This sad,terrible story made me remember how the FBI interviewed Lee Harvey Oswald before he shot JFK.
Another mass shooting
- Thread starter qazplm
- Start date
Do as you choose, anything I own was purchased or inherited legally. I suspect anyone you give a heads up to would die of laughter.
As a matter of fact
Please don't laugh at ecrotch...he strikes me as one of those..."true patriots".
Laughing may send him or her over the edge.
I can't help it, impotent anger always amuses me particularly when a person acts like a tough guy behind it. He isn't a true any thing, just sad and looking for the reason why.
I know the New Testament very well. Sadly, there is nothing in the New Testament that "reverses" what the Old Testament says about homosexuality being a killable offense. And as I trust you know, Jesus repeatedly affirmed the teachings of the Old Testament, citing the Old Testament as both historical fact, as well as the direct word of God, as well as a collection of religious laws that should all be followed. (Google it or here's a decent summary among many examples: http://creation.com/jesus-christ-on-the-infallibility-of-scripture)
So your line of argument falls way short. Unless you're also disaffirming Jesus, at which point it would seem you've not only abandoned the first half of the Bible, but the second half as well. Which would be the proper choice, by the way, by any basic standard of modern morality.
Well, since you admitted to being a lifetime NRA member, there are really no further questions. Hahahahahahahaha!
Sorry man, you are who I thought you were. Not your fault, inbreeding just kinda happens.
I used to respect ypiu
No academic buys the "but Jesus" argument. Jot and tittle. Every word. Etc..
Great reply.
Anerican Family Association calls for a boycott of Target.
A bomb goes of in a Target bathroom.
Thank you for providing the evidence that you don't need a reply past this.
You saved me time.
Can't tell you how welcome you are. Good luck with your future endeavors. I'm sure with some substantial aid from mental health specialists you could possibly become a productive member of society.
All my best,
Mike
Automatic weapons have been illegal in the U.S. Since the 1930's Capone Era
Oh I don't know, you mock people re religion, you want, vis Islam, to condem a billion plus people by the actions of a handful relative to the total.
You attack Christians as well, you're right I don't know you but I doubt you have the power to convert many, if any, religious believers, so that anger is impotent.
i think you're a bright guy, but your attacks on religion are a mere tilting at windmills IMHO, primarily because you refuse to understand any independence of thought re religion, and I just get an underlying sadness from that, a simplistic view seeking answers, searching for something, in places answers can never be found. Kind of like you're actually afraid of the answers so you're asking the wrong questions.
Again you're right, I don't know you, but that's how I see your diatribes on religion.
Last edited:
You understand religious texts are not like the users manuals of today, right? I mean the bible isn't an app where Rome simply does an update and adapts the verbiage to fit your views.
Jesus affirmed the new covenant in the NT. Adultery was a sin requiring death in the Old Testament. Im sure you know of John8:4. The NT makes it clear that we are all sinners and all sin is wrong which of course is why Jesus came in the first place. But I'm sure you know that too. The bottom line is that there is nothing in Christianity that supports the kind of behavior that ISIS and similar groups advocate.
Well why not? Why wouldn't some good Christian somewhere be inspired to publish an updated version of the Bible that simply removes the dozens and dozens of indefensibly immoral parts of it? And if someone were to publish a more moral edition, why then wouldn't every church and synagogue in the world start using this version and repudiate the original version? That would inarguably be the morally correct choice, I trust you agree.
Bottom line, the worst mass shooting in U.S. history was explicitly sanctioned by the "holiest" book of the Islamic, Christian, and Jewish religions. If those holy books can't be updated to remove these types of passages, then there's not much left to do other than reject these books in the same way that one should reject any text that sanctions hate crimes, child sacrifice, genocide, mass murder, and human slavery.
