CDZ The Orlando Mass Shooting and what can we learn from it?

[2aguy]

I wrote he should have been flagged within the system meaning the FBI and ATF could have been notified when he bought the weapons so they could monitor him.

I am not writing he should have been denied the right to purchase.

I'm sure they were notified. Notice how quickly he was identified by the FBI, and his name was spread across the news. Unfortunately it wasn't enough to prevent this tragedy.

If they were notified they failed in my eyes.

The time between the purchase and attacks was enough time to investigate in my opinion and this might have been stopped.

Two problems though...being notified isn't enough, something has to be uncovered to support some sort of link and warrent extra survielence etc. I also don't think there are any procedures in place to flag legal gun purchases and if there were, it would be seen as infringing on the rights of gun owners.

We already have federally mandated background checks...as the FBI guy pointed out on the news...if you are a felon, an illegal immigrant or adjudicated mentally ill, you are flagged and can't buy a gun......

Mass shooter are normal until they commit the act and pass all of the gun control laws that we have or that the anti gunners want.....new laws won't stop mass shooters..they obey all the gun laws you pass.....or they steal their guns....

That's a huge loophole. For example - there was little doubt the Sandy Hook shooter and the Aurora Theatre shooter, and the one who shot Gabby Giffords were severely mentally ill.

Not a loophole.....only a tiny minority of mentally ill people are violent and dangerous......what we need to do is encourage mental health professionals to i.d. the dangerous ones and find a process for doing so that doesn't scoop up someone who saw the school social worker when they were in High School.

That is always the problem...the anti gunners will use any excuse to limit access to guns to normal gun owners....and mental health information in background checks is a dream come true...they are already using it against military veterans and the elderly.........

with 357,000,000 guns in private hands.....there are 8,124 gun murders....can you understand the actual difference between those two numbers.

Add to that the fact that 90% of gun murderers have long histories of violence and at least one felony conviction...and the 10% who don't have the felony conviction...probably deserved to have one....the abortion clinic shooter was accused of rape but the woman was too afraid to testify...

of the victims of gun murder, 70-80% of the victims are also career criminals with felony convictions and many of the remaining 1,642 innocent victims..were associating with criminals or had criminals in their families who got them killed in the crossfire...

So normal Americans are not victims of violent gun murder at the rate the media and gun grabbers want you to think.....

How do we stop the few mass shooters that we have.....complicated process in our society...mental health is the next step but how do you implement it without affecting more innocent people? Mass shooters who plan these things....the nuts.....plan them 6 years to 2 years in advance......so they will get guns if they want them...and even resort to murder to get them.....

The best way to address mass shooters....end gun free zones.

Notes and confessions of mass shooters show they actually do target gun free zones...I have posted the list of the nuts who left notes or videos or confessed.....

The other places they attack are gun free zones created by law, which is most public buildings, so they don't even have to make a choice...

To stop mass shooters....end gun free zones....

To stop criminals with guns....do it the way Japan does....30 years in prison for committing a crime with a gun. If you are a convicted violent felon caught in possession of a gun....30 years in Prison....it stopped Yakuza in Japan from shooting each other...

 

[2aguy]

There is a lot of grief, anger, hate, and sorrow at what happened - but like with other similar events, can this sort of thing be prevented - are there solutions or are we stuck on blame? This horrific attack raises questions around terrorism, religion, homophobia, gun violence and mental health and I think they all need to be examined.

Homophobia:

Hatred of homosexuals. This is something Islam has in common with it's relatives, Christianity and Judaism. Arguments are made that Christianity doesn't believe in killing gays and largely - because many Christians live in law abiding SECULAR societies, where human rights are enshrined - they don't. Islam as a religion has a ways to go in certain parts of the world, when it comes to human rights. But this killer was AMERICAN. Born and raised in the US. His parents were immigrants, but was he was not. Was his motivation any different than that of Eric Rudolph who was conficted of a series of anti-abortion and anti-gay bombings which killed two people and injured over 120 others. Why is it, that this event produces a "uniting" of outrage and anger, even from those who hate gays while Eric Rudolph's actions did not. Why did it take this event, for the anti-gay factions to suddenly decide that killing gays is horrific and requires a response greater than a namby pamby denunciation that was given for Rudolph? Both killers were American citizens who hated gays and chose to act on it violently. It's great to see the public uniting behind this, but why did it take this one event when violence against gays, even murder is nothing new here.


Lone Wolf Attacks and the Problem with Prediction:

According to the FBI, lone wolf attacks are almost impossible to predict and prevent. Indications so far seem to be that this fellow is a lone wolf with no known ties to terrorist groups (alghough he pledged to ISIS right before the shooting, his actions were on his own). I think it's a good idea to look at this event in context of other lone wolf mass shootings.

The 12 deadliest Mass Shootings: A List Of The Deadliest Mass Shootings In U.S. History - by number killed.

1. Pulse Orlando nightclub in Orlando, Fla. (June 12, 2016)

2. Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Va. (April 16, 2007)

3. Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. (Dec. 14, 2012)

4. Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas (Oct. 16, 1991)

6. University of Texas Tower in Austin, Texas (Aug. 1, 1966)

7. Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo. (April 20, 1999)

8. Edmond Post Office in Edmond, Okla. (Aug. 20, 1986)

9. Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, Calif. (Dec. 2, 2015)

10. American Civic Association, Binghamton, N.Y. (April 3, 2009)

11. Fort Hood in Texas (Nov. 5, 2009)

12. Washington Navy Yard in Washington, D.C. (Sept. 16, 2013)

All of these have one thing in common - they are "lone wolf" attacks, 3 of them were by Muslims who were American citizens (with the exception of one) the rest by non-Muslim American citizens.

Mental Illness:

Clearly some of these attacks were the product of mental illness (Sandy Hook, VA Tech, for example); others seem to have been influenced somewhat by possible mental illness. Mateen's wife, and at least one co-worker expressed concerns in that regard and called him unstable, violent, etc. There are close ties between mental illness and religiousity. Religion can, in unstable people, give them a rationale for violence. Yet, there is no evidence for mental illness (that I've found) for the San Diego shooters, it appears they were radicalized, and acted on it.

Questions - if Mateen hadn't been radicialized by Islam, would he have found some other reason to commit these murders?

Gun Culture and Gun Control
The two elephants in the room: the left doesn't want to consider the issue of Islam, the right doesn't want to consider the issue of guns. Could increased gun control have prevented or limited the number of dead? Could decreased gun control have made a difference in the ability of people to respond.



It is difficult to find solutions because it's difficult to predict these events AND almost any solution will have an effect on our freedoms and rights.

• Increased gun control will have an effect on law abiding gun owners.
• Increased focus on mental health issues could have an effect on the rights and freedoms of mentally ill individuals who present no threat of violence.
• Increased focus on religion could have an effect on the religious freedom and rights of privacy.
• Increased surviellance of any sort, on innocent people would have wide ranging effects.
• Addressing homophobia - American's have experienced a huge change in attitudes towards homosexuals over the past decades, and that trend towards greater acceptance and tolerant is evident in all American religious communities, including Muslims. Despite that, there is still considerable friction surrounding addressing tolerance in schools and accusations of a "gay agenda". Can more be done in this area?

Secularism is what made this spinning rock a peaceful place to live for human beings.

The more a society shoots far from it, the worse it gets, and the more people around the world suffer the consequences.

So the main question here is; do we have the right to impose our beliefs on others, if their ways are damaging ours?

Would this be "democratic"?

This is where the big struggle is imo.

Because this guy who just recently shot 100s of people, was a lone wolf, that is correct, but didnt just woke up one day and decided to pledge to ISIS and act.

He was "marginalized" over time, by very obvious sources.

Yes, got to choose the battles you are fighting very carefully
But worst thing to do would be; not to fight em...

You mean the secularism of the nazis and communists...sociailism has murdered over 100 million people around the world...ini modern times...not in the Middle Ages......secularists with modern educations and univerisities and modern governments....murdered 100 million people......

Nazis were a full blown religious cult to begin with, and murdered human beings by burning them alive, in the millions.

We can clearly see how anti-secular, religious ideologies drive societies into insanity at the end.

Very good example... Very good indeed...

The nazis, national socialists, were atheists and pagans. The international socialists, the communists, were atheists......

 

[2aguy]

It is true that present firearm laws should be strictly enforced.
It is true that new proposals restricting firearms are mostly for show by a certain part of the political spectrum for a certain part.
It is true that such new restrictions will do nothing to change the present, and probably not the future, either.
It is true that most firearm owners are at least within bounds of responsibility and prudence.
It is true that the culture of violence and firearm use is alarming in the U.S.
Self regulation and moderation are needed to cool things down, both in rhetoric and action.
We need to be alert, not paranoid.
We need to discern, not judge.
We need solidarity.

If you want to address gun violence...you need to focus on single, teenage mother led homes. That is the key. They have generations of children being raised by children and the male children are never shown how to be adult men.

The majority of criminals come from broken homes.........

Until you deal with this aspect of the problem, you won't stop the violence.

 

[2aguy]

There is a lot of grief, anger, hate, and sorrow at what happened - but like with other similar events, can this sort of thing be prevented - are there solutions or are we stuck on blame?

Minimized and reduced, surely. "Prevented?" Only insofar as the minimization efforts prevent individual events, such as the one prevented last weekend in Los Angeles. And therein lies the dilemma. The ways and means used to identify, detect and interrupt a whole host of violent acts and perpetrators -- terrorist or "simple" -- need to be kept secret in order to be effective.

Of course, the would be perpetrators of those deeds do know they were thwarted, but they often don't know precisely how, except, of course, if their plans and planning methods allow only one or two possible means of detection. Thus, we, the innocent observers, don't generally become privy to the actual nature and extent of heinous crimes that our government has successfully interdicts; however, when it's obvious to both our security forces and their opponents just how and why we were successful, sure, either side can let everyone else know about the halted violence.

