orlando shooting

[Rojaf]

yeah the whole assault rifle thing is so stupid. like a semi automatic hunting rifle isnt just the exact same thing.

i mean picatinny rails are terrifying apparently.

[Reincarnate]

PS, to those of you who feel very strongly about banning/putting the chokehold on gun rights, but don't actually know how guns work, watch this video first:

It's 40 minutes long, but I promise it is worth your time. It is an older video obviously, but still quite relevant today.

By the time you're done, there will (hopefully) be a few very painful and obvious truths that you won't be able to shake. :P

[Frank Munoz]

Originally Posted by Reincarnate

PS, to those of you who feel very strongly about banning/putting the chokehold on gun rights, but don't actually know how guns work, watch this video first:

It's 40 minutes long, but I promise it is worth your time. It is an older video obviously, but still quite relevant today.

By the time you're done, there will (hopefully) be a few very painful and obvious truths that you won't be able to shake. :P

the term "gun control" does not mean to banish all guns
also, no one here has really expressed the deliverance of "ban all firearms", but more of,
Omar Mateen should never have been granted the choice to purchase one.

The point of gun control is to ban those unworthy to wield a firearm,
not specifically guns themselves, within the public
though there may be some bans, their uses are usually for professional settings

kinda like having street legal vehicles

good vid though

[Rojaf]

yeah go to a gun show and you can pick up a fully auto gun...

for like 30k.

semi auto version of the same gun: less than a thousand.

not saying i wouldn't jump at the chance to shoot a full auto gun, but holy god they are expensive, pointless, and expensive. every time i go shooting i cant help but hear *chching* with every shot. basically $2.50 every time i reload.. i cant imagine spending like $20 in 30 seconds.

[Arch0wl]

this btw has zero bearing on mass shooting since organized crime overwhelmingly does not want mass shootings to happen

(terrorist groups are another thing entirely. organized crime is motivated by money; terrorism is motivated by ideology.)

[Reincarnate]

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

as you'd imagine, the people with an actual interest in buying fully automatic guns tend to be in the upper hierarchies of organized crime, e.g. gangs/cartels/etc

not that they'd use them all the time, of course, but if you're having a firefight with another gang and you can have an M16 while they have semiauto pistols, well, you get the idea

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thompson_submachine_gun

[Reincarnate]

The only time I can think of in recent US history where automatic weapons were used:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

And even here, they were illegally-modified full-autos.

Thankfully, only two casualties: Both shooters.

[Rojaf]

one thing i really dont understand is how republicans can get mad about democrats doing the whole gun rights thing by saying "this is really about radical islam" when they havent even tried to pass an authorization of military force against ISIS.

[adlp]

iirc the gun vendor reported omar as suspicious to the FBI and the FBI did nothing

[top]

Originally Posted by adlp

iirc the gun vendor reported omar as suspicious to the FBI and the FBI did nothing

This. He was on a watch list too i think for some shit he said but since there werent any legit ties to actual terrorists they kinda said fuck it.

Plus he had security jobs w/ no incidents so they prolly put him in the clear or a grey area


Idk

[Frank Munoz]

Originally Posted by top

This. He was on a watch list too i think for some shit he said but since there werent any legit ties to actual terrorists they kinda said fuck it.

Plus he had security jobs w/ no incidents so they prolly put him in the clear or a grey area


Idk

yea, Omar was reported by a colleague of his too,
a few security officers that worked with him sent reports as well i believe,
it's kinda weird how the fbi just let so many reports slide.
even with his past events of violence, even reports of beating his ex wife before the shooting.

the fbi messed up somewhere man

[Rojaf]

Another issue is your seemingly hyper-individualist stance to this issue, which disallows you from seeing the bigger picture. You observe that one Christian happened to murder someone, perhaps in an abortion clinic bombing, and say "aha, Christians can be just as radical as Muslims," which completely ignores all the statistical realities surrounding this issue. For the most part, Christians that murder in the name of their religion are outliers among the Christian population, which is clearly demonstrated by the terrorist stats. Islamists and Jihadists are not outliers among the Muslim population; They make up too much of a sizable portion of the Muslim population to be so.

so when the bulk of transgender murders happen in south america, you're willing to overlook the fact that south america is mainly christian because it's individual hate crimes as opposed to a single person committing a mass shooting hate crime.... sounds like you're the one hung up on individuals.

a horrific and unforgivable thing, but not a massacre.

again, apparently multiple people have to die at once for you to care.