Look, the vast majority of the Bible (including the New Testament) is historically not reliable in the first place given its questionable authorship, many decades that lapsed before the first parts were even written, deep inconsistencies between and within texts, word of mouth versus eyewitness accounts, language translation issues, copying issues over the centuries, books being removed and books being inserted for essentially political reasons, deliberate forgeries, etc. These days most biblical scholars, including those who are Christian and churchgoing, readily concede this point. So to me we might as well be debating about what Homer had to say about Zeus, because either way we're just talking about a whole lot of fiction and folklore mixed in with some untrustworthy nonfiction.
Either way, to your last sentence, you can pretend it doesn't say it if you want, but saying that someone should be killed because he or she is gay is clearly written right into the holy books of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. That is indeed "support". I'm ecstatic that most people embrace and understand basic secular morality and are therefore smart enough to ignore the dangerous and hateful stuff that was supposedly inspired from their "god". But if nothing else, this all provides a logical proof that secular morality is superior to biblical morality, because secular morality has to be used to determine which aspects of the bible are immoral and to not follow. Secular morality will always be centuries ahead of religious morality, chiefly because it's not held back by albatross Bronze Age texts.
Last thought on morality or lack thereof: the Christian church began when its "god" intentionally engaged in human sacrifice. Let that sink in for a moment.
Last edited:
Could be a homophobic guy who is Islamic? Pretty common knowledge how gays are treated by them.
I got it Terminal (interesting name for this topic). I obviously touched a nerve. You have obviously done a great deal of study and research to find stuff to support you preconceived notion of how religions are so hypocritical and immoral. That said I also assume that you have read and investigated other works, the best organized is, in my opinion, is "The Case for Christ", by Lee Strobelwho was an Atheist Journalist determine to write a book that destroyed religion by digging out the "truth" . Good Luck, I will be praying that you find real truth.
You are pathetic dude. You jump on here as fast as possible to be a muslim apologist? wow. You should go hug anyone who can stand being around you for more than 5 minutes.
actually...jesus called the pharisees dogs who do not let others eat and who do not partake themselves referencing how the knowledge behind the bible was locked away. Kings over the years have manipulated the bible at their own whim. To pretend this text is as it was originally is quite foolish. It has been adapted several times with verbiage to fit someone's view, particularly in the dark ages. but talking to religious people about the problems with their religion is truly pearls before swine...
Last edited:
Nice try but your reading comprehension is a bit off. Notice how the Biblical verse you picked out does not "command" followers of Christianity to kill homosexuals? It states they shall surely be put to death (and that could mean literal, or in a spiritual sense, as in not having a home in heaven) but it does not command followers to kill. Now read the verse from the Koran that you used ... notice how that IS a direct command to followers of Islam to murder homosexuals. Can you see the difference? Probably not because your ideology blinds you from the truth.
I'd also like to point out how ridiculous it is that you think morality is something that must be modified and updated to keep up with current society. Morality is an absolute, and without it being so society will, over time, morph into a lawless society.
This dude's history and profile struck me more as an idealistic follower of bass-ackwards ideology than a real "jihadi". That's not to say this wasn't Islamic terrorism - it pretty clearly was as it was motivated at least in part by Islam.
That said, a few things we do know:
- He was born in America to parents from Afghanistan.
- No one thinks he was particularly devout as a Muslim.
- There aren't indications that he was really studying the Koran intently or a part of some ultra-conservative extremist Mosque.
- He didn't travel anywhere to get training or further radicalization.
- He had a history of domestic violence of the type that is largely accepted/expected in Islamic culture (hence probably why his wife didn't report it.)
- He was pretty clearly homophobic, whether that was based solely on Islam or personal hate.
Simply put, this is a pissed off, idealistic 29-year-old Muslim who didn't like gays probably because that's what he believes his religion teaches, he self-"radicalized" on the internet, and legally purchased legal firearms using his rights as a US citizen.
To me, this dude is scarier than just about anybody else because he's not the true, radical Muslim. Just an idealistic young man, full of similar piss and vinegar to some political supporters on both sides that we've seen this election cycle, with backwards ideology formed on the basis of Islam with access to weapons.
Trump's ban on Muslim immigration doesn't stop this (he was already here).
Taking away access to purchasing firearms to known terrorist sympathizers probably doesn't stop this (he already had weapons, though he did purchase those used in this attack in the last two weeks).
Taking away all of his weapons may not stop this, but probably does, yet is completely counter to the Second Amendment.
Deporting or detaining him for visiting websites and being Muslim is completely counter to the First Amendment.
I have no idea how this is prevented by public policy that isn't somehow in conflict with our core principles. I think I know what route I would want to take, but if that is to happen, it is likely to happen by diktat because I don't think we're ever going to pass laws the old-fashioned way. Clarifying, I see no purpose for an AR-15 (or similar weapon) in public hands.
That said, a few things we do know:
- He was born in America to parents from Afghanistan.
- No one thinks he was particularly devout as a Muslim.
- There aren't indications that he was really studying the Koran intently or a part of some ultra-conservative extremist Mosque.
- He didn't travel anywhere to get training or further radicalization.
- He had a history of domestic violence of the type that is largely accepted/expected in Islamic culture (hence probably why his wife didn't report it.)
- He was pretty clearly homophobic, whether that was based solely on Islam or personal hate.
Simply put, this is a pissed off, idealistic 29-year-old Muslim who didn't like gays probably because that's what he believes his religion teaches, he self-"radicalized" on the internet, and legally purchased legal firearms using his rights as a US citizen.
To me, this dude is scarier than just about anybody else because he's not the true, radical Muslim. Just an idealistic young man, full of similar piss and vinegar to some political supporters on both sides that we've seen this election cycle, with backwards ideology formed on the basis of Islam with access to weapons.
Trump's ban on Muslim immigration doesn't stop this (he was already here).
Taking away access to purchasing firearms to known terrorist sympathizers probably doesn't stop this (he already had weapons, though he did purchase those used in this attack in the last two weeks).
Taking away all of his weapons may not stop this, but probably does, yet is completely counter to the Second Amendment.
Deporting or detaining him for visiting websites and being Muslim is completely counter to the First Amendment.
I have no idea how this is prevented by public policy that isn't somehow in conflict with our core principles. I think I know what route I would want to take, but if that is to happen, it is likely to happen by diktat because I don't think we're ever going to pass laws the old-fashioned way. Clarifying, I see no purpose for an AR-15 (or similar weapon) in public hands.
Actually it has been reported he went to SA in 2012 on pilgrimage and UAE in 2013. Arrived twice. Once was brutally and second produced three year old son.
I think you're trying to say he was married twice. Once divorced.
My point was not that he'd never visited the ME; it was that it is not apparent that he went to join ISIS, etc., or seeking radicalization, and the consensus is that this dumbass wasn't particularly religious in the first place. Conducting pilgrimage doesn't radicalize 99.9% of Muslims. The UAE is also hardly a hotbed of extremist activity. I've been four times, but I doubt I'm on terror watch lists.
I also just read his ex-wife said he had history with steroids and she thought him bipolar (of course one can beget the other).
So you would consider it a coincidence that within six months two American born young men of Middle Eastern descent, in their 20's , both traveled to the middle east for the first time on multiple occasions in the last 6-8 years and both had young children and both committed mass killings that resulted in more than 60 deaths and almost 100 wounded.
Yep, because I don't oversimplify things by saying "Travel to ME = radicalization". Do you have any idea how many Americans travel to the Middle East every year? It's more than 2.
Hundreds of thousands of Muslims conduct Hajj annually and a few dozen commit terrorist acts. The important thing isn't that they travel to the ME. It's what they do when they're there. Until we know what the purpose of his travel to the UAE was, I'm not going to draw conclusions. I will say that traveling to the UAE raises fewer flags to me than travel to just about any other Muslim country considering Dubai is probably the biggest destination attraction in that part of the world, and as mentioned isn't known as an extremist hotbed. If you'd told me he traveled to "Turkey" for about six months in 2013... yeah, then I'd be far more skeptical.
