Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7375
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 20 Jun 2016, 9:30 am

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/20/us/orlando-nightclub-shooting/index.html

Why release a partial transcript? Why not name who Mateen pledges allegiance to?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 20 Jun 2016, 11:42 am

Authorities also defended the decision, saying it was meant to avoid lending credence to terrorist leaders.
"We're not going to propagate their rhetoric, their violent rhetoric," FBI Special Agent Ron Hopper said.


Do you think that if someone is radicalized, even through the Internet only, that the source of his radicalization should be promoted? Copy cats?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7375
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 20 Jun 2016, 2:04 pm

Yes. I do.

As I recall, there was no difficulty in proclaiming the militia group in Michigan...
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7375
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 20 Jun 2016, 2:07 pm

The administration has made a decision to release the uncensored version of the 911 calls.

RickyP, you can applaud what a great decision it was to have uncensored versions released now.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 20 Jun 2016, 2:25 pm

bbauska its increasingly apparent that the Orlando shooter was much less an ISIS inspired terrorist and had much more in common with the dozens of mass shooters who weren't professing allegiance to anyone.

If he hadn't made any phone calls, there's no other evidence that he was in any way radicalized... But there's plenty of evidence that he meets the profile of the typical mass shooter. Its theorized that he amde the calls to make his actions more important.


http://www.livescience.com/21787-predic ... tings.html

I subscribe to the theory that you treat criminals like criminals . Publicizing his "political claims" is a mistake. Especially when they seem to be almost after the thought.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 21 Jun 2016, 3:04 pm

rickyp wrote:bbauska its increasingly apparent that the Orlando shooter was much less an ISIS inspired terrorist and had much more in common with the dozens of mass shooters who weren't professing allegiance to anyone.


Sorry old boy, but you're the one going insane. His motives were as clear as could be. Liberals (apparently) can't understand English. You're going down the same road as FB posters. Mateen went out of his way to pledge allegiance to Al-Baghdadi and ISIS.

If he hadn't made any phone calls, there's no other evidence that he was in any way radicalized... But there's plenty of evidence that he meets the profile of the typical mass shooter. Its theorized that he amde the calls to make his actions more important.


Do you drop acid before coming to Redscape?

Mateen's friend:

Then, during the summer of 2014, something traumatic happened for our community. A boy from our local mosque, Moner Mohammad Abu-Salha, was 22 when he became the first American-born suicide bomber, driving a truck full of explosives into a government office in Syria. He’d traveled there and joined a group affiliated with al-Qaeda, the previous year. We had all known Moner; he was jovial and easygoing, the opposite of Omar. According to a posthumous video released that summer, he had clearly self-radicalized – and had also done so by listening to the lectures of Anwar al-Awlaki, the charismatic Yemen-based imam who helped radicalize several Muslims, including the Fort Hood shooter. Everyone in the area was shocked and upset. We hate violence and were horrified that one of our number could have killed so many. (After an earlier training mission to Syria, he’d tried to recruit a few Florida friends to the cause. They told the FBI about him.)

Immediately after Moner’s attack, news reports said that American officials didn’t know anything about him; I read that they were looking for people to give them some background. So I called the FBI and offered to tell investigators a bit about the young man. It wasn’t much – we hadn’t been close – but I’m an American Muslim, and I wanted to do my part. I didn’t want another act like that to happen. I didn’t want more innocent people to die. Agents asked me if there were any other local kids who might resort to violence in the name of Islam. No names sprang to mind.

After my talk with the FBI, I spoke to people in the Islamic community, including Omar, about Moner’s attack. I wondered how he could have radicalized. Both Omar and I attended the same mosque as Moner, and the imam never taught hate or radicalism. That’s when Omar told me he had been watching videos of Awlaki, too, which immediately raised red flags for me. He told me the videos were very powerful.

After speaking with Omar, I contacted the FBI again to let them know that Omar had been watching Awlaki’s tapes. He hadn’t committed any acts of violence and wasn’t planning any, as far as I knew. And I thought he probably wouldn’t, because he didn’t fit the profile: He already had a second wife and a son. But it was something agents should keep their eyes on. I never heard from them about Omar again, but apparently they did their job: They looked into him and, finding nothing to go on, they closed the file.


I subscribe to the theory that you treat criminals like criminals . Publicizing his "political claims" is a mistake. Especially when they seem to be almost after the thought.


In the United States, we don't believe the government should censor. We have a right to know what he said.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 22 Jun 2016, 6:26 am

fate
Mateen went out of his way to pledge allegiance to Al-Baghdadi and ISIS
.
Other than in the phone calls he made from the scene..... where?
I note that his friend reported his viewing of the ISIS video, but also note that he didn't seem motivated by the video.... (I also note that its a case of the Muslim community "policing" its own community which many on the right say doesn't happen. And that the FBI couldn't have stopped him from arming even with that information.)

Here...
Only one thing seems clear, experts say: that the FBI’s first assessment of Mateen as a self-radicalized jihadist likely reflected only part of his motivation.
“This is a hard one to disentangle, but there are three strands,” said Mark Potok, a senior fellow at the Southern Poverty Law Center. “The dominant strand is that he hates gays. Then, there is his personal rage. He doesn’t like his life at all.
“The third strand is Islamist ideology, which is the weakest of the three,” said Potok, whose Alabama-based organization tracks extremists. “It’s almost like an afterthought.”
The FBI initially touted the theory that U.S.-born Mateen was motivated by his support of the notorious Islamic State, which as part of its radical ideology has expressed a visceral hatred for gays. But the portrait has turned far more complicated in the course of a week, with experts now saying Mateen appeared to be driven by a dangerous mix of bigotry, self-loathing and, perhaps, mental illness.


Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/f ... rylink=cpy

His motivations and profile have more in common with the usual suspects in mass shootings than the couple in San Bernadino.
Here...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/us/ma ... .html?_r=0

Its really convenient and easy to lay this on the simple evidence that he offered up in his phone calls. Phillip Mudd suggests that the phone calls were a way to make his actions and his person more important. WIthout the phone calls, there would be nothing much different than the community college shooter in Oregon. Every other Islamic inspired domestic terrorist left far more behind to demonstrate their radicalization.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 22 Jun 2016, 7:36 am

rickyp wrote:fate
Mateen went out of his way to pledge allegiance to Al-Baghdadi and ISIS
.
Other than in the phone calls he made from the scene..... where?


This is a bit like "Other than the gunshot Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

In other words, you've dismissed the obvious in search of evidence. During a mass murder, the killer takes the time to make several calls. You dismiss that.

I note that his friend reported his viewing of the ISIS video, but also note that he didn't seem motivated by the video.... (I also note that its a case of the Muslim community "policing" its own community which many on the right say doesn't happen. And that the FBI couldn't have stopped him from arming even with that information.)


He wasn't motivated by it?

:rolleyes:

That's your opinion. There are 49 victims who would argue with you, but they can't.

Here...
Only one thing seems clear, experts say: that the FBI’s first assessment of Mateen as a self-radicalized jihadist likely reflected only part of his motivation.
“This is a hard one to disentangle, but there are three strands,” said Mark Potok, a senior fellow at the Southern Poverty Law Center. “The dominant strand is that he hates gays. Then, there is his personal rage. He doesn’t like his life at all.
“The third strand is Islamist ideology, which is the weakest of the three,” said Potok, whose Alabama-based organization tracks extremists. “It’s almost like an afterthought.”
The FBI initially touted the theory that U.S.-born Mateen was motivated by his support of the notorious Islamic State, which as part of its radical ideology has expressed a visceral hatred for gays. But the portrait has turned far more complicated in the course of a week, with experts now saying Mateen appeared to be driven by a dangerous mix of bigotry, self-loathing and, perhaps, mental illness.


Yes, because someone who doesn't know him at all is more informed than a friend from the mosque he attended. Potok is a liberal activist--like you. So, of course the facts are irrelevant. He's more interested in supporting the Obama line.

His motivations and profile have more in common with the usual suspects in mass shootings than the couple in San Bernadino.
Here...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/us/ma ... .html?_r=0

Its really convenient and easy to lay this on the simple evidence that he offered up in his phone calls. Phillip Mudd suggests that the phone calls were a way to make his actions and his person more important. WIthout the phone calls, there would be nothing much different than the community college shooter in Oregon. Every other Islamic inspired domestic terrorist left far more behind to demonstrate their radicalization.


Bull. It's your opinion, based on the propaganda emanating from the White House, which is censoring the text of the phone calls Mateen made. They seek to control the information and then tell you what they want you to know. You swallow it whole. How surprising. Normally, you're such an independent thinker.

Why did he claim Afghanistan as his country?

You can theorize all you want, but, like the Ft Hood shooting, the more information that comes out, the more obvious this will be that it is Islamic terror--nothing less. I know that's inconvenient for you leftists who hate Christianity and love Islam, but there it is.

Reminds me of the foolish AG who suggests we defeat terror with compassion, unity, and love. Sure. Those things stop bullets . . .
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 22 Jun 2016, 7:57 am

Because he did not actually go to the Middle east and train with ISIS means he is not a follower or inspired by them? That's like saying someone who believes in God is not to be believed because he doesn't go to church. You can believe without doing anything "formal", same thing with Mateen, he was indeed a follower! I guess we should simply ignore everything he said and claim this had nothing to do with radical Islam ...it fits your agenda so much better that way so it must be so?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3647
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 22 Jun 2016, 8:55 am

The most polite thing I can say is this is really silly analysis, Ricky. First, you cannot separate his hating gays from his being Muslim. It seems somewhat clear that he was torn between gay inclinations and his religiion. And remember he went to Saudi Arabia twice to do Umrah in 2011-2012, so his religion was pretty important to him. Self-loathing would appear to be tied to a conflict between his religion and his being gay (or bisexual). I am not sure what the basis for linking this to mental illness but that appears to be speculative.

What's most dangerous about "lone wolves" is that they hear the clarion call from radical Muslims propaganda and decide to strike (therefore, without prior contacts with radical groups they are hard to catch).The idea is that he has much in common with other mass shooters is absurd. He is more similar to the Colorado shooter who shot up the Planned Parenthood, except far more lethal.

All that matters is that he is Muslim and but for radical Islamic groups urging attacks against the West he would not have acted. And he said he declared allegiance to ISIS..so now we're supposed to say no, no that's not important, it's just a hate crime against gays...come on.

Here's the reality. There is a non-insubstantial group of radical Islamic Muslims who subscribe to conflict with the West. They are less of a fringe group than Christians who commit terrorists acts though there are some Christian terrorists. More importantly, Christian terrorists have not carried any large-scale attacks (and there have been so few Christian terrorists in the West--Christians in Africa have carried out more attacks but they are not a threat to us) so equating them with Muslim terrorists is ridiculous. A significant minority of Muslims supports these radical groups.http://www.nationalreview.com

Radical Islam is a disease within the religion that Muslims need to stamp out before it does incalculable damage. We do not help matters by trying to rewrite the Muslim religion out of these attacks. President Obama is wrong in not using the term radical Islam. We are not at war with Islam; we are at war with radical groups that subscribe to an interpretation of Islam that justifies war with the West because they are at war with us. But those radical groups could not survive without the support of other ordinary Muslims. That has to change.

(It is getting a bit tiresome with regard to DF's diatribes against liberals on this subject--could you at least qualify it? Maybe I do the same with regard to conservatives on some issues and I should probably qualify that too, but it's a bit jarring to see that liberals allegedly think such and such about an issue when I don't.)
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 22 Jun 2016, 9:23 am

freeman3 wrote:The most polite thing I can say is this is really silly analysis, Ricky. First, you cannot separate his hating gays from his being Muslim. It seems somewhat clear that he was torn between gay inclinations and his religiion. And remember he went to Saudi Arabia twice to do Umrah in 2011-2012, so his religion was pretty important to him. Self-loathing would appear to be tied to a conflict between his religion and his being gay (or bisexual). I am not sure what the basis for linking this to mental illness but that appears to be speculative.

What's most dangerous about "lone wolves" is that they hear the clarion call from radical Muslims propaganda and decide to strike (therefore, without prior contacts with radical groups they are hard to catch).The idea is that he has much in common with other mass shooters is absurd. He is more similar to the Colorado shooter who shot up the Planned Parenthood, except far more lethal.

All that matters is that he is Muslim and but for radical Islamic groups urging attacks against the West he would not have acted. And he said he declared allegiance to ISIS..so now we're supposed to say no, no that's not important, it's just a hate crime against gays...come on.

Here's the reality. There is a non-insubstantial group of radical Islamic Muslims who subscribe to conflict with the West. They are less of a fringe group than Christians who commit terrorists acts though there are some Christian terrorists. More importantly, Christian terrorists have not carried any large-scale attacks (and there have been so few Christian terrorists in the West--Christians in Africa have carried out more attacks but they are not a threat to us) so equating them with Muslim terrorists is ridiculous. A significant minority of Muslims supports these radical groups.http://www.nationalreview.com

Radical Islam is a disease within the religion that Muslims need to stamp out before it does incalculable damage. We do not help matters by trying to rewrite the Muslim religion out of these attacks. President Obama is wrong in not using the term radical Islam. We are not at war with Islam; we are at war with radical groups that subscribe to an interpretation of Islam that justifies war with the West because they are at war with us. But those radical groups could not survive without the support of other ordinary Muslims. That has to change.


Spot on. Thank you for your reasonable and rational post.

(It is getting a bit tiresome with regard to DF's diatribes against liberals on this subject--could you at least qualify it? Maybe I do the same with regard to conservatives on some issues and I should probably qualify that too, but it's a bit jarring to see that liberals allegedly think such and such about an issue when I don't.)


So very true. In my defense, listening to the President, numerous liberal lawmakers and analysts, and, the most ridiculous of all, the attorney general, can you blame me? The AG actually said, ". . . our most effective response to terror and to hatred is compassion, it’s unity, and it’s love."

That's about as dumb as it gets.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3647
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 22 Jun 2016, 12:05 pm

No biggie--As I noted I make generalizations with regard to conservatives sometimes that may be over inclusive. It's almost inherent in characterizing any political group but how else are you supposed to do it? I guess qualifying (many, most, some) is about the only way.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 22 Jun 2016, 12:45 pm

I hear you on being liberal but not adhering to every liberal cause. I am (shockingly) conservative yet I have no problem with many (certainly not all!) of the gun control ideas. I get lumped in with those who i do not believe as well. It's generalities and taking the time to add "most" in front of the group being discussed ("most liberals", "most conservatives", etc) is not likely to happen here or anywhere else.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 23 Jun 2016, 7:13 am

freeman3
All that matters is that he is Muslim and but for radical Islamic groups urging attacks against the West he would not have acted.

You don't know that. Mudd thinks he was on his way to becoming a shooter through his own self loathing. And yes part of that is his religious back ground, and his screwed up father.

Freeman3
And he said he declared allegiance to ISIS..so now we're supposed to say no, no that's not important, it's just a hate crime against gays...come on
.
No. Didn't say that.
Simply said this shooters motives are less clear than an allegiance to ISIS.

People who are motivated by ISIS should be, in many ways, easier to sus out than the run of the mill mass shooter. At least they probably have people who may contact them at their mosque or they may leave a digital trail... If the FBI were allowed to put these people on a gun prohibited list, that they would have to apply to get off of, then many of them could be prevented from becoming shooters.
The average run of the mill mass shooter, isn't Muslim. And is very difficult to predict.
Here's a list of the dealiest US mass shootings. If you eliminated all the Muslim perpetrators you'd still have over 90% of them. How would you have gotten most of these people on a weapons prohibited list?

http://timelines.latimes.com/deadliest- ... -rampages/

I appreciate that one of the motivations for the Orlando shooting was ISIS. Another was his personal conflicts between his religious convictions, and his sexual identification and another his physcological conflcits and problems.
His motivations were not simple, They were complex.
Most of them fit the profiles of other mass shooters..... who weren't Muslim.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 23 Jun 2016, 7:30 am

fate
The AG actually said, ". . . our most effective response to terror and to hatred is compassion, it’s unity, and it’s love."

That's about as dumb as it gets
.

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Matthew 5.44