I have several issues with this data you've provided, particularly in the context of the discussion. First, what does this have to do with religiously motivated terrorism?

it was a counter argument to this:

Simply put, the modernized version of Christian beliefs is superior to the middle-age esque Islamic beliefs and Western culture is superior to Middle-eastern culture.

which is only true when you look at first world countries. look at countries in the second or third world, or developing countries, and your statement falls apart.

Muslims in much greater frequency are killing people for religious purposes, which I demonstrated with the terrorist statistics(over 90% to be specific).

those are statistics from one month. if you use a short enough time period you can make any point you want.

Muslims in just the month of January killed over 1000 people, which is a little less than half of the LGBT murders that spanned over the last 8 years.

you're comparing deaths in the middle east, where there are wars going on, with transgender people in brazil just living their daily lives.

i'm not saying that the stuff in the middle east doesn't count, just that you're comparing apples and oranges to prove your point. which again, doesnt make sense.

lus the issue is not whether Muslims or Christians are capable of being violent, but whether the violence is religiously motivated. Pointing to violent crime stats in regions that are predominantly Christian, doesn't necessarily tell us whether it was religiously motivated or not. The terrorism stats demonstrate this, since Islamic terrorists or Christian terrorists(which are extraordinarily rare) kill almost exclusively for religious purposes.

what do you think motivates gay and transgender killings in south america?

[choof]

not reading that wall of text bro0o0o0o0 but if you thought I was being serious you need to check your sarcasm meter

[Rojaf]

i'm running late for work so i can only reply to a few things.

This is incorrect. If you meant just more harmful to LGBT people, then you're still incorrect. The data you've provided is heavily flawed and doesn't clearly demonstrate that Christianity is the driving factor. If you meant more harmful overall, then you would be absolutely ludicrous. I could safely say that Jihadists will kill 8000-10,000+ people this year based on the terrorist statistics and this is clearly religiously motivated.

this is a very, very naive view of the middle east. i would bet money that there wouldn't be an isis without the war in iraq, which was waged because of false information given to the united states due to torture being a terrible method of gathering information.

but the point is that saying "it's the religion" is very, very simplistic. the acts of terror in general have less to do with religion and more to do with politics and history. the acts of terror against LGBT people have only to do with religion, which is why i was focusing on them and comparing them to hate crimes across the world.

again, the majority of the deaths that you were using to claim that islam is responsible for the bulk of terror were muslims killing muslims in iraq, afghanistan and syria. it's much more an issue of tribalism than religion. just like the IRA in Ireland. The IRA was catholic and the loyalists were protestant, but it wasnt radical catholicism that drove the IRA.

It is far more of a threat than anything else as far as religion is concerned. The person was obviously making a generalization. Islam is generally more of a threat, and it's generally more dangerous.

not really? if you are in south america, islam is not really a threat. christianity is a huge threat if you are LGBT. there were something like 160 countries completely unaffected by terrorism last year. i'm sure most of them had hate crimes driven by religion, whether it was christianity or islam. because that shit affects everyone.

Just because Christianity may be a bigger problem for people in certain countries doesn't discount this statement.

strange how this doesnt apply to terrorism. i guess i can safely say in response "just because islam may be a bigger problem for people in certain countries (middle east) it doesnt mean that it's a bigger problem for people elsewhere."