The dilemma above leaves folks outside the "need to know" circle of professionals with an additional quandary of our own: can we content ourselves with the presumption that our government is doing the best it can and that as non-experts or "insiders" with access to "secret" information on matters of crime, terrorism, violent offender psychology, etc., we should rely on our government's attestation that it's doing the best it can to combat violence like the "Pulse" massacre? Sure we can with hindsight criticize and talk about what should have been done, but so can the folks who are charged with doing the best they can to prevent "whatever" from happening. In my experience, prior to an event's occurrence rarely has there been any plausible and practical basis for having done (or not) "what should (should not) have been done."

Terrorism, even though we don't have a precise meaning for that term, aims to refute the primary objective of state security agencies and employees. The fact of the matter in my mind is that it's preposterous to expect our security organs and personnel pragmatically speaking do more than provide and ensure a general climate of security and safety. Terrorist acts and terrorists aim to erode the polity's sense that it is, in general, safe. The reality, however, is that, in general, in the U.S. we are all quite safe, even though there may not be a specific and absolute level of safety one whereby it's assured that, say, when we go to the mall, that mall won't be a target of terrorist violence.

The U.S. has literally millions of soft targets, some are heavily peopled, like malls, bars and nightclubs, and so on, others are not, but are critical to our infrastructure and to our way of life.

​

Ask yourself this: do you prefer terrorists hit a bar somewhere and kill 100 people or take out the sources of electricity for thousands of people for months at a time? And good luck catching the bomber who destroys major elements of our electricity transmission infrastructure.

It's great to see the public uniting behind this, but why did it take this one event when violence against gays, even murder is nothing new here?

Hard to say. The cynic in me thinks it's a matter of the context of the "Pulse" event being one that inspires a choice between gay issues and terrorism issues. Certainly from my own POV, gay folks, in and of their being gay, pose no threat to me at all and on no level at all. In contrast, angry and would be violent individuals, gay or not, most certainly can and do, and they can and do at the most critical levels of all, that of my quality of life as well as my life itself.

Lone Wolf Attacks and the Problem with Prediction:

Questions - if Mateen hadn't been radicalized by Islam, would he have found some other reason to commit these murders?

You may find some of the answers to those questions here:

• Report: Lone Wolf Terrorism
• A Typology of Lone Wolves: Preliminary Analysis of Lone Islamist Terrorists
  
• Preventing Lone Wolf Terrorism: some CT Approaches Addressed
  
• Lone Wolf Terrorism: Understanding the Growing Threat (Summary review of the book here.)
  
• Trends and Developments in Lone Wolf Terrorism in the Western World An Analysis of Terrorist Attacks and Attempted Attacks by Islamic Extremists -- This is a scholarly literature review that offers the key "soundbite" points from relevant documents.

Additional information may be obtained from the documents noted here: Lone Wolf Terrorism – A Brief Bibliography.

Increased gun control will have an effect on law abiding gun owners.

As goes gun control, I happen to be among the crowd that thinks that nationally established/enforced dramatic curtailments in the availability of guns and ammunition will reduce the incidence of gun-related acts of violence and death. IMO, Mateen was highly unlikely to have been able to kill some 50 folks using a bow and arrow, throwing knives, a baseball bat, etc.

Among the major lines of argument gun rights advocates offer is that guns contribute to one's greater personal safety, presumably by either increasing the risk a violent offender faces to carry out their deed(s) and by enabling non law enforcement/non security personnel to intervene in situations like "Pulse" and the other mass killing events you noted in the OP. Well, if that's so, why in OK, VA, TX, and CO, each a "gun friendly" state, did no lay gun owner intervene to effect an end to the violence before the cops did?

Hell, three of the mass shootings were in TX, one in Killeen, TX, a place that has no paucity of gun shops, indeed two are custom gun making shops, and an army base, Ft. Hood. That in a town of ~135K people, of whom nearly 60K are Ft. Hood employees, which is to say, if the Army isn't the reason one is there, demographically, there is a very high likelihood that one is "rural" in one's outlook, and, IMO, "rural" folks love, own, and carry guns. Where were all those gun toting Texans when Lubby's was "shot up?"

I may be mistaken, but to date, I'm not aware of so much as one incident where gun carrying civilians have acted to stop a terrorist. So, what is the point of having all these armed citizens when they are clearly ineffective in helping to prevent a damn thing or in dissuading terrorists from attempting to carry out deeds like "Lubby's" and "Pulse?"

And then you would have to explain Britain.....they banned and confiscated all of their guns...they have zero, AR-15s and Fully automatic weapons.....and their gun crime rate stayed the same after the confiscation....

France...has every single thing you mentioned...you cannot buy or own an AR-15 rifle or a fully automatic rifle of any kind, they are not sold in gun stores or gun shows since they don't have gun stores and gun shows....and those rifles are completely illegal......

and yet their criminals still get them...and terrorists on government terrorist watch lists get them easily......

Where were all those gun toting Texans when Lubby's was "shot up?"

Suzanah Gratia Hupp was in the Cafe......with her parents....her gun was in her car because the gun laws said you couldn't bring a gun into a restaraunt that sold alcohol.....she was unarmed because of gun control gun free zone laws.......and she stated she had a clear shot at the killer at the time of the attack.....

that is where all the gun toting Texans were....they were disarmed in the 1990s...that is why she ran for office and changed the law that killed her parents....

 

[320 Years of History]

Maybe it is time to strike ISIS where it lives, in the Middle East. If the American people are willing to give their blood.

One question:

Are you willing to commit your son, daughter or grandchildren to fight ISIL on their own soil?

How can anyone with half a working brain, and I certainly think OldLady has that much and more, not be willing to do so? Someone on here asked me precisely the question you asked OldLady, and the answer I gave is, of course, "yes." Just as proposing solutions such as "taking the fight to them" is not the sort of thing thinking individuals lightly posit, neither should be the answer -- yes or no -- to the question you asked.

The fact of the matter is that nobody wakes in the morning thinking, "I sure hope I get to send my kids off to fight ISIS/ISIL on their own turf." What we all know, however, is that if circumstances warrant, that's what we must do. You'll surely have noticed that all of the men of the English royal family served in the nation's military. In America, military service is a long standing practice among many of the nation's elite families -- Eisenhower, Patton, MacArthur, Kennedy, etc. Thus no matter one's station, the decision to pursue the line of action OldLady suggests is still not one to be taken lightly.

 

[2aguy]

There is a lot of grief, anger, hate, and sorrow at what happened - but like with other similar events, can this sort of thing be prevented - are there solutions or are we stuck on blame?

Minimized and reduced, surely. "Prevented?" Only insofar as the minimization efforts prevent individual events, such as the one prevented last weekend in Los Angeles. And therein lies the dilemma. The ways and means used to identify, detect and interrupt a whole host of violent acts and perpetrators -- terrorist or "simple" -- need to be kept secret in order to be effective.

Of course, the would be perpetrators of those deeds do know they were thwarted, but they often don't know precisely how, except, of course, if their plans and planning methods allow only one or two possible means of detection. Thus, we, the innocent observers, don't generally become privy to the actual nature and extent of heinous crimes that our government has successfully interdicts; however, when it's obvious to both our security forces and their opponents just how and why we were successful, sure, either side can let everyone else know about the halted violence.

The dilemma above leaves folks outside the "need to know" circle of professionals with an additional quandary of our own: can we content ourselves with the presumption that our government is doing the best it can and that as non-experts or "insiders" with access to "secret" information on matters of crime, terrorism, violent offender psychology, etc., we should rely on our government's attestation that it's doing the best it can to combat violence like the "Pulse" massacre? Sure we can with hindsight criticize and talk about what should have been done, but so can the folks who are charged with doing the best they can to prevent "whatever" from happening. In my experience, prior to an event's occurrence rarely has there been any plausible and practical basis for having done (or not) "what should (should not) have been done."

Terrorism, even though we don't have a precise meaning for that term, aims to refute the primary objective of state security agencies and employees. The fact of the matter in my mind is that it's preposterous to expect our security organs and personnel pragmatically speaking do more than provide and ensure a general climate of security and safety. Terrorist acts and terrorists aim to erode the polity's sense that it is, in general, safe. The reality, however, is that, in general, in the U.S. we are all quite safe, even though there may not be a specific and absolute level of safety one whereby it's assured that, say, when we go to the mall, that mall won't be a target of terrorist violence.

The U.S. has literally millions of soft targets, some are heavily peopled, like malls, bars and nightclubs, and so on, others are not, but are critical to our infrastructure and to our way of life.

​

Ask yourself this: do you prefer terrorists hit a bar somewhere and kill 100 people or take out the sources of electricity for thousands of people for months at a time? And good luck catching the bomber who destroys major elements of our electricity transmission infrastructure.

It's great to see the public uniting behind this, but why did it take this one event when violence against gays, even murder is nothing new here?

Hard to say. The cynic in me thinks it's a matter of the context of the "Pulse" event being one that inspires a choice between gay issues and terrorism issues. Certainly from my own POV, gay folks, in and of their being gay, pose no threat to me at all and on no level at all. In contrast, angry and would be violent individuals, gay or not, most certainly can and do, and they can and do at the most critical levels of all, that of my quality of life as well as my life itself.

Lone Wolf Attacks and the Problem with Prediction:

Questions - if Mateen hadn't been radicalized by Islam, would he have found some other reason to commit these murders?

You may find some of the answers to those questions here:

• Report: Lone Wolf Terrorism
• A Typology of Lone Wolves: Preliminary Analysis of Lone Islamist Terrorists
  
• Preventing Lone Wolf Terrorism: some CT Approaches Addressed
  
• Lone Wolf Terrorism: Understanding the Growing Threat (Summary review of the book here.)
  