I understand it is human nature to group like things together in order make complex problems simple, but I don't think is the same situation as the California shooting. I think this is much more self-radicalization of a disturbed individual who didn't like gays because of his religion than I think it was someone actually conducting jihad. I think the last-minute jihad link was just that: last minute. There's not much pre-planning, jihadi thought involved here. Just more "I'm pissed and hate gays and am Muslim, so ISIS!" At least that's how this strikes me. (Note: I understand that this was planned, I'm saying I don't think this was planned as "jihad", I think that link is one of convenience on the part of the terrorist).
Last edited:
He wasn't a radical. He was just obeying the Koran, and obeying sharia law, as he was taught by his Afghani parents, 99% of whom believe in sharia law. Most Muslims, luckily, do not follow the Koran.
I guess my question is, why are we inviting people into our country who do not believe in liberty or freedom?
I would like to think all we have is a relative handful people who for various unrelated reasons decided to conduct mass killings. You are polite and well reasoned and I try And be the same.
But, what of the cheering on 9/11? What if the complaints that got to the FBI? What about the obvious signs of violent capability in spousal abuse? What of becoming a security guard for a company with contracts to guard federal facilities? All of that and then add in two trips to the ME coinciding with the FBI related incidents and reports of increasingly withdrawn and changed behavior. Throw in a phone call to specifically gain credit for allegiance to ISIS in the midst of his murder spree!
Acting solely alone with no prompting or encouragement of any kind from any external force? It is counter intuitive!
This is really at the heart of the issue. Some people want all the benefits of a free society without bearing the inherent responsibilities that come with living in one.
Afghanistan Migration Surging into America; 99% Support Sharia Law
10755
108
AP/Evan Vucci
by JULIA HAHN12 Jun 2016Washington D.C.3,730
SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER
according to CBS News.[/paste:font]
Between 2001 and 2013, the U.S. permanently resettled nearly 30,000 Afghan migrants on green cards. According to Pew, nearly all Muslims in Afghanistan (99%) support sharia law as official law.
As legal immigrants, these migrants will be granted lifetime resettlement privileges will be given automatic work permits, welfare access, and the ability to become voting citizens.
Between 2001 and 2013, the United States permanently resettled 1.5 million Muslim immigrants throughout the United States.
In the next five years, without changes to our autopilot visa dispensations, the U.S. willpermanently resettle a Muslim population larger than the entire population of Washington D.C.
Immigration from the Middle East is on the rise. Based on 2014 data–the most recent available data from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)– the number of green cards issued to Middle Eastern countries increased by 32 percent. The number of green cards issued to Afghan migrants increased by 379 percent in the course of that single year.
Hillary Clinton has made clear that under a Clinton Presidency, these numbers will grow substantially higher. Based on the minimum numbers Clinton has put forth thus far, the U.S. will resettle 730,000 permanent migrants from the Muslim world during her first term alone.
According to NBC, the suspect’s family says the terror attack may have been motivated Mateen’s hatred for the LGBT community. Mateen’s father says his son was angry over the sight of two men kissing.
At his Friday speech at the Faith and Freedom Summit, Donald Trump addressedClinton’s plan to import migrants that hold beliefs that are antithetical to Western liberal values.
“Hillary will bring hundreds of thousands of refugees, many of whom have hostile beliefs about people of different faiths and values, and some of whom absolutely and openly support terrorism in our country. We don’t need that. We have enough problems.”
The latest terror attack, carried out by the son of Afghan migrants, underscores how large-scale migration creates a multi-generational threat matrix, just as it has in the banlieues of France.
For instance, Anwar al-Awlaki, the New Mexico-born jihad propagandist and “spiritual advisor” to 9/11 terrorists was the son of migrants from Yemen; Syed Farook, the Chicago-born San Bernardino terrorist was the son of Pakistani migrants; Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter was the son of a woman who emigrated from Palestine; and Muhammed Youssef Abdulazees, the Chattanooga shooter who murdered four U.S. Marines was an immigrant from Kuwait, who naturalized at the age of 6.
In a December letter to the Obama administration demanding the release of the immigration histories of those connected to terrorism, Senator Jeff Sessions wrote: “We are dealing with an enemy that has shown it is not only capable of bypassing U.S. screening but of recruiting and radicalizing Muslim migrants after their entry to the United States. The recruitment of terrorists in the U.S. is not limited to adult migrants, but to their young children and to their U.S.-born children – which is why family immigration history is necessary to understand the nature of the threat.”
“It’s an unpleasant but unavoidable fact that bringing in large unassimilated flows of migrants from the Muslim world creates the conditions possible for radicalization and extremism to take hold, just like they’re seeing in Europe,” Sessions said on the Senate floor.
The Tampa Tribune reported last year that Florida now leads the nation as the number one state in resettling refugees.
According to the federal government, Florida resettled 43,184 refugees in 2013.
While most of these refugees settling in Florida arrive from Cuba, many arrive from Middle Eastern countries. According to the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement, the next largest countries to resettle in Florida are (in order) Iraq, Myanmar (Burma), the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, Somalia, Colombia, Afghanistan, Jordan, Pakistan, Syria, and Palestine.
According to data from the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 91.4 percent of recent refugees from the Middle East are on food stamps and 68.3 percent of recent refugees from the Middle East are on cash welfare.
The Tampa Tribune reported that many of these Muslim refugees are carving out their own Muslim communities within Florida (similar to what refugees have done in Dearborn and Minneapolis): “Many of the refugees finding homes in the Tampa Bay area are Muslim because the region has an established Muslim community.
99% of who believes in Sharia? My guess would be more like his parents left Afghanistan to escape Sharia as enforced by the Taliban. That's far more likely than your statement. You should read a couple of Khaled Hosseini books for some insight on life in that country prior to our invasion.
Ah, I see it now from the Pew research. Still, in the time that his parents immigrated to the United States, many of those immigrants did so precisely to escape Sharia. We have no way of knowing if his parents support Sharia, and in any event they don't live in Afghanistan so Sharia isn't the law here and isn't going to be the law here ever.
Otherwise, the vast majority of Muslims follow the Koran the same way the vast majority of Christians follow the bible.
Last edited:
ISIS provides encouragement, and that's all this whack-job needed was something on which to hang his hat to make him feel as though his action was justified. In my opinion, it is not Islam that justifies this behavior because otherwise you'd see this happening here all the time with stonings and shootings and such any time a Muslim was exposed to homosexuality. Fortunately, the vast, vast majority of Muslims are able to understand secular moralism and follow the Koran the same way most Christians follow the bible. The problem is the select few that do not, those who favor and then take it upon themselves to enforce Sharia for whatever reason.
I did not mean to paint this as entirely internal - certainly he was externally influenced by ISIS propaganda as well as his interpretation of Muslim teachings and the actions to which he believed it called him (again, ISIS).
In this specific case, I think you had a homophobic Muslim man who required justification for his desired action and found it in ISIS via the web. So yes, stamping out ISIS will help, but I think people like this will find other justification even after ISIS is eradicated, and that is likely to be in the form of another radical Imam or extremist group.
There is a distinction there, in my opinion, between an "ISIS gunman" carrying out jihad and this man's actions. I don't think his actions had anything to do with jihad. I think this is just as accurately described as a hate crime as it is Islamic terrorism. There are elements of both, and both are founded in fundamentalist, extremist Islam.
I agree with most of what you are getting at, but being anti-gay is not extremist Islam. It's standard run of the mill Islam.