For example, Men are taller than women? You can agree with that statement right? Or will you respond by saying, "well, my sister is taller than me. She's 6'1!" We're talking about means and distribution curves. The danger presented by Islam if could be measured on a distribution curve has a different mean and distribution curve than Christianity even if the curves may intersect to some extent. Men and women have different means and distribution curves when we're talking about height even if some women are very tall, such as WNBA players. Why is this so hard to grasp?

it's not, i'm good at statistics. which is why it's hilarious that you're willing to bias the data so much when it comes to terrorism RE: the middle east.

[Rojaf]

Originally Posted by Kaj3

You're acting like ISIS is the only major Islamic terrorist group. There are several of them. I will link you to the most prominent ones based on what I saw in the terrorist statistics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Sha...militant_group)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boko_Haram
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda

so stop bringing up christianity but dont single out isis. you seem to only accept datasets that reinforce your views.

Keep in mind, that groups such as the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and even ISIS(founded in 1999) were formed before the invasion in Iraq.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islami...and_the_Levant

yeah founded in 1999, right. funny coincidence the group (under a different name) joining al qaeda in 2004. probably no correlation to be made there. it's not like the US invaded iraq in 2003. funny how it wasn't until 2006 that they actually became the islamic state. in iraq. in 2006.

read the History section of that wikipedia article. funny how there is literally one sentence describing the founding of the group and literally the next sentence jumps to 2004. it's almost like they were completely irrelevant until 2004 i wonder what event that could possibly correspond to.

Also, these groups are no joke like the LRA. They each have a strength in the thousands. However, I find it hysterical that you're now trying to pin this on US foreign policy. How embarrassing.

yeah denying history is much less embarrassing. probably why you are so busy doing it.

You're equating hate crimes against LGBT people with terrorism or I am misunderstanding you? Clarify that for me please.

i'm equating LGBT deaths due to religion with LGBT deaths due to religion.

As for it having to do with politics and history, it does, but not the politics and history you think it does. The direction you're going in seems to imply that Islamic barbarism has something to do with US foreign policy and "Western" Imperialism. Am I correct in my interpretation? If this is what you're implicating by stating "politics and history" then you're gravely mistaken and are talking about the wrong "politics and history." The politics, in particular, I am talking about is political Islam or simply Islamism. Islamism is the politicization of the religion in the form of things like Sharia law. The history that is relevant to the current Islamic barbarism we see today is the history of Islamic conquest, such as this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire

yeah man lets zone in on one small portion of history instead of looking at it all and putting everything in context. probably a good idea.

[img]http://www.gregdavis.ca/share/timeline.png[/quote]

So Muslims killing other Muslims somehow makes it better? I hope this is not what you're implying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia%E...unni_relations

all of it is worth a read, but if you need to you can skip to "US invasion of Iraq"

the point is that not only is a lot of the shia/sunni terrorism a result of the invasion, but that classifying it as Islamic terror is true but also false. it's definitely terrorism, but the motivations are not nearly as simple as you make them out to be, and shouldnt be easily lumped in with anti-LGBT terror in america, or even boko haram in nigeria.


[/quote]I agree with you with on tribalism, but all religions are rooted in tribalism. This tribalism you speak of may have something to do with the biological underpinnings of human beings. And you seriously brought up the IRA? LOL. That's even worse than bringing up the LRA. When is the last time someone died from a terrorist attack from the IRA? [/quote]

when was the ottoman empire? start being consistent. either history matters or it doesn't. (hint: it does)

the point is that religiously oriented terror groups can be motivated by something other than religion.

Nope, you still don't seem to grasp what I stated.

what you stated shows that you have a very simplistic view of the world. when you grow up maybe you will be able to reason your way past "islam bad".

Islam is generally a bigger problem, even if not everywhere. Are all men taller than all women? No, but men are generally taller than women.

and the bulk of lgbt murders take place in south america, which is overwhelmingly christian in religion and culture. Are all men taller than all women? No, but men are generally taller than women.