• Trends and Developments in Lone Wolf Terrorism in the Western World An Analysis of Terrorist Attacks and Attempted Attacks by Islamic Extremists -- This is a scholarly literature review that offers the key "soundbite" points from relevant documents.

Additional information may be obtained from the documents noted here: Lone Wolf Terrorism – A Brief Bibliography.

Increased gun control will have an effect on law abiding gun owners.

As goes gun control, I happen to be among the crowd that thinks that nationally established/enforced dramatic curtailments in the availability of guns and ammunition will reduce the incidence of gun-related acts of violence and death. IMO, Mateen was highly unlikely to have been able to kill some 50 folks using a bow and arrow, throwing knives, a baseball bat, etc.

Among the major lines of argument gun rights advocates offer is that guns contribute to one's greater personal safety, presumably by either increasing the risk a violent offender faces to carry out their deed(s) and by enabling non law enforcement/non security personnel to intervene in situations like "Pulse" and the other mass killing events you noted in the OP. Well, if that's so, why in OK, VA, TX, and CO, each a "gun friendly" state, did no lay gun owner intervene to effect an end to the violence before the cops did?

Hell, three of the mass shootings were in TX, one in Killeen, TX, a place that has no paucity of gun shops, indeed two are custom gun making shops, and an army base, Ft. Hood. That in a town of ~135K people, of whom nearly 60K are Ft. Hood employees, which is to say, if the Army isn't the reason one is there, demographically, there is a very high likelihood that one is "rural" in one's outlook, and, IMO, "rural" folks love, own, and carry guns. Where were all those gun toting Texans when Lubby's was "shot up?"

I may be mistaken, but to date, I'm not aware of so much as one incident where gun carrying civilians have acted to stop a terrorist. So, what is the point of having all these armed citizens when they are clearly ineffective in helping to prevent a damn thing or in dissuading terrorists from attempting to carry out deeds like "Lubby's" and "Pulse?"

Well, if that's so, why in OK, VA, TX, and CO, each a "gun friendly" state, did no lay gun owner intervene to effect an end to the violence before the cops did?

You have to name the shooting and the building where they happened.......because the majority of shootings are targeted to gun free zones......intentionally by the shooter......

Even in the Giffords shooting..there were two CCW people there, and the one was ready to shoot the attacker just before he was tackled by a man the shooter thought was dead....so he didn't need to shoot...

I have posted mass shootings where armed people were present and stopped the shooting....a Pastor, an Uber Driver and a Doctor for 3 quick examples...then you have 3 church shootings stopped by armed people....and the Klackamas mall shooting and Pearl Mississipi and the Smokey Mountain law school shooting.....

So when you allow normal, law abiding people to carry guns...you keep mass shooters from targeting those places, and you allow people to stop the shooting when it starts...before there are 50 dead...

 

[2aguy]

There is a lot of grief, anger, hate, and sorrow at what happened - but like with other similar events, can this sort of thing be prevented - are there solutions or are we stuck on blame?

Minimized and reduced, surely. "Prevented?" Only insofar as the minimization efforts prevent individual events, such as the one prevented last weekend in Los Angeles. And therein lies the dilemma. The ways and means used to identify, detect and interrupt a whole host of violent acts and perpetrators -- terrorist or "simple" -- need to be kept secret in order to be effective.

Of course, the would be perpetrators of those deeds do know they were thwarted, but they often don't know precisely how, except, of course, if their plans and planning methods allow only one or two possible means of detection. Thus, we, the innocent observers, don't generally become privy to the actual nature and extent of heinous crimes that our government has successfully interdicts; however, when it's obvious to both our security forces and their opponents just how and why we were successful, sure, either side can let everyone else know about the halted violence.

The dilemma above leaves folks outside the "need to know" circle of professionals with an additional quandary of our own: can we content ourselves with the presumption that our government is doing the best it can and that as non-experts or "insiders" with access to "secret" information on matters of crime, terrorism, violent offender psychology, etc., we should rely on our government's attestation that it's doing the best it can to combat violence like the "Pulse" massacre? Sure we can with hindsight criticize and talk about what should have been done, but so can the folks who are charged with doing the best they can to prevent "whatever" from happening. In my experience, prior to an event's occurrence rarely has there been any plausible and practical basis for having done (or not) "what should (should not) have been done."

Terrorism, even though we don't have a precise meaning for that term, aims to refute the primary objective of state security agencies and employees. The fact of the matter in my mind is that it's preposterous to expect our security organs and personnel pragmatically speaking do more than provide and ensure a general climate of security and safety. Terrorist acts and terrorists aim to erode the polity's sense that it is, in general, safe. The reality, however, is that, in general, in the U.S. we are all quite safe, even though there may not be a specific and absolute level of safety one whereby it's assured that, say, when we go to the mall, that mall won't be a target of terrorist violence.

The U.S. has literally millions of soft targets, some are heavily peopled, like malls, bars and nightclubs, and so on, others are not, but are critical to our infrastructure and to our way of life.

​

Ask yourself this: do you prefer terrorists hit a bar somewhere and kill 100 people or take out the sources of electricity for thousands of people for months at a time? And good luck catching the bomber who destroys major elements of our electricity transmission infrastructure.

It's great to see the public uniting behind this, but why did it take this one event when violence against gays, even murder is nothing new here?

Hard to say. The cynic in me thinks it's a matter of the context of the "Pulse" event being one that inspires a choice between gay issues and terrorism issues. Certainly from my own POV, gay folks, in and of their being gay, pose no threat to me at all and on no level at all. In contrast, angry and would be violent individuals, gay or not, most certainly can and do, and they can and do at the most critical levels of all, that of my quality of life as well as my life itself.

Lone Wolf Attacks and the Problem with Prediction:

Questions - if Mateen hadn't been radicalized by Islam, would he have found some other reason to commit these murders?

You may find some of the answers to those questions here:

• Report: Lone Wolf Terrorism
• A Typology of Lone Wolves: Preliminary Analysis of Lone Islamist Terrorists
  
• Preventing Lone Wolf Terrorism: some CT Approaches Addressed
  
• Lone Wolf Terrorism: Understanding the Growing Threat (Summary review of the book here.)
  
• Trends and Developments in Lone Wolf Terrorism in the Western World An Analysis of Terrorist Attacks and Attempted Attacks by Islamic Extremists -- This is a scholarly literature review that offers the key "soundbite" points from relevant documents.

Additional information may be obtained from the documents noted here: Lone Wolf Terrorism – A Brief Bibliography.

Increased gun control will have an effect on law abiding gun owners.

As goes gun control, I happen to be among the crowd that thinks that nationally established/enforced dramatic curtailments in the availability of guns and ammunition will reduce the incidence of gun-related acts of violence and death. IMO, Mateen was highly unlikely to have been able to kill some 50 folks using a bow and arrow, throwing knives, a baseball bat, etc.

Among the major lines of argument gun rights advocates offer is that guns contribute to one's greater personal safety, presumably by either increasing the risk a violent offender faces to carry out their deed(s) and by enabling non law enforcement/non security personnel to intervene in situations like "Pulse" and the other mass killing events you noted in the OP. Well, if that's so, why in OK, VA, TX, and CO, each a "gun friendly" state, did no lay gun owner intervene to effect an end to the violence before the cops did?

Hell, three of the mass shootings were in TX, one in Killeen, TX, a place that has no paucity of gun shops, indeed two are custom gun making shops, and an army base, Ft. Hood. That in a town of ~135K people, of whom nearly 60K are Ft. Hood employees, which is to say, if the Army isn't the reason one is there, demographically, there is a very high likelihood that one is "rural" in one's outlook, and, IMO, "rural" folks love, own, and carry guns. Where were all those gun toting Texans when Lubby's was "shot up?"

I may be mistaken, but to date, I'm not aware of so much as one incident where gun carrying civilians have acted to stop a terrorist. So, what is the point of having all these armed citizens when they are clearly ineffective in helping to prevent a damn thing or in dissuading terrorists from attempting to carry out deeds like "Lubby's" and "Pulse?"

I may be mistaken, but to date, I'm not aware of so much as one incident where gun carrying civilians have acted to stop a terrorist. So, what is the point of having all these armed citizens when they are clearly ineffective in helping to prevent a damn thing or in dissuading terrorists from attempting to carry out deeds like "Lubby's" and "Pulse?"

Terrorists target gun free zones....they just caught a muslim terrorist who was going to shoot up a mega church...he stated he knew they don't allow guns there...I have the quote...

Also...did you know that in San Bernadino...there was a man with a concealed carry gun permit in the room when the shooters came in......he had to leave his gun at home because it was a public building..and a gun free zone.....

You don't see more civilians stopping mass shooters because anti gun activists have made almost every public building a gun free zone..where normal, law abiding people cannot carry guns.....so is it any wonder you don't see more people using guns for self defense in these situations...they don't have their guns because the law made them keep them at home....

 

[2aguy]

There is a lot of grief, anger, hate, and sorrow at what happened - but like with other similar events, can this sort of thing be prevented - are there solutions or are we stuck on blame?

Minimized and reduced, surely. "Prevented?" Only insofar as the minimization efforts prevent individual events, such as the one prevented last weekend in Los Angeles. And therein lies the dilemma. The ways and means used to identify, detect and interrupt a whole host of violent acts and perpetrators -- terrorist or "simple" -- need to be kept secret in order to be effective.

Of course, the would be perpetrators of those deeds do know they were thwarted, but they often don't know precisely how, except, of course, if their plans and planning methods allow only one or two possible means of detection. Thus, we, the innocent observers, don't generally become privy to the actual nature and extent of heinous crimes that our government has successfully interdicts; however, when it's obvious to both our security forces and their opponents just how and why we were successful, sure, either side can let everyone else know about the halted violence.

The dilemma above leaves folks outside the "need to know" circle of professionals with an additional quandary of our own: can we content ourselves with the presumption that our government is doing the best it can and that as non-experts or "insiders" with access to "secret" information on matters of crime, terrorism, violent offender psychology, etc., we should rely on our government's attestation that it's doing the best it can to combat violence like the "Pulse" massacre? Sure we can with hindsight criticize and talk about what should have been done, but so can the folks who are charged with doing the best they can to prevent "whatever" from happening. In my experience, prior to an event's occurrence rarely has there been any plausible and practical basis for having done (or not) "what should (should not) have been done."

Terrorism, even though we don't have a precise meaning for that term, aims to refute the primary objective of state security agencies and employees. The fact of the matter in my mind is that it's preposterous to expect our security organs and personnel pragmatically speaking do more than provide and ensure a general climate of security and safety. Terrorist acts and terrorists aim to erode the polity's sense that it is, in general, safe. The reality, however, is that, in general, in the U.S. we are all quite safe, even though there may not be a specific and absolute level of safety one whereby it's assured that, say, when we go to the mall, that mall won't be a target of terrorist violence.

The U.S. has literally millions of soft targets, some are heavily peopled, like malls, bars and nightclubs, and so on, others are not, but are critical to our infrastructure and to our way of life.

​

Ask yourself this: do you prefer terrorists hit a bar somewhere and kill 100 people or take out the sources of electricity for thousands of people for months at a time? And good luck catching the bomber who destroys major elements of our electricity transmission infrastructure.

It's great to see the public uniting behind this, but why did it take this one event when violence against gays, even murder is nothing new here?

Hard to say. The cynic in me thinks it's a matter of the context of the "Pulse" event being one that inspires a choice between gay issues and terrorism issues. Certainly from my own POV, gay folks, in and of their being gay, pose no threat to me at all and on no level at all. In contrast, angry and would be violent individuals, gay or not, most certainly can and do, and they can and do at the most critical levels of all, that of my quality of life as well as my life itself.

Lone Wolf Attacks and the Problem with Prediction:

Questions - if Mateen hadn't been radicalized by Islam, would he have found some other reason to commit these murders?

You may find some of the answers to those questions here:

• Report: Lone Wolf Terrorism
• A Typology of Lone Wolves: Preliminary Analysis of Lone Islamist Terrorists
  
• Preventing Lone Wolf Terrorism: some CT Approaches Addressed
  
• Lone Wolf Terrorism: Understanding the Growing Threat (Summary review of the book here.)
  
• Trends and Developments in Lone Wolf Terrorism in the Western World An Analysis of Terrorist Attacks and Attempted Attacks by Islamic Extremists -- This is a scholarly literature review that offers the key "soundbite" points from relevant documents.

Additional information may be obtained from the documents noted here: Lone Wolf Terrorism – A Brief Bibliography.

Increased gun control will have an effect on law abiding gun owners.

As goes gun control, I happen to be among the crowd that thinks that nationally established/enforced dramatic curtailments in the availability of guns and ammunition will reduce the incidence of gun-related acts of violence and death. IMO, Mateen was highly unlikely to have been able to kill some 50 folks using a bow and arrow, throwing knives, a baseball bat, etc.

Among the major lines of argument gun rights advocates offer is that guns contribute to one's greater personal safety, presumably by either increasing the risk a violent offender faces to carry out their deed(s) and by enabling non law enforcement/non security personnel to intervene in situations like "Pulse" and the other mass killing events you noted in the OP. Well, if that's so, why in OK, VA, TX, and CO, each a "gun friendly" state, did no lay gun owner intervene to effect an end to the violence before the cops did?

Hell, three of the mass shootings were in TX, one in Killeen, TX, a place that has no paucity of gun shops, indeed two are custom gun making shops, and an army base, Ft. Hood. That in a town of ~135K people, of whom nearly 60K are Ft. Hood employees, which is to say, if the Army isn't the reason one is there, demographically, there is a very high likelihood that one is "rural" in one's outlook, and, IMO, "rural" folks love, own, and carry guns. Where were all those gun toting Texans when Lubby's was "shot up?"

I may be mistaken, but to date, I'm not aware of so much as one incident where gun carrying civilians have acted to stop a terrorist. So, what is the point of having all these armed citizens when they are clearly ineffective in helping to prevent a damn thing or in dissuading terrorists from attempting to carry out deeds like "Lubby's" and "Pulse?"

This is why.....

FBI: Dearborn Heights ISIS supporter planned to attack Detroit church

In conversation's between Abu-Rayyan and the undercover agent, Abu-Rayyan described his desire to commit a martyrdom operation.

The complaint filed in federal court doesn’t specify which Detroit church he was allegedly planning to attack, only that it was close and could seat 6,000 members.

The complaint quotes Abu-Rayyan saying:

“It's easy, and a lot of people go there. Plus people are not allowed to carry guns in church. Plus it would make the news. Everybody would've heard. Honestly I regret not doing it. If I can't do jihad in the Middle East, I would do my jihad over here."

He had also told the undercover agent that a church would be an easy target because people are not allowed to carry guns there and that it would make the news.

 

[2aguy]

There is a lot of grief, anger, hate, and sorrow at what happened - but like with other similar events, can this sort of thing be prevented - are there solutions or are we stuck on blame?

Minimized and reduced, surely. "Prevented?" Only insofar as the minimization efforts prevent individual events, such as the one prevented last weekend in Los Angeles. And therein lies the dilemma. The ways and means used to identify, detect and interrupt a whole host of violent acts and perpetrators -- terrorist or "simple" -- need to be kept secret in order to be effective.

Of course, the would be perpetrators of those deeds do know they were thwarted, but they often don't know precisely how, except, of course, if their plans and planning methods allow only one or two possible means of detection. Thus, we, the innocent observers, don't generally become privy to the actual nature and extent of heinous crimes that our government has successfully interdicts; however, when it's obvious to both our security forces and their opponents just how and why we were successful, sure, either side can let everyone else know about the halted violence.

The dilemma above leaves folks outside the "need to know" circle of professionals with an additional quandary of our own: can we content ourselves with the presumption that our government is doing the best it can and that as non-experts or "insiders" with access to "secret" information on matters of crime, terrorism, violent offender psychology, etc., we should rely on our government's attestation that it's doing the best it can to combat violence like the "Pulse" massacre? Sure we can with hindsight criticize and talk about what should have been done, but so can the folks who are charged with doing the best they can to prevent "whatever" from happening. In my experience, prior to an event's occurrence rarely has there been any plausible and practical basis for having done (or not) "what should (should not) have been done."

Terrorism, even though we don't have a precise meaning for that term, aims to refute the primary objective of state security agencies and employees. The fact of the matter in my mind is that it's preposterous to expect our security organs and personnel pragmatically speaking do more than provide and ensure a general climate of security and safety. Terrorist acts and terrorists aim to erode the polity's sense that it is, in general, safe. The reality, however, is that, in general, in the U.S. we are all quite safe, even though there may not be a specific and absolute level of safety one whereby it's assured that, say, when we go to the mall, that mall won't be a target of terrorist violence.

The U.S. has literally millions of soft targets, some are heavily peopled, like malls, bars and nightclubs, and so on, others are not, but are critical to our infrastructure and to our way of life.

​

Ask yourself this: do you prefer terrorists hit a bar somewhere and kill 100 people or take out the sources of electricity for thousands of people for months at a time? And good luck catching the bomber who destroys major elements of our electricity transmission infrastructure.

It's great to see the public uniting behind this, but why did it take this one event when violence against gays, even murder is nothing new here?

Hard to say. The cynic in me thinks it's a matter of the context of the "Pulse" event being one that inspires a choice between gay issues and terrorism issues. Certainly from my own POV, gay folks, in and of their being gay, pose no threat to me at all and on no level at all. In contrast, angry and would be violent individuals, gay or not, most certainly can and do, and they can and do at the most critical levels of all, that of my quality of life as well as my life itself.

Lone Wolf Attacks and the Problem with Prediction:

Questions - if Mateen hadn't been radicalized by Islam, would he have found some other reason to commit these murders?

You may find some of the answers to those questions here:

• Report: Lone Wolf Terrorism
• A Typology of Lone Wolves: Preliminary Analysis of Lone Islamist Terrorists
  
• Preventing Lone Wolf Terrorism: some CT Approaches Addressed
  
• Lone Wolf Terrorism: Understanding the Growing Threat (Summary review of the book here.)
  
• Trends and Developments in Lone Wolf Terrorism in the Western World An Analysis of Terrorist Attacks and Attempted Attacks by Islamic Extremists -- This is a scholarly literature review that offers the key "soundbite" points from relevant documents.

Additional information may be obtained from the documents noted here: Lone Wolf Terrorism – A Brief Bibliography.

Increased gun control will have an effect on law abiding gun owners.

As goes gun control, I happen to be among the crowd that thinks that nationally established/enforced dramatic curtailments in the availability of guns and ammunition will reduce the incidence of gun-related acts of violence and death. IMO, Mateen was highly unlikely to have been able to kill some 50 folks using a bow and arrow, throwing knives, a baseball bat, etc.

Among the major lines of argument gun rights advocates offer is that guns contribute to one's greater personal safety, presumably by either increasing the risk a violent offender faces to carry out their deed(s) and by enabling non law enforcement/non security personnel to intervene in situations like "Pulse" and the other mass killing events you noted in the OP. Well, if that's so, why in OK, VA, TX, and CO, each a "gun friendly" state, did no lay gun owner intervene to effect an end to the violence before the cops did?

Hell, three of the mass shootings were in TX, one in Killeen, TX, a place that has no paucity of gun shops, indeed two are custom gun making shops, and an army base, Ft. Hood. That in a town of ~135K people, of whom nearly 60K are Ft. Hood employees, which is to say, if the Army isn't the reason one is there, demographically, there is a very high likelihood that one is "rural" in one's outlook, and, IMO, "rural" folks love, own, and carry guns. Where were all those gun toting Texans when Lubby's was "shot up?"

I may be mistaken, but to date, I'm not aware of so much as one incident where gun carrying civilians have acted to stop a terrorist. So, what is the point of having all these armed citizens when they are clearly ineffective in helping to prevent a damn thing or in dissuading terrorists from attempting to carry out deeds like "Lubby's" and "Pulse?"

Do you realize that the two shootings you mention by name.....Luby's cafe, and Pulse.....show that you are wrong....both places are gun free zones created by anti gun activists...so normal gun owners could not have guns to use to stop the mass shooters...

Do you realize that point...how you invalidated your own point?

 

[2aguy]

There is a lot of grief, anger, hate, and sorrow at what happened - but like with other similar events, can this sort of thing be prevented - are there solutions or are we stuck on blame? This horrific attack raises questions around terrorism, religion, homophobia, gun violence and mental health and I think they all need to be examined.

Homophobia:

Hatred of homosexuals. This is something Islam has in common with it's relatives, Christianity and Judaism. Arguments are made that Christianity doesn't believe in killing gays and largely - because many Christians live in law abiding SECULAR societies, where human rights are enshrined - they don't. Islam as a religion has a ways to go in certain parts of the world, when it comes to human rights. But this killer was AMERICAN. Born and raised in the US. His parents were immigrants, but was he was not. Was his motivation any different than that of Eric Rudolph who was conficted of a series of anti-abortion and anti-gay bombings which killed two people and injured over 120 others. Why is it, that this event produces a "uniting" of outrage and anger, even from those who hate gays while Eric Rudolph's actions did not. Why did it take this event, for the anti-gay factions to suddenly decide that killing gays is horrific and requires a response greater than a namby pamby denunciation that was given for Rudolph? Both killers were American citizens who hated gays and chose to act on it violently. It's great to see the public uniting behind this, but why did it take this one event when violence against gays, even murder is nothing new here.


Lone Wolf Attacks and the Problem with Prediction:

According to the FBI, lone wolf attacks are almost impossible to predict and prevent. Indications so far seem to be that this fellow is a lone wolf with no known ties to terrorist groups (alghough he pledged to ISIS right before the shooting, his actions were on his own). I think it's a good idea to look at this event in context of other lone wolf mass shootings.

The 12 deadliest Mass Shootings: A List Of The Deadliest Mass Shootings In U.S. History - by number killed.

1. Pulse Orlando nightclub in Orlando, Fla. (June 12, 2016)

2. Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Va. (April 16, 2007)

3. Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. (Dec. 14, 2012)

4. Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas (Oct. 16, 1991)

6. University of Texas Tower in Austin, Texas (Aug. 1, 1966)

7. Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo. (April 20, 1999)

8. Edmond Post Office in Edmond, Okla. (Aug. 20, 1986)

9. Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, Calif. (Dec. 2, 2015)

10. American Civic Association, Binghamton, N.Y. (April 3, 2009)

11. Fort Hood in Texas (Nov. 5, 2009)

12. Washington Navy Yard in Washington, D.C. (Sept. 16, 2013)

All of these have one thing in common - they are "lone wolf" attacks, 3 of them were by Muslims who were American citizens (with the exception of one) the rest by non-Muslim American citizens.

Mental Illness:

Clearly some of these attacks were the product of mental illness (Sandy Hook, VA Tech, for example); others seem to have been influenced somewhat by possible mental illness. Mateen's wife, and at least one co-worker expressed concerns in that regard and called him unstable, violent, etc. There are close ties between mental illness and religiousity. Religion can, in unstable people, give them a rationale for violence. Yet, there is no evidence for mental illness (that I've found) for the San Diego shooters, it appears they were radicalized, and acted on it.

Questions - if Mateen hadn't been radicialized by Islam, would he have found some other reason to commit these murders?

Gun Culture and Gun Control
The two elephants in the room: the left doesn't want to consider the issue of Islam, the right doesn't want to consider the issue of guns. Could increased gun control have prevented or limited the number of dead? Could decreased gun control have made a difference in the ability of people to respond.



It is difficult to find solutions because it's difficult to predict these events AND almost any solution will have an effect on our freedoms and rights.

• Increased gun control will have an effect on law abiding gun owners.
• Increased focus on mental health issues could have an effect on the rights and freedoms of mentally ill individuals who present no threat of violence.
• Increased focus on religion could have an effect on the religious freedom and rights of privacy.
• Increased surviellance of any sort, on innocent people would have wide ranging effects.
• Addressing homophobia - American's have experienced a huge change in attitudes towards homosexuals over the past decades, and that trend towards greater acceptance and tolerant is evident in all American religious communities, including Muslims. Despite that, there is still considerable friction surrounding addressing tolerance in schools and accusations of a "gay agenda". Can more be done in this area?

He ( The Orlando Shooter ) was investigated by the FBI at least three times and any purchase of firearms should have been flagged and investigated and could have prevented the deadly event that took place.

The individual was a lone wolf but was on the FBI radar so he was known about and the question for me is if the FBI and ATF did all they could do or did the fail the people of Orlando?

Everyone that does this type of mass murder suffer from some form of mental illness so that is established and there is no doubt the individual had mental issues because there is evidence of his anger issues in the past.

We can not prevent every terrorist attack nor should we believe we can but Orlando in my opinion could have been prevented. The signs were there and the guy was investigated at least three times and flagging him in the system to me is not preventing him from buying a firearm but what it would have done is let the ATF and the FBI know that a known person of interest has obtain the firearms and they could have monitored him and might have caught him before he committed his heinous act against the people of Orlando.

One last part and that is a terrorist or criminal does not care about the laws and will do everything they can to get around the law and obtain the weapon of choice.

So passing more laws will not help and the reality is terrorism is part of our lives now the question will be what will be the tipping point where this country goes on another Genocide mission to eliminate the threat?

Maybe it is time to strike ISIS where it lives, in the Middle East. If the American people are willing to give their blood.

One question:

Are you willing to commit your son, daughter or grandchildren to fight ISIL on their own soil?

We have a volunter army and you have to volunteer to be in a combat arm.....they make their own decision...and as you can see by our soldiers many of them understand and have volunteered even knowing they were going into combat.......

 

[alpine]

There is a lot of grief, anger, hate, and sorrow at what happened - but like with other similar events, can this sort of thing be prevented - are there solutions or are we stuck on blame? This horrific attack raises questions around terrorism, religion, homophobia, gun violence and mental health and I think they all need to be examined.

Homophobia:

Hatred of homosexuals. This is something Islam has in common with it's relatives, Christianity and Judaism. Arguments are made that Christianity doesn't believe in killing gays and largely - because many Christians live in law abiding SECULAR societies, where human rights are enshrined - they don't. Islam as a religion has a ways to go in certain parts of the world, when it comes to human rights. But this killer was AMERICAN. Born and raised in the US. His parents were immigrants, but was he was not. Was his motivation any different than that of Eric Rudolph who was conficted of a series of anti-abortion and anti-gay bombings which killed two people and injured over 120 others. Why is it, that this event produces a "uniting" of outrage and anger, even from those who hate gays while Eric Rudolph's actions did not. Why did it take this event, for the anti-gay factions to suddenly decide that killing gays is horrific and requires a response greater than a namby pamby denunciation that was given for Rudolph? Both killers were American citizens who hated gays and chose to act on it violently. It's great to see the public uniting behind this, but why did it take this one event when violence against gays, even murder is nothing new here.


Lone Wolf Attacks and the Problem with Prediction:

According to the FBI, lone wolf attacks are almost impossible to predict and prevent. Indications so far seem to be that this fellow is a lone wolf with no known ties to terrorist groups (alghough he pledged to ISIS right before the shooting, his actions were on his own). I think it's a good idea to look at this event in context of other lone wolf mass shootings.

The 12 deadliest Mass Shootings: A List Of The Deadliest Mass Shootings In U.S. History - by number killed.

1. Pulse Orlando nightclub in Orlando, Fla. (June 12, 2016)

2. Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Va. (April 16, 2007)

3. Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. (Dec. 14, 2012)

4. Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas (Oct. 16, 1991)

6. University of Texas Tower in Austin, Texas (Aug. 1, 1966)

7. Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo. (April 20, 1999)

8. Edmond Post Office in Edmond, Okla. (Aug. 20, 1986)

9. Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, Calif. (Dec. 2, 2015)

10. American Civic Association, Binghamton, N.Y. (April 3, 2009)

11. Fort Hood in Texas (Nov. 5, 2009)

12. Washington Navy Yard in Washington, D.C. (Sept. 16, 2013)

All of these have one thing in common - they are "lone wolf" attacks, 3 of them were by Muslims who were American citizens (with the exception of one) the rest by non-Muslim American citizens.

Mental Illness:

Clearly some of these attacks were the product of mental illness (Sandy Hook, VA Tech, for example); others seem to have been influenced somewhat by possible mental illness. Mateen's wife, and at least one co-worker expressed concerns in that regard and called him unstable, violent, etc. There are close ties between mental illness and religiousity. Religion can, in unstable people, give them a rationale for violence. Yet, there is no evidence for mental illness (that I've found) for the San Diego shooters, it appears they were radicalized, and acted on it.

Questions - if Mateen hadn't been radicialized by Islam, would he have found some other reason to commit these murders?

Gun Culture and Gun Control
The two elephants in the room: the left doesn't want to consider the issue of Islam, the right doesn't want to consider the issue of guns. Could increased gun control have prevented or limited the number of dead? Could decreased gun control have made a difference in the ability of people to respond.



It is difficult to find solutions because it's difficult to predict these events AND almost any solution will have an effect on our freedoms and rights.

• Increased gun control will have an effect on law abiding gun owners.
• Increased focus on mental health issues could have an effect on the rights and freedoms of mentally ill individuals who present no threat of violence.
• Increased focus on religion could have an effect on the religious freedom and rights of privacy.
• Increased surviellance of any sort, on innocent people would have wide ranging effects.
• Addressing homophobia - American's have experienced a huge change in attitudes towards homosexuals over the past decades, and that trend towards greater acceptance and tolerant is evident in all American religious communities, including Muslims. Despite that, there is still considerable friction surrounding addressing tolerance in schools and accusations of a "gay agenda". Can more be done in this area?

Secularism is what made this spinning rock a peaceful place to live for human beings.

The more a society shoots far from it, the worse it gets, and the more people around the world suffer the consequences.

So the main question here is; do we have the right to impose our beliefs on others, if their ways are damaging ours?

Would this be "democratic"?

This is where the big struggle is imo.

Because this guy who just recently shot 100s of people, was a lone wolf, that is correct, but didnt just woke up one day and decided to pledge to ISIS and act.

He was "marginalized" over time, by very obvious sources.

Yes, got to choose the battles you are fighting very carefully
But worst thing to do would be; not to fight em...

You mean the secularism of the nazis and communists...sociailism has murdered over 100 million people around the world...ini modern times...not in the Middle Ages......secularists with modern educations and univerisities and modern governments....murdered 100 million people......

Nazis were a full blown religious cult to begin with, and murdered human beings by burning them alive, in the millions.

We can clearly see how anti-secular, religious ideologies drive societies into insanity at the end.

Very good example... Very good indeed...

The nazis, national socialists, were atheists and pagans. The international socialists, the communists, were atheists......

Nazis were not atheists, nor pagans. They created a religious cult using christianity.

Nazis were the arch enemy of the socialists on the basis of socialists being atheists.
And you claim nazis were atheists themselves. Funny, and pure fantasy...

Anti-secular ideologies, like nazism, created the destruction of the society it did influence in, as expected.
Any society disregarding secularism, and go on the route of religious ideologies, will end up the same.

We can see similar tendencies in some mid eastern societies, and that is the reason we call em "islamonazis".
Because islamism is a religious ideology, just like nazism.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

There is a lot of grief, anger, hate, and sorrow at what happened - but like with other similar events, can this sort of thing be prevented - are there solutions or are we stuck on blame? This horrific attack raises questions around terrorism, religion, homophobia, gun violence and mental health and I think they all need to be examined.

Homophobia:

Hatred of homosexuals. This is something Islam has in common with it's relatives, Christianity and Judaism. Arguments are made that Christianity doesn't believe in killing gays and largely - because many Christians live in law abiding SECULAR societies, where human rights are enshrined - they don't. Islam as a religion has a ways to go in certain parts of the world, when it comes to human rights. But this killer was AMERICAN. Born and raised in the US. His parents were immigrants, but was he was not. Was his motivation any different than that of Eric Rudolph who was conficted of a series of anti-abortion and anti-gay bombings which killed two people and injured over 120 others. Why is it, that this event produces a "uniting" of outrage and anger, even from those who hate gays while Eric Rudolph's actions did not. Why did it take this event, for the anti-gay factions to suddenly decide that killing gays is horrific and requires a response greater than a namby pamby denunciation that was given for Rudolph? Both killers were American citizens who hated gays and chose to act on it violently. It's great to see the public uniting behind this, but why did it take this one event when violence against gays, even murder is nothing new here.


Lone Wolf Attacks and the Problem with Prediction:

According to the FBI, lone wolf attacks are almost impossible to predict and prevent. Indications so far seem to be that this fellow is a lone wolf with no known ties to terrorist groups (alghough he pledged to ISIS right before the shooting, his actions were on his own). I think it's a good idea to look at this event in context of other lone wolf mass shootings.

The 12 deadliest Mass Shootings: A List Of The Deadliest Mass Shootings In U.S. History - by number killed.

1. Pulse Orlando nightclub in Orlando, Fla. (June 12, 2016)

2. Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Va. (April 16, 2007)

3. Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. (Dec. 14, 2012)

4. Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas (Oct. 16, 1991)

6. University of Texas Tower in Austin, Texas (Aug. 1, 1966)

7. Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo. (April 20, 1999)

8. Edmond Post Office in Edmond, Okla. (Aug. 20, 1986)

9. Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, Calif. (Dec. 2, 2015)

10. American Civic Association, Binghamton, N.Y. (April 3, 2009)

11. Fort Hood in Texas (Nov. 5, 2009)

12. Washington Navy Yard in Washington, D.C. (Sept. 16, 2013)

All of these have one thing in common - they are "lone wolf" attacks, 3 of them were by Muslims who were American citizens (with the exception of one) the rest by non-Muslim American citizens.

Mental Illness:

Clearly some of these attacks were the product of mental illness (Sandy Hook, VA Tech, for example); others seem to have been influenced somewhat by possible mental illness. Mateen's wife, and at least one co-worker expressed concerns in that regard and called him unstable, violent, etc. There are close ties between mental illness and religiousity. Religion can, in unstable people, give them a rationale for violence. Yet, there is no evidence for mental illness (that I've found) for the San Diego shooters, it appears they were radicalized, and acted on it.

Questions - if Mateen hadn't been radicialized by Islam, would he have found some other reason to commit these murders?

Gun Culture and Gun Control
The two elephants in the room: the left doesn't want to consider the issue of Islam, the right doesn't want to consider the issue of guns. Could increased gun control have prevented or limited the number of dead? Could decreased gun control have made a difference in the ability of people to respond.



It is difficult to find solutions because it's difficult to predict these events AND almost any solution will have an effect on our freedoms and rights.

• Increased gun control will have an effect on law abiding gun owners.
• Increased focus on mental health issues could have an effect on the rights and freedoms of mentally ill individuals who present no threat of violence.
• Increased focus on religion could have an effect on the religious freedom and rights of privacy.
• Increased surviellance of any sort, on innocent people would have wide ranging effects.
• Addressing homophobia - American's have experienced a huge change in attitudes towards homosexuals over the past decades, and that trend towards greater acceptance and tolerant is evident in all American religious communities, including Muslims. Despite that, there is still considerable friction surrounding addressing tolerance in schools and accusations of a "gay agenda". Can more be done in this area?

He ( The Orlando Shooter ) was investigated by the FBI at least three times and any purchase of firearms should have been flagged and investigated and could have prevented the deadly event that took place.

The individual was a lone wolf but was on the FBI radar so he was known about and the question for me is if the FBI and ATF did all they could do or did the fail the people of Orlando?

Everyone that does this type of mass murder suffer from some form of mental illness so that is established and there is no doubt the individual had mental issues because there is evidence of his anger issues in the past.

We can not prevent every terrorist attack nor should we believe we can but Orlando in my opinion could have been prevented. The signs were there and the guy was investigated at least three times and flagging him in the system to me is not preventing him from buying a firearm but what it would have done is let the ATF and the FBI know that a known person of interest has obtain the firearms and they could have monitored him and might have caught him before he committed his heinous act against the people of Orlando.

One last part and that is a terrorist or criminal does not care about the laws and will do everything they can to get around the law and obtain the weapon of choice.

So passing more laws will not help and the reality is terrorism is part of our lives now the question will be what will be the tipping point where this country goes on another Genocide mission to eliminate the threat?

Maybe it is time to strike ISIS where it lives, in the Middle East. If the American people are willing to give their blood.

One question:

Are you willing to commit your son, daughter or grandchildren to fight ISIL on their own soil?

We have a volunter army and you have to volunteer to be in a combat arm.....they make their own decision...and as you can see by our soldiers many of them understand and have volunteered even knowing they were going into combat.......

Our Army was not always volunteer and a draft can be reinstated, so are you willing to send your son, daughter or grandchild into a region where you know the savages can not be conquer and let them die in the name of our freedom?

 

[2aguy]

There is a lot of grief, anger, hate, and sorrow at what happened - but like with other similar events, can this sort of thing be prevented - are there solutions or are we stuck on blame? This horrific attack raises questions around terrorism, religion, homophobia, gun violence and mental health and I think they all need to be examined.

Homophobia:

Hatred of homosexuals. This is something Islam has in common with it's relatives, Christianity and Judaism. Arguments are made that Christianity doesn't believe in killing gays and largely - because many Christians live in law abiding SECULAR societies, where human rights are enshrined - they don't. Islam as a religion has a ways to go in certain parts of the world, when it comes to human rights. But this killer was AMERICAN. Born and raised in the US. His parents were immigrants, but was he was not. Was his motivation any different than that of Eric Rudolph who was conficted of a series of anti-abortion and anti-gay bombings which killed two people and injured over 120 others. Why is it, that this event produces a "uniting" of outrage and anger, even from those who hate gays while Eric Rudolph's actions did not. Why did it take this event, for the anti-gay factions to suddenly decide that killing gays is horrific and requires a response greater than a namby pamby denunciation that was given for Rudolph? Both killers were American citizens who hated gays and chose to act on it violently. It's great to see the public uniting behind this, but why did it take this one event when violence against gays, even murder is nothing new here.


Lone Wolf Attacks and the Problem with Prediction:

According to the FBI, lone wolf attacks are almost impossible to predict and prevent. Indications so far seem to be that this fellow is a lone wolf with no known ties to terrorist groups (alghough he pledged to ISIS right before the shooting, his actions were on his own). I think it's a good idea to look at this event in context of other lone wolf mass shootings.

The 12 deadliest Mass Shootings: A List Of The Deadliest Mass Shootings In U.S. History - by number killed.

