motivation” was? And why do we have to take sides on what the political lesson should be from this? Or which candidate will score the most points from this?
Why can’t we check “All Of The Above”?
That way, we can be angered by, and committed to fighting: Islamist Extremism, ISIS, Extremism from any religion, Homophobia, Closeted Violent Gays, Wife Beaters, Random Nutjobs, Easy Access To Guns, Conspiracy Theories, and Violence In Our Society.
I can’t believe that the most fervent gun control fan wouldn’t say “But we need to fight ISIS as well.” And the people shouting “Say the magic word ‘Islamist’ before the other candidate!” don’t also believe in keeping guns out of the hands of sociopaths.
So instead of reacting with “Hey, I can score points for my side”, people could actually work on the problems.
But the real, organized Islamists are at least quite clear which team they’re on. This guy was no Islamist,* he just got a charge out of occasionally pretending to be, to other Americans.
- Not the same as Muslim or Islamic.
Pfft. As if. Nice try, hippie. :rolleyes:
Well, pretty much every Christian I’ve ever known has had an extra-marital affair or gotten a divorce for whatever reason without bothering to consult the church or get an annulment and many of them will say “gay is bad.” Those are no Christians. Yet, good luck with that. You are a Christian if you say you are a Christian, no matter how many Christian laws you break. An Islamist who picks and chooses which rules to blow off isn’t a *true *Islamist? Who are you to say?
I dont know a single Christian, myself- that sez “gay is bad.” The worst is “hate the sin, love the sinner” and will put unmarried gay sex in their with unmarried hetero sex.
“gay is bad.” is pretty well a minority Christian view.