The Orlando shooting

4EVER2 wrote:

eddie wrote:Thanks 4ever, for taking the time to actually listen to what I was asking.

Some of what you say is possible but not probable.
If a guy turns up armed and is involved with a stand off with 3 officers - now does he get into the door of the club?
Are you telling me the officers stood and watched him walk in?

It's what actually happened ...there's no 'possible or probability' to this event!

Madeen's position and his body armor kept him from being hit and going DOWN when the police were firing upon/at him ...so yes, as I kept posting what he had on --- he came ready and dressed for MILITARY action, the police only have their 'Kevlar chest protection vests' that's it. 

So Makeen pulls open the door to that busy night club and walks in and starts firing ...
I've explained the reasons and rational of why the 'police' don't do tactical work and once that 'UNKNOWN' assailant entered the building where there were a goodly number of humans - the SWAT vehicles were already in route ...local police are not equipped to handle such enter building and take down a 'UNKNOWN(s)' with his military grade weapons on him.

But so many of those same officers put their very lives on the line; ignoring the blood borne protocol of protection and gloves to aide in moving/transporting/rescuing as many of those fleeing wounded as they could --- HIV/AIDS is still a problem that can be transmitted with open blood flow contact.  And none of those police gave it a 2nd thought ...they just went in and helped move people ASAP.

My son was a bouncer at a college club off the campus of Missouri State, and I was absolutely horrified about his method of earning extra money doing that job. 

Those clubs do hire big beefy imposing men to work those bouncer jobs - they prefer someone that has had police/reserve police type training but those bouncers are not armed - not in those private clubs. 
The only section of those clubs that are light up are the bar area's that they mix drinks/make change and the restrooms ...the rest of the areas are lit by 'mood lighting' ...there is recent footage coming out from the 'PULSE' security camera's but the FBI are still processing them and it may take some time.

eddie wrote:“It's a fact—everyone is ignorant in some way or another.

Ignorance is our deepest secret.

And it is one of the scariest things out there, because those of us who are most ignorant are also the ones who often don't know it or don't want to admit it.

Here is a quick test:

If you have never changed your mind about some fundamental tenet of your belief, if you have never questioned the basics, and if you have no wish to do so, then you are likely ignorant.

Before it is too late, go out there and find someone who, in your opinion, believes, assumes, or considers certain things very strongly and very differently from you, and just have a basic honest conversation.

It will do both of you good.”

― Vera Nazarian, The Perpetual Calendar of Inspiration

Didge wrote:

eddie wrote:

What isn't adding up for you?
For me it's about the bullets, ammunition and time scale, as well as the fact it has emerged that he wasn't just well-known to the FBI but he was very well-known to the FBI (did they take their eye off him? Why?) and that the first part of the  story was that he was in a stand -off with the police (three officers) and yet he still managed to get into the club (with no one following him?!) and start shooting over hundred bullets at top speed, within minutes. Then there's the guy who was holding the door shut (we only know him because he 'came forward' after a lot of witnesses said someone had been holding an exit door to an alley shut: his reason was so flimsy as to be unbelievable.

So yes, I question what doesn't make sense to me.

The exact moment I heard the news i was stunned like everyone and upset: that's when the media throw words at you like "Isis" and "terrorist" and "dead bodies" then later tbey add other stuff  in and some of those words discredit the first lot of words.

As the day wore on and there was mention of only one gun man I thought "no way could one man have done that" I was confused and thought I'd got it all wrong. Which is what the news does to most people: makes them confused because conflicting stories come out, they throw phrases at you and they fire words around like bullets and you scratch your head and later you put it down to "a lot happening and media confusion etc"
But it's not. Not always.


It's always been that way for me. People think I've recently been brainwashed by conspiracy stories - they mean "an alternate option to the official option" (AOTTOO - I just made it up) but that's not so. I've never explained that the news has often, the older I've gotten, made me ask others "But didn't they just say that?" And they'll go "Yes....but....I dunno... I suppose there's alot of confusion there..?" (Or other reasons).

And I think; Yes, that must be it.

But for various reasons, that never seems to be the case because after, when the official stories come out, I am none the wiser and more confused.

.

Okay so Eddie again questions something she simply cannot comprehend.
That is understandable and the reason is because she feels that clearly one person is not capable I guess of killing of many people in such an attack, even though history is littered with such attacks. One of the most famous lobe terrorist attacks was by Anders Brevik.  I am yet to see her question that terrorist attack.  In the space of one day he planted a bomb that killed 8 people and wounded over 200. He then shot and killed 69 and wounded 110. This was just one person.

So lets get to the first point of what Eddie finds that no way could one man could pull this off. Even as already has happened far more were killed and injured by a Far Right Terrorist. Why Eddie does not understand. Is because she simply does not understand the capability of weapons. The semi-automatic rifle, in testing can fire 700 rounds per minute. In reality, an amateur, can fire off 5 magazines of 30 bullets within 2 minutes, easily, if not more. We are talking about a crowded night club, with 320 people inside. Where he killed and wounded most of the victims within the first couple of minutes. With people so massed together in a club, it would have been like shooting fish in barrel.  You question how someone armed with guns is able to get into a building?