How exactly is my data biased? It comes straight from Wikipedia. I even told you to look at the data for yourself. Just because I only used one month worth of data doesn't necessarily mean it is biased. I may butcher this, but the one month of data could be looked at as a sample of the whole year's worth of data. It's no mystery why statisticians base their conclusions on populations from samples of the population. It's for a plethora reasons, such as time constraints, the expenditure of resources, and certain limitations.

because you're counting muslim on muslim terrorism as islamic terror, when it's clearly not. it's not islamic terror, it's tribal terror being committed by muslims. it's definitely still terrorism, but it doesnt have nearly the same motivations or root causes as the terrorist attack in orlando.

you seem completely incapable of looking beyond labels.

[Rojaf]

Originally Posted by Kaj3

Lol, this is turning into Muslim apologetics 101 now.

because apparently everyone in a group has to answer for the worst part now.

No, don't bring up Christianity when it has no relevance to the discussion. The people that bring up Christianity in these discussions tend to be uneasy when it comes to criticizing Islam and try to desperately to draw false equations to which they inevitably fail.

christianity stops being relevant when christians stop trying to say that islam is the problem. both religions are shit, and saying that one is and the other isnt, or when christians try to take the high road after a mass shooting like this is super disingenuous, because their religion is also responsible for large numbers of LGBT deaths .

Which history am I denying? I am not denying that the Iraq invasion happened, but it's not the direct cause of Islamic terrorism.

you're right. it's just the direct cause of isis.

Islamic terrorism and barbarism has existed for the last a thousand a years or so preceding the existence of the United States and other Western countries.

yep. nice work stating the obvious. lets not mention the thousand or so years of barbarism and terrorism belonging to Christianity. again, selective memory.

Plus, Islamism is a global phenomenon, spanning to regions outside of US influence.

again true, but has absolutely no bearing on the origin of isis.

For example, what does the massacre of over 200 french citizens in Paris that occurred last year have to do with US foreign policy? This is fucking ridiculous.

well it all starts in 2003 when george bush decided to invade iraq. the US went into iraq, destabilized the country and a bunch of small terrorist organizations in iraq decided to join al qaeda to fight the americans. one of these was the organization that would later come to be known as isis. in 2006 we managed to kill their leader zarqawi, and in response they merged with several other groups to form ISI, a precursor to isis (the second s stands for syria so obviously gotta wait until 2011) you know what? just read it yourself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islami...and_the_Levant

what motivated the paris attacks? well this is what isis claims motivated them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op%C3%A9ration_Chammal

Uhh, you haven't demonstrated that those LGBT deaths are due to religion. The orlando shooter clearly killed gay people for religious reasons.

homophobia doesnt come from nowhere.

Originally Posted by wikipedia

The main opponents of the advances of the gay rights movement in Brazil have generally been conservatives. Religion is the most cited reason for opposing gay rights. Regionally, opposition to the gay rights movement has been strongest in rural interior regions.

I get it. History is complex. But what the fuck does any of that have to do with modern-day Islamic barbarism? What is the direct cause of modern day Islamic barbarism? US Foreign Policy? Western Imperialism? Once again reaching to the annals of history to obfuscate the issue. Fascinating.

there are many causes. deciding that there can be only one is some thunderdome bullshit. you bring up the ottoman empire???? and then accuse me of reaching into the annals of history to obfuscate. yes, the ottoman empire was islamic. and the byzantine empire was christian, and the holy roman empire was.. take a wild guess.

You're speaking a lot of gibberish here. What exactly are their motivations rooted in? They have theological grievances. They despise western culture because it's antithetical to their religion. Also, why do you think there is a divide between Shia and Sunni Muslims? The same reason why there is a divide between the many thousands of Christian Denominations. However, Christians don't murder Christians of other denominations. and anti-LGBT terror in America as in instigated by Christians? Are you serious? Now, you're just blowing shit out of proportion.

remember when i mentioned the IRA? one group aligned with one religion wanting to form their own state committing terror against the people of the other group. except in that case there arent like 3 wars already going on in the region.