1. Pulse Orlando nightclub in Orlando, Fla. (June 12, 2016)

2. Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Va. (April 16, 2007)

3. Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. (Dec. 14, 2012)

4. Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas (Oct. 16, 1991)

6. University of Texas Tower in Austin, Texas (Aug. 1, 1966)

7. Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo. (April 20, 1999)

8. Edmond Post Office in Edmond, Okla. (Aug. 20, 1986)

9. Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, Calif. (Dec. 2, 2015)

10. American Civic Association, Binghamton, N.Y. (April 3, 2009)

11. Fort Hood in Texas (Nov. 5, 2009)

12. Washington Navy Yard in Washington, D.C. (Sept. 16, 2013)

All of these have one thing in common - they are "lone wolf" attacks, 3 of them were by Muslims who were American citizens (with the exception of one) the rest by non-Muslim American citizens.

Mental Illness:

Clearly some of these attacks were the product of mental illness (Sandy Hook, VA Tech, for example); others seem to have been influenced somewhat by possible mental illness. Mateen's wife, and at least one co-worker expressed concerns in that regard and called him unstable, violent, etc. There are close ties between mental illness and religiousity. Religion can, in unstable people, give them a rationale for violence. Yet, there is no evidence for mental illness (that I've found) for the San Diego shooters, it appears they were radicalized, and acted on it.

Questions - if Mateen hadn't been radicialized by Islam, would he have found some other reason to commit these murders?

Gun Culture and Gun Control
The two elephants in the room: the left doesn't want to consider the issue of Islam, the right doesn't want to consider the issue of guns. Could increased gun control have prevented or limited the number of dead? Could decreased gun control have made a difference in the ability of people to respond.



It is difficult to find solutions because it's difficult to predict these events AND almost any solution will have an effect on our freedoms and rights.

• Increased gun control will have an effect on law abiding gun owners.
• Increased focus on mental health issues could have an effect on the rights and freedoms of mentally ill individuals who present no threat of violence.
• Increased focus on religion could have an effect on the religious freedom and rights of privacy.
• Increased surviellance of any sort, on innocent people would have wide ranging effects.
• Addressing homophobia - American's have experienced a huge change in attitudes towards homosexuals over the past decades, and that trend towards greater acceptance and tolerant is evident in all American religious communities, including Muslims. Despite that, there is still considerable friction surrounding addressing tolerance in schools and accusations of a "gay agenda". Can more be done in this area?

Secularism is what made this spinning rock a peaceful place to live for human beings.

The more a society shoots far from it, the worse it gets, and the more people around the world suffer the consequences.

So the main question here is; do we have the right to impose our beliefs on others, if their ways are damaging ours?

Would this be "democratic"?

This is where the big struggle is imo.

Because this guy who just recently shot 100s of people, was a lone wolf, that is correct, but didnt just woke up one day and decided to pledge to ISIS and act.

He was "marginalized" over time, by very obvious sources.

Yes, got to choose the battles you are fighting very carefully
But worst thing to do would be; not to fight em...

You mean the secularism of the nazis and communists...sociailism has murdered over 100 million people around the world...ini modern times...not in the Middle Ages......secularists with modern educations and univerisities and modern governments....murdered 100 million people......

Nazis were a full blown religious cult to begin with, and murdered human beings by burning them alive, in the millions.

We can clearly see how anti-secular, religious ideologies drive societies into insanity at the end.

Very good example... Very good indeed...

The nazis, national socialists, were atheists and pagans. The international socialists, the communists, were atheists......

Nazis were not atheists, nor pagans. They created a religious cult using christianity.

Nazis were the arch enemy of the socialists on the basis of socialists being atheists.
And you claim nazis were atheists themselves. Funny, and pure fantasy...

Anti-secular ideologies, like nazism, created the destruction of the society it did influence in, as expected.
Any society disregarding secularism, and go on the route of religious ideologies, will end up the same.

We can see similar tendencies in some mid eastern societies, and that is the reason we call em "islamonazis".
Because islamism is a religious ideology, just like nazism.

Wrong ..they were pagans and atheists...they hated Christianity....and exploited the atrophied christianity of the rest of the Germans....

Any society that ignores the judeo/christian religion will end up like the atheist socialists and the pagans...like the Japanese...slaughtering millions of people.....

no...they call islamonazis that because they want the state to control every aspect of life., just like the nazis did.........not because nazism was religious.....

 

[2aguy]

There is a lot of grief, anger, hate, and sorrow at what happened - but like with other similar events, can this sort of thing be prevented - are there solutions or are we stuck on blame? This horrific attack raises questions around terrorism, religion, homophobia, gun violence and mental health and I think they all need to be examined.

Homophobia:

Hatred of homosexuals. This is something Islam has in common with it's relatives, Christianity and Judaism. Arguments are made that Christianity doesn't believe in killing gays and largely - because many Christians live in law abiding SECULAR societies, where human rights are enshrined - they don't. Islam as a religion has a ways to go in certain parts of the world, when it comes to human rights. But this killer was AMERICAN. Born and raised in the US. His parents were immigrants, but was he was not. Was his motivation any different than that of Eric Rudolph who was conficted of a series of anti-abortion and anti-gay bombings which killed two people and injured over 120 others. Why is it, that this event produces a "uniting" of outrage and anger, even from those who hate gays while Eric Rudolph's actions did not. Why did it take this event, for the anti-gay factions to suddenly decide that killing gays is horrific and requires a response greater than a namby pamby denunciation that was given for Rudolph? Both killers were American citizens who hated gays and chose to act on it violently. It's great to see the public uniting behind this, but why did it take this one event when violence against gays, even murder is nothing new here.


Lone Wolf Attacks and the Problem with Prediction:

According to the FBI, lone wolf attacks are almost impossible to predict and prevent. Indications so far seem to be that this fellow is a lone wolf with no known ties to terrorist groups (alghough he pledged to ISIS right before the shooting, his actions were on his own). I think it's a good idea to look at this event in context of other lone wolf mass shootings.

The 12 deadliest Mass Shootings: A List Of The Deadliest Mass Shootings In U.S. History - by number killed.

1. Pulse Orlando nightclub in Orlando, Fla. (June 12, 2016)

2. Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Va. (April 16, 2007)

3. Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. (Dec. 14, 2012)

4. Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas (Oct. 16, 1991)

6. University of Texas Tower in Austin, Texas (Aug. 1, 1966)

7. Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo. (April 20, 1999)

8. Edmond Post Office in Edmond, Okla. (Aug. 20, 1986)

9. Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, Calif. (Dec. 2, 2015)

10. American Civic Association, Binghamton, N.Y. (April 3, 2009)

11. Fort Hood in Texas (Nov. 5, 2009)

12. Washington Navy Yard in Washington, D.C. (Sept. 16, 2013)

All of these have one thing in common - they are "lone wolf" attacks, 3 of them were by Muslims who were American citizens (with the exception of one) the rest by non-Muslim American citizens.

Mental Illness:

Clearly some of these attacks were the product of mental illness (Sandy Hook, VA Tech, for example); others seem to have been influenced somewhat by possible mental illness. Mateen's wife, and at least one co-worker expressed concerns in that regard and called him unstable, violent, etc. There are close ties between mental illness and religiousity. Religion can, in unstable people, give them a rationale for violence. Yet, there is no evidence for mental illness (that I've found) for the San Diego shooters, it appears they were radicalized, and acted on it.

Questions - if Mateen hadn't been radicialized by Islam, would he have found some other reason to commit these murders?

Gun Culture and Gun Control
The two elephants in the room: the left doesn't want to consider the issue of Islam, the right doesn't want to consider the issue of guns. Could increased gun control have prevented or limited the number of dead? Could decreased gun control have made a difference in the ability of people to respond.



It is difficult to find solutions because it's difficult to predict these events AND almost any solution will have an effect on our freedoms and rights.

• Increased gun control will have an effect on law abiding gun owners.
• Increased focus on mental health issues could have an effect on the rights and freedoms of mentally ill individuals who present no threat of violence.
• Increased focus on religion could have an effect on the religious freedom and rights of privacy.
• Increased surviellance of any sort, on innocent people would have wide ranging effects.
• Addressing homophobia - American's have experienced a huge change in attitudes towards homosexuals over the past decades, and that trend towards greater acceptance and tolerant is evident in all American religious communities, including Muslims. Despite that, there is still considerable friction surrounding addressing tolerance in schools and accusations of a "gay agenda". Can more be done in this area?

He ( The Orlando Shooter ) was investigated by the FBI at least three times and any purchase of firearms should have been flagged and investigated and could have prevented the deadly event that took place.

The individual was a lone wolf but was on the FBI radar so he was known about and the question for me is if the FBI and ATF did all they could do or did the fail the people of Orlando?

Everyone that does this type of mass murder suffer from some form of mental illness so that is established and there is no doubt the individual had mental issues because there is evidence of his anger issues in the past.

We can not prevent every terrorist attack nor should we believe we can but Orlando in my opinion could have been prevented. The signs were there and the guy was investigated at least three times and flagging him in the system to me is not preventing him from buying a firearm but what it would have done is let the ATF and the FBI know that a known person of interest has obtain the firearms and they could have monitored him and might have caught him before he committed his heinous act against the people of Orlando.

One last part and that is a terrorist or criminal does not care about the laws and will do everything they can to get around the law and obtain the weapon of choice.

So passing more laws will not help and the reality is terrorism is part of our lives now the question will be what will be the tipping point where this country goes on another Genocide mission to eliminate the threat?

Maybe it is time to strike ISIS where it lives, in the Middle East. If the American people are willing to give their blood.

One question:

Are you willing to commit your son, daughter or grandchildren to fight ISIL on their own soil?

We have a volunter army and you have to volunteer to be in a combat arm.....they make their own decision...and as you can see by our soldiers many of them understand and have volunteered even knowing they were going into combat.......

Our Army was not always volunteer and a draft can be reinstated, so are you willing to send your son, daughter or grandchild into a region where you know the savages can not be conquer and let them die in the name of our freedom?

I don't believe in the draft....they will volunteer or not...and I will send in the military no matter who is in it if it is required.....

I would not send anyone back over to the middle east because we can't trust democrats to not be a 5th column undermining our efforts the way they have with our current combat operations.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

He ( The Orlando Shooter ) was investigated by the FBI at least three times and any purchase of firearms should have been flagged and investigated and could have prevented the deadly event that took place.

The individual was a lone wolf but was on the FBI radar so he was known about and the question for me is if the FBI and ATF did all they could do or did the fail the people of Orlando?

Everyone that does this type of mass murder suffer from some form of mental illness so that is established and there is no doubt the individual had mental issues because there is evidence of his anger issues in the past.

We can not prevent every terrorist attack nor should we believe we can but Orlando in my opinion could have been prevented. The signs were there and the guy was investigated at least three times and flagging him in the system to me is not preventing him from buying a firearm but what it would have done is let the ATF and the FBI know that a known person of interest has obtain the firearms and they could have monitored him and might have caught him before he committed his heinous act against the people of Orlando.

One last part and that is a terrorist or criminal does not care about the laws and will do everything they can to get around the law and obtain the weapon of choice.

So passing more laws will not help and the reality is terrorism is part of our lives now the question will be what will be the tipping point where this country goes on another Genocide mission to eliminate the threat?

Maybe it is time to strike ISIS where it lives, in the Middle East. If the American people are willing to give their blood.

One question:

Are you willing to commit your son, daughter or grandchildren to fight ISIL on their own soil?

We have a volunter army and you have to volunteer to be in a combat arm.....they make their own decision...and as you can see by our soldiers many of them understand and have volunteered even knowing they were going into combat.......

Our Army was not always volunteer and a draft can be reinstated, so are you willing to send your son, daughter or grandchild into a region where you know the savages can not be conquer and let them die in the name of our freedom?

I don't believe in the draft....they will volunteer or not...and I will send in the military no matter who is in it if it is required.....

I would not send anyone back over to the middle east because we can't trust democrats to not be a 5th column undermining our efforts the way they have with our current combat operations.

Let me explain it like this you will never win a war in that region no matter the political party leading the fight because those you are fighting were born to die for what they believe in...

Protect our borders and leave the Russian and Persians to fight the savages over there...

 

[alpine]

Secularism is what made this spinning rock a peaceful place to live for human beings.

The more a society shoots far from it, the worse it gets, and the more people around the world suffer the consequences.

So the main question here is; do we have the right to impose our beliefs on others, if their ways are damaging ours?

Would this be "democratic"?

This is where the big struggle is imo.

Because this guy who just recently shot 100s of people, was a lone wolf, that is correct, but didnt just woke up one day and decided to pledge to ISIS and act.

He was "marginalized" over time, by very obvious sources.

Yes, got to choose the battles you are fighting very carefully
But worst thing to do would be; not to fight em...

You mean the secularism of the nazis and communists...sociailism has murdered over 100 million people around the world...ini modern times...not in the Middle Ages......secularists with modern educations and univerisities and modern governments....murdered 100 million people......

Nazis were a full blown religious cult to begin with, and murdered human beings by burning them alive, in the millions.

We can clearly see how anti-secular, religious ideologies drive societies into insanity at the end.

Very good example... Very good indeed...

The nazis, national socialists, were atheists and pagans. The international socialists, the communists, were atheists......

Nazis were not atheists, nor pagans. They created a religious cult using christianity.

Nazis were the arch enemy of the socialists on the basis of socialists being atheists.
And you claim nazis were atheists themselves. Funny, and pure fantasy...

Anti-secular ideologies, like nazism, created the destruction of the society it did influence in, as expected.
Any society disregarding secularism, and go on the route of religious ideologies, will end up the same.

We can see similar tendencies in some mid eastern societies, and that is the reason we call em "islamonazis".
Because islamism is a religious ideology, just like nazism.

Wrong ..they were pagans and atheists...they hated Christianity....and exploited the atrophied christianity of the rest of the Germans....

Any society that ignores the judeo/christian religion will end up like the atheist socialists and the pagans...like the Japanese...slaughtering millions of people.....

no...they call islamonazis that because they want the state to control every aspect of life., just like the nazis did.........not because nazism was religious.....

Your claims go as far as your credibility goes...
Meaning, no where...


“I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.”
-Adolf Hitler-

 

[2aguy]

Maybe it is time to strike ISIS where it lives, in the Middle East. If the American people are willing to give their blood.

One question:

Are you willing to commit your son, daughter or grandchildren to fight ISIL on their own soil?

We have a volunter army and you have to volunteer to be in a combat arm.....they make their own decision...and as you can see by our soldiers many of them understand and have volunteered even knowing they were going into combat.......

Our Army was not always volunteer and a draft can be reinstated, so are you willing to send your son, daughter or grandchild into a region where you know the savages can not be conquer and let them die in the name of our freedom?

I don't believe in the draft....they will volunteer or not...and I will send in the military no matter who is in it if it is required.....

I would not send anyone back over to the middle east because we can't trust democrats to not be a 5th column undermining our efforts the way they have with our current combat operations.

Let me explain it like this you will never win a war in that region no matter the political party leading the fight because those you are fighting were born to die for what they believe in...

Protect our borders and leave the Russian and Persians to fight the savages over there...

I just said i wouldn't send our troops back over.......but if it came to needing to fight I would send troops anyewhere in the world to do it.....even with family in the military....if they volunteered and made that choice...

 

[2aguy]

You mean the secularism of the nazis and communists...sociailism has murdered over 100 million people around the world...ini modern times...not in the Middle Ages......secularists with modern educations and univerisities and modern governments....murdered 100 million people......

Nazis were a full blown religious cult to begin with, and murdered human beings by burning them alive, in the millions.

We can clearly see how anti-secular, religious ideologies drive societies into insanity at the end.

Very good example... Very good indeed...

The nazis, national socialists, were atheists and pagans. The international socialists, the communists, were atheists......

Nazis were not atheists, nor pagans. They created a religious cult using christianity.

Nazis were the arch enemy of the socialists on the basis of socialists being atheists.
And you claim nazis were atheists themselves. Funny, and pure fantasy...

Anti-secular ideologies, like nazism, created the destruction of the society it did influence in, as expected.
Any society disregarding secularism, and go on the route of religious ideologies, will end up the same.

We can see similar tendencies in some mid eastern societies, and that is the reason we call em "islamonazis".
Because islamism is a religious ideology, just like nazism.

Wrong ..they were pagans and atheists...they hated Christianity....and exploited the atrophied christianity of the rest of the Germans....

Any society that ignores the judeo/christian religion will end up like the atheist socialists and the pagans...like the Japanese...slaughtering millions of people.....

no...they call islamonazis that because they want the state to control every aspect of life., just like the nazis did.........not because nazism was religious.....

Your claims go as far as your credibility goes...
Meaning, no where...


“I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.”
-Adolf Hitler-

And the atheist hilter said that for the non practicing german christians....

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

One question:

Are you willing to commit your son, daughter or grandchildren to fight ISIL on their own soil?

We have a volunter army and you have to volunteer to be in a combat arm.....they make their own decision...and as you can see by our soldiers many of them understand and have volunteered even knowing they were going into combat.......

Our Army was not always volunteer and a draft can be reinstated, so are you willing to send your son, daughter or grandchild into a region where you know the savages can not be conquer and let them die in the name of our freedom?

I don't believe in the draft....they will volunteer or not...and I will send in the military no matter who is in it if it is required.....

I would not send anyone back over to the middle east because we can't trust democrats to not be a 5th column undermining our efforts the way they have with our current combat operations.

Let me explain it like this you will never win a war in that region no matter the political party leading the fight because those you are fighting were born to die for what they believe in...

Protect our borders and leave the Russian and Persians to fight the savages over there...

I just said i wouldn't send our troops back over.......but if it came to needing to fight I would send troops anyewhere in the world to do it.....even with family in the military....if they volunteered and made that choice...

I wouldn't.

I would bomb the area, send in special forces to eliminate the targets but no massive force invasion.

 

[2aguy]

You mean the secularism of the nazis and communists...sociailism has murdered over 100 million people around the world...ini modern times...not in the Middle Ages......secularists with modern educations and univerisities and modern governments....murdered 100 million people......

Nazis were a full blown religious cult to begin with, and murdered human beings by burning them alive, in the millions.

We can clearly see how anti-secular, religious ideologies drive societies into insanity at the end.

Very good example... Very good indeed...

The nazis, national socialists, were atheists and pagans. The international socialists, the communists, were atheists......

Nazis were not atheists, nor pagans. They created a religious cult using christianity.

Nazis were the arch enemy of the socialists on the basis of socialists being atheists.
And you claim nazis were atheists themselves. Funny, and pure fantasy...

Anti-secular ideologies, like nazism, created the destruction of the society it did influence in, as expected.
Any society disregarding secularism, and go on the route of religious ideologies, will end up the same.

We can see similar tendencies in some mid eastern societies, and that is the reason we call em "islamonazis".
Because islamism is a religious ideology, just like nazism.

Wrong ..they were pagans and atheists...they hated Christianity....and exploited the atrophied christianity of the rest of the Germans....

Any society that ignores the judeo/christian religion will end up like the atheist socialists and the pagans...like the Japanese...slaughtering millions of people.....

no...they call islamonazis that because they want the state to control every aspect of life., just like the nazis did.........not because nazism was religious.....

Your claims go as far as your credibility goes...
Meaning, no where...


“I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.”
-Adolf Hitler-

Here, get some popcorn....learn something...they were pagans and atheists....