orlando shooting

[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.

[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

[adlp]

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

[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?

[Frank Munoz]

Originally Posted by Kaj3

ISIS, a group with over 100,000 members, that has massacred thousands of people in the last year or so?

Originally Posted by Kaj3

while ISIS has a force of 300,000+ at most.

not doubting where you get your info but, what made this jump?

[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

[choof]

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

[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]

Originally Posted by Kaj3

@RojafI'm not overlooking that fact; it just doesn't clearly demonstrate what we're talking about here, which is religiously motivated violence, particularly terrorism.

except that it is religiously motivated violence, just not terrorism.

are you arguing that the contempt for homosexuality burned into people by religion doesnt count because the religion isn't blatantly telling people to go out and kill gay people?

Plus, I am not quick to jump to the conclusion that it's correlated to Christianity based on the limited data you've provided. The data doesn't delve into the demographics of murderers, which a fair percentage could even be Muslim(even if they're the extreme minority in the country)

call me cynical, but if the killers were muslim we would have heard about it.

I say this because despite making up only 1 percent of the population in the US, a Muslim has already committed enough murders to be 35% percent of the amount of murders against LGBT people in the US(141) in the last 8 years.

and ISIS is killing every gay person they can find. Islamic terror is responsible for a lot of LGBT death around the world. but so is christianity. my point is not that christians commit more terrorism, but that christianity is also deadly. that any kind of radical religious belief is deadly.

islamic terror is more openly hostile, but christianity has bred the same kind of hate for LGBT people in south america and africa with quieter, but more lethal results.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if a fair amount of those deaths in South America against LGBT people is motivated by the Christian religion, but we just can't jump to that conclusion based on this data. We need more information. What the study you provided stated is that 99% of them were motivated by homophobia, which isn't necessarily religious.

what other motivations for homophobia are there, and what proportion of homophobia do you think they account for compared to religion? i'm willing to grant that any islam in south america is also contributing to hate and hate crimes, but i am not willing to believe that it is out of proportion.

Once again, pointing to a region with a lot of violence, particularly against LGBT people, that happens to be predominantly Christian, doesn't necessarily mean that Christians are carrying out this violence in the name of their religion. The same would apply to Muslims as well. This is why I only use terrorist statistics in the discussion because it's clearly religiously motivated. I am pretty sure Muslims engage in violence that isn't necessarily related to their religiosity as well.

maybe not in name of, but because of, which is good enough for me. if you insist on drawing the line at "in name of" then christianity is definitely much, much tamer than islam. christianity just tries to restrict rights, and only tries to punish in third world and developing countries.

but that's not really important. christianity is not as openly harmful as islam, but it is just as harmful, going by numbers of LGBT deaths it is possibly more harmful.

No, the context of this discussion was Islamic terrorism and you decided to obfuscate the issue by attempting to equate "radical" Islam with "radical" Christianity.

radical relgion is not unique to islam. and i was just replying to someone else saying that radical islam is far more of a threat than anything else, and i wanted to make it clear that that statement depends heavily on who you are and where you live. because it's not true everywhere.

Once again, I must reiterate that using the term "radical" to describe a religion or religionist is fucking stupid.

nope. you're wrong.

No, the data you provided isn't necessarily related to religiously motivated violence, particularly Islam and Christianity. What you've provided is data pointing to a disproportionate amount of murders against LGBT people being in the South American region, which is predominantly Christian, but as I demonstrated, this isn't necessarily religiously motivated violence.

you're right, it could be motivated by..... i cant come up with anything else. if you can please feel free to enlighten me.

The terrorist statistics clearly point to religiously motivated violence to which Muslims are predominantly the perpetrators.

yep. when it comes to terrorism right now islamic terror and specifically isis take the cake.

I guess you didn't bother to read this:


Look at the data yourself:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...80%93June_2016
It's not that complicated. I don't know why you're denying the obvious.

actually it really is complicated. a lot of the statistics you include are in iraq, afghanistan and syria.

I was making a point about proportionality as I stated in the first sentence of that paragraph. And you're right; you really can't compare the two. One is clearly religiously motivated violence, while the other isn't.

if not religion then what? what other entities preaching that homosexuality is an abomination are there?

I wouldn't doubt that it has something to do with Christianity, but I wouldn't discount Latin American cultural elements as well, which tend to be homophobic.

where do those latin american cultural elements come from? perhaps christianity? if it's something else please tell me.

I actually have some first-hand experience with this, since part of my family is from South America. Ultimately, according to the study you posted, 99% of these murders are motivated by homophobia, which is rather unsatisfactory.

again, where does homophobia come from? perhaps people preaching that it is an abomination?

[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.

[choof]

Originally Posted by Kaj3

And your other comments about the problem being radicalism and not Islam. That was sarcasm as well? I am curious.

they were misinformed opinions
did you see the post i made about a paradigm shift

[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

[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.

[Dynam0]

Violence in the name of Islam has always been around in the east. Of course US intervention has spread this to the west you'd be brain-dead not to make this connection lmao

[adlp]

Originally Posted by Dynam0

Violence in the name of Islam has always been around in the east. Of course US intervention has spread this to the west you'd be brain-dead not to make this connection lmao

islam spreads by violence on its own

[DaBackpack]

With all of this information, what's the prescription for the future?

[top]

Were all gonna die one day

[Frank Munoz]

Originally Posted by choof

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

yea me too man.
though there are a few online translations in English we can read through,
(i mentioned this in a previous post)
i would also suggest reading multiple translations, and iterations as well.
being that they were all translated by different people, with different interpretations of what the true arabic texts mean it's difficult to trust their judgment

who can we really trust but ourselves
essentially

i don't think i'll be learning Arabic anytime soon though,
but getting some understanding, rather than a true one, is better than nothing i guess.