One Muslim committed the same amount of supposed Christian "LGBT terror" as 35% of the total in the last 8 years in just one night. That's fucking embarrassing.

it would be 25% if the picture i posted was LGBT and not just trans, but i'm starting to expect those kinds of mistakes from you. and that's only in the USA. but you dont like it when we only use one region right? you were getting all mad earlier when i was doing that, so you should probably modify that to be 2%. which is still wrong, because again you're comparing LGBT deaths in orlando to just trans deaths worldwide, but for the sake of argument i'll go with it. 2% would still be really, really bad for one event. hey, look. you dont need to artificially inflate statistics for them to support your argument.

I did state that it matters, but not just the history you're trying to bring into this. What do you think has more relevance to modern day Islamism: Islamic imperialism and Muslim empires such as the Ottoman Empire or US foreign policy and the history of western imperialism?

uhhhh isis in particular? the war in iraq. the war in iraq has way way more to do with isis than the ottoman empire.

even if you blame the ottoman empire (which i dont) where do you think the ottoman empire came from? it was a product of the byzantine empire. one empire systematically replacing another, kind of the story of most of history.

islamic terror in general? hmm probably british colonialism, followed by the creation of israel after world war two, and the cold war where the united states and russia used the countries in the middle east as surrogate fighters, followed by the US involvement in the first gulf war, and finally terrible decision making by starting a war in iraq. does that about cover it?

Not doubting that there are other factors, but the primary motive behind Islamic terror is Islam. Islam is in the title after all.

when it comes to terror perpetrated against the outside world, yes, absolutely. when it comes to terrorism between shia and sunni it is just not that simple.

Simplistic because I don't want to blame Islamism on US foreign policy? This is fucking bonkers.

you're putting words in my mouth again. you're the one saying that islamic terror is just because of islam. my argument is that there are many factors of which islam is just one.

also i think if you replace islam with another religion and replay the events of the last 100 years you're going to get more of a similar response to today than you would if you left islam in place with the US, Russia, etc, being isolationists.

The study you're basing this on is heavily flawed. Do you honestly believe those statistics for Africa are valid? Only 10 murders of LGBT people in hate crimes over the last 8 years?

again, try reading. those are trans and gender diverse people. just the T in LGBT.

We're talking about the most anti-gay region in the world, but the data paints the picture as if it's not. Maybe I am misunderstanding something.

you are.

Nope, you're strawmanning me.

it's clear that you dont know what this means.

Look at my graph again. In the more nuanced graph, I specifically broke it down by specific Muslim categories: Islamists, Muslim nationalists, and the PKK. Over 99% of deaths from terrorism are caused by Muslims, but 85-90% of terrorist deaths are caused by Islamist groups, such as ISIS, Boko Harem, Al Shabab, and so forth.

yes, and when isis kills other muslims in iraq, it is not motivated by religion so much as tribalism.

In what sense? What better identifier do we have for them? You're an anti-labelist or something? Labels exist for a reason. Generalizations exist for a reason. They help us better understand the world around us.

labels are fine, as long as you dont stop there. my issue is with your inability to look beyond the initial labeling, not with the labeling itself.

[Rojaf]

Originally Posted by Kaj3

LOL. This is the fucking grandaddy of weak strawman arguments among Muslim apologetics 101:

or it could just be common sense.

Islam is the way way way bigger problem than Christianity, and they can take the high road all day. I prefer Christians over Muslims because one demographic is preferable to humanity over the other based on what group is doing what more frequently in the name of their religion.

all throughout history christians and muslims have taken turns being worse for humanity. there is nothing about what christianity is doing for humanity at the moment that leads me to believe they are done taking their turn, even if in the last 20-30 years islam has pulled ahead.

And you can say Christians are responsible for a larger number of LGBT deaths based on your data, although the numbers in Africa are highly questionable(despite it being limited to trans and gender diverse individuals), but not the religion itself. Have any numbers on anti-gay murders in particular in the world?

i posted a bunch of links before about LGBT deaths in countries in south america.

[/quote] I say not the religion itself for a multitude of reasons: Christianity doesn't promote death for gays or any LGBT people like Sharia law does,[/quote]

again, you're focused on policy, i'm focused on the actual result of the religion and its influence on culture.

South America already has a relatively high murder rate and a widespread culture of machismo,

where do you think this comes from?

which is anti-gay, trans, gender diverse, or whatever wonky title you want to come up with, the disparity in murders of LGBT people between Brazil and the USA is large despite having a similar percentage of Christians in their countries.

you realize that this supports my argument right? remember, the whole "less of a difference between christianity and islam outside of the first world". yeah.

However, you will have many Christian preachers saying it's an abomination or people from the WBC saying ***s will burn in hell, but this is not equivalent to death for gays

[youtube]w83kIAfuKoE[/quote]

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/christian_pastor_says_gays_worthy_of_death_at_conference_with_3_gop_presidential_candidates

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/06/14/pastor-refuses-to-mourn-orlando-victims-the-tragedy-is-that-more-of-them-didnt-die/

http://shoebat.com/2016/06/10/major-catholic-priest-declares-that-homosexuals-are-worthy-of-death/

Originally Posted by WBC

Sodomites are wicked & sinners before the Lord exceedingly (Gen.13:13), are violent & doom nations (Gen. 19:1-25; Jgs. 19), are abominable to God (Lev. 18:22), are worthy of death for their vile sex practices (Lev. 20:13; Rom. 1:32),

so you are wrong. just completely wrong. (oh btw all those links were only from america and italy. nothing outside the first world. in case you were interested.

Nope Islam is:

the fact that you base your geopolitical opinions on what some rando 20 year old on youtube says makes a lot of sense given your arguments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jama%2...whid_wal-Jihad

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanzim...ad_al-Rafidayn

do some reading. make some real connections between facts.



when did i mention the crusades? oh, right, never.

good thing the byzantine empire began before any of the shit on that list. good try. try again.

This is retarded. Do you know what Islamism is? Are you claiming that ISIS is not an Islamist terrorist group? Good lord:

oh good, more 20 year old youtuber instead of any kind of factual analysis. hooray. also maybe give the derogatory language a break, yeah?

Those terrorist groups existed before we decided to invade Iraq,

what was isis, sorry, JTJ's membership like before the iraq war? what was the state of their declared caliphate? where did they operate? what terrorism were they responsible for?

what happened after the iraq war?

which was a country essentially held in a hostage crisis by Saddam Hussein, one of the cruelest dictators in history.

got one part right.

So your point is moot. Those groups were bound to have an uprising whether we liberated them from that hostage crisis or not because it has
nothing to do with US foreign policy.

incorrect in every way.

It has do to with Islamism,

it does have to do with islamism. absolutely.

which is something that has been occurring for the last 1000 years. But keep blaming all the problems in the world on Murica,

keep ignoring facts and insisting on the most simplistic explanation possible.

since it's so convenient.

i find facts very convenient.

Don't talk about those brown people, but those nasty white imperialists that decided to pillage Iraq!

or talk about both, the way that they affect each other and end up with a complex view of the world that is closer to truth. or we could just view everything as black and white, make terrible short sighted decisions and make things worse for everyone in the long run!

hooray for an overly simplistic worldview!

Homophobia in humans may actually be as natural as homosexuality, but that's beyond the point.

no that's actually part of the point, if you can actually make that point, that is.

Opposing gay rights does not equal killing LGBT people, supporting the killing of LGBT people, or supporting the death of LGBT people.

unfortunately opposing gay rights is just the public face of christanity. well, most christianity. some christian ministers preach that gays should be killed (see above) but we're not for judging an entire religion based on the words of a few are we?

No, it's just that the other factors are considerably insignificant. I bring up the ottoman empire because it's relevant to Islam and Islamism, Yes, you can bring up the byzantine empire or the crusades, or whatever to try to draw a false equation between Christianity and Islam. But one group is still trying to install some type of caliphate, similar to its Islamist predecessors and the other has moved past its barbarous history and has been heavily secularized. How can you not grasp this difference? One group is still living in the middle ages, while the other isn't. They are in two separate universes.

they are in two seperate worlds, not universes. ie first world vs third world.

Death count from IRA in the last couple years please. The IRA isn't relevant.

how do you still not understand that i'm not bringing up the IRA because they are killing people now, but because there are parallels between them and what is happening in the middle east right now. are you just skimming? do you see the word IRA and instead of reading and processing you just yell IRRELEVANT and move on?

seriously, it's becoming very, very clear that your reading comprehension level is minuscule. that or you dont actually want to read what i'm saying becasue either it would make you have to change your opinion or perhaps you just dont have the capacity for anything resembling complex thought. not that the things i've been saying are that complex.

please read. read and then respond to the things i write instead of picking a single word and responding to that one word in a way that makes it clear you either arent reading or arent comprehending. please dear god.

I was only using the United States because the murder happened in the United states. and I meant 35% because, 50 is 35% of 141, but if you want to add the 50 to the 141 and determine the ratio afterwards, then it would be 26%. Fair enough.

but again those were just trans deaths that you were comparing the orlando massacre to, which again, implies that you make decisions in your head before actually reading things. like at all.

Nope, the actions of Isis have to do with the doctrine of Islam and Islamism more than anything else.

wrong.

I bring up the ottoman empire because their actions are consistent with modern day Islamists, to demonstrate that Islamism isn't a new thing, and that Islamic conquest has persisted for the last a thousand years or so.

islamism isnt a new thing. nothing is a new thing, other than like technology. just because history is cyclical doesnt mean that it is inevitable. also cycles end up happening because EVERYONE ends up repeating their behavior, not just one group.

LOL. I cannot believe you just tried to shift the blame to such a silly chain of events on Islamic terror.

the problem here is your mindset. instead of seeing causes, you only see blame. you are focused on finding the ONE THING to blame, instead of looking at the many root causes. this is my entire problem with your argument, and you as a person.

things are way more complex than that.

Are you a conspiracy theorist or something or are you just denying all agency from Muslims?

no and no. if you think that i am arguing anything close to that, you clearly havent been reading anything i've been writing, but i guess that's been clear for some time now.

Are you just going to deny everything that the Islamists themselves state? Watch these two videos, one of which adlp has already posted, and the second one which applies to people like you that try to shift the blame of Islamic terrorism to anything but Islam:

again with blame. you know what islamic extremests do? they blame the west for everything. it's stupid, shortsighted, and harmful when they do it, and it's stupid, shortsighted, and harmful when people like you do it.

lets blame all of islam for terror. that probably wont end up backfiring at all.

Translation to it just not being that simple: Western imperialism, nuclear bombs, US Foreign policy

Translation: i never learned to read

Nope, now you're putting words in my mouth. It's obvious that there are other factors, but the predominant factor is clearly Islam, so much so that to discuss the other factors instead of Islam derails the conservation.

yeah lets ignore facts since you have decided that they aren't relevant because it gets in the way of your blame game.

So replace Islam with Jainism and we will see the same shit based on the same turn of events?

no, but replace it with christianity, hinduism, buddhism, or any other major religion. you can stop bringing up jainism now btw. or not. TBH i'm loving the way that you keep telling me that i'm falsely equating islam and christianity and then CONTINUALLY BRING UP JAINISM when faced with the idea that violence is not unique to islam.

what you are doing, and have been doing almost non stop is called cherry picking.

Once again, you're demonstrating a lack of understanding of the fact that Islam is a very separate belief system from the other religions.

when it comes to world consequences, you have only proven that it is separate from Jainism. keep doing that, BTW, since it really helps your argument.

Bad ideas inspire certain actions. The ideas of Jainism inspire nonviolence to all around them, and the ideas of Islam inspire Jihadists to slay all the infidels wherever they find them.

cool, you kept doing it. also this is why every muslim i know wants to kill me. oh wait, just the radical ones. maybe we should consider all the forces that led to their radicalization... oh wait no just islam. because obviously that's way easier, requires less thought, and avoids the possibility of you having change any of your beliefs and/or decisions in life.

Okay, any stats on anti-gay murders then? And if there's such a huge discrepancy in the terms, why bring this in a discussion on anti-gay murders, particularly anti-gay terrorism?

it was the only chart i could find, which is why i supplemented it with links to papers that had total LGBT murder statistics. but you clearly didnt click them so okay yeah my fault i didnt push your hand down on the mouse button.

Okay, the data includes only trans and gender diverse people, but what about gay people? I am genuinely curious.

just go back to my post and click away.

Nope, you misrepresented my position. this is what you said:


I never equated ALL Muslim on Muslim terrorism with Islamic terrorism; however, most Muslim on Muslim terrorism is a result of Islamic terrorism.

the conflict between shia and sunni stems not from WHAT the religion should be, but WHO should lead it. it is quite literally a tribal dispute that has lasted for centuries.

All religions are rooted in tribalism to a certain extent, but when Muslims kill other Muslims, it's mostly because the other Muslims aren't Muslim enough, so to speak, which is a religious phenomenon. You're just reaching so hard that it's embarrassing now.

the conflict between shia and sunni stems not from WHAT the religion should be, but WHO should lead it. it is quite literally a tribal dispute that has lasted for centuries.

yeah i copy/pasted because i figure that increases the odds that you'll actually read it/comprehend it.

[SKG_Scintill]

It's true because it's common sense

flawless.

[Frank Munoz]

@ kaj3 it doesn't promote killing unjustly though.
(I posted iterations to the "violent" verses you shared a while back. As well as sources to everything stated here. Not really sure if you looked at that but if not, and you doubt this claim, you can check that. But you may still doubt this as we all have different understandings of what something truly means. There are many Islamic clerics who state this though, and that the views ISIL has of Islam are wrong and degrade the true texts of the Qur'an. Similar to what true Christians have in view of the KKK, and the Westboro church.)
In self defense yes. To those who attack you first, you attack them back.
The same mentality arch had with that pro gun shirt post.
It makes sense though, right? Some one shoots you, you shoot back.
Though he may have meant more preemptive actions then I do, the shirt's text suggested self defense.
Just as the qur'an.

It also doesn't say to kill gays.
It says to tell them what God will do to them, not what you should do to them.
Just as you are misunderstanding the Qur'an, so is ISIL.
Which you've stated yourself actually.
Where you share the same interpretation of the Qur'an as the leader of ISIL does.

ISIL is currently the largest terrorist group
And proceed to grow.
The thing is any radical group has the possibility to become this large and deadly is what we're getting at.
Which has happened.

No one is denying that islamic terrorism is the most frequent currently
There are arguably, depending on the location, bigger threats to mankind, but we like to focus on what's more obvious.
It's why we are at war with ISIL.
ISIL is at war with ~60 countries, either directly or indirectly, and because of this they have attacked them all. It's why their attacks are so frequent.
And we want to end their misguided view of islam asap.
Not Islam itself just because ISIL gives a quote before their atrocities or say it's in the name of Allah doesn't mean it's right. I can AAA EHHS right now and say it was in the name of [x] religion and use a misquoted verse from its texts to justify my actions. Even if I truly believe myself that's what the texts mean and my actions will get me into heaven doesn't mean I am right.

Though my actions may by inspired by [x] religion doesn't mean it is [x] religion.
Though my remix of drake's "hotlinebling" is inspired by it, doesn't mean it is "hotlinebling".

Also yea, choof had like an epiphany mid thread.
I don't really hold it against you for missing it as there are alot of post to read, but being this engaged on the topic I gotta wonder why you chose to skip some posts, especially one made by the OP.
Oh well, misunderstandings happen.

[choof]

Originally Posted by Frank Munoz

It also doesn't say to kill gays.

well
technically you're right
but

"Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Lot, execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done."

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

Lot's people are the ones that wanted to fuck the shit out of the male angels that were sent to Lot
Lot was also the guy who said, "nah don't rape them fam rape my daughters instead lol"


I found this nifty website the other day and I've been poring over it
honestly makes me want to get a qu'ran so I can get a truly personal idea on it, but a lot of this shit is damning