Who is going to stop him? The Police were not already outside, an non-uniformed Police officer was. You see, if you get your facts wrong, this is where all else leads also to being wrong. He saw the gunmen and a gunfire commenced. He was already by the nightclub, so its not difficult for him to have then entered, as I doubt any bouncer is going to challenge someone armed with an assault rifle about their id. Let alone the Officer being outgunned. You see Eddie, it is you creating and inventing things that simple are easily explained, because you do not want to accept the truth and reality of the fact there is religious extremist killers out there.

These assault rifles can penetrate Police body armour. Now imagine what such a weapon can do in such a confined space with many people? No doubt bullets went through some of the victims wounding others. They are that powerful. Its most likely as well some people could have been killed or injured within the crossfire with the Police, but again most were killed or injured within the first couple of minutes when her entered the club. This is backed up by the witnesses.

Which brings me to the next point? So Eddies starting position, is based off a lack of understanding. Which is not her fault.  Which though sadly then leads to questioning other aspects which have no relevance. As they are being based off this lack of understanding. This happens with many conspiracy theories. Where people simply fail to understand something, then their mind takes over and creates issues with aspects that are not issues at all. So its easy to see how so many would have been killed and wounded within just 120 seconds.

So the biggest problem with any view that this is a conspiracy is the320 people in the club itself. 49 were killed and 53 wounded, of which a couple were the Police. At every turn, what Eddie is sadly doing is either ignoring or avoiding the testimonies of the wounded or those uninjured. They all state one lone gunman. Now unless she thinks they are all inn on this. How on earth could you then get 320 people to be all a part of this, as they would have to be? If the view is all those who survived are lying. As that would have to be what is being claimed here. I mean, the only outlandish thing I can think of is. That they found 320 suicidal people and stated, they have a way, some of them will get their wish, but it’s a bit of a lottery and that some will be uninjured and some wounded. You then would have the problem. Of those not being killed, then spilling the beans on the whole operation. Of course it could also be lizard men, or robots or any other ridiculous views as to why.

You see, when you break down the basic facts. It’s very simple to see what happened. If people go off conflicting accounts in the media. Then they simply fail to understand that this happens not only in terrorist attacks, but riots, murders, muggings etc. The reality is and again Eddie is not to blame. She simply does not understand the capability of guns. If she did, I doubt this would then have led to her to question conflicting reports, which are irrelevant. All that is relevant, are the testimonies of those involved in the incident. Not what the media reports itself.




I next turn to the points made about the killer himself. Which again a fine example of the media going off people who knew him, as to why this may have occurred. One a possible accomplise. His second wife, an ethnic Palestinian. Who is going to be investigated by a grand jury.
Now the view from the left to excuse any religious root cause to this. Is that he was a closet gay.

Okay, lets go along with these hypothesis. If he was Gay and if we are led to believ his father kept having a go at him for being gay. Combined from the culture they come from. One of shame and honour. Where the father clearly taught his son homosexuality is a sin and will be punished by their deity. To then possible have a ife also admonish him over being homosexual. Could have led to him being so shamed by the family.

This led to him committing the most extreme murder of homosexuals. The culture of honour could have led to him to forfeit his life, but believeing that by committing this act, he would prove his was not gay. That would be the only real plausible explanation for him them targeting homosexuals, if he was gay himself. Which the root cause is religion and culture. That views homosexuality is criminal. To have been growing up then by parents who reject you because of who you are, could of possible led to this. If of course we go along with this hypoethsis..

I do not buy this at all. The FBI did investigate him. Where he did make loud threats about what he was going to do to homosexuals, Jews etc. The matter was only dropped as he was able to convince the FBI he only said this in anger. Though to me, if someone hates Jews and Homosexuals with that much anger in a liberal nation. Alarm bells should at least start to sound. Easy to say in hindsight. You then have the problem how this is not some minority view either held by Muslim throughout the world.

The sad reality is a majority hold views that are anti-homosexual and Jewish based on what is taught in Mosques, schools, family memebers ect. There is no denying this. Yet the left will look to excuse this problem. Well I once believed two Muslims on here and then how wrong I was to be in error. One of them reacted with such anger to gay marriage. To then where both believe one nation and only one nation should not exist in the world.  They both boke the trust I had in them. Which proved to me, how they place their religion over everything else. So why would 2 British Muslims. One of Afghanistan ethnicity and the other Yemeni/Indian ethnicity. Deny the right for the only Jewish nation in the world to exist? I mena neither have got it in them to commit violence, but each is corrupted by hate against the israeli's, where they use zionism. Wrongly thinking this does not make them racist and xenophobic, because the vast majority of Jews are zionists.

Because of the teachings in their faith. Which makes them believe that the Muslim Arabs. Who are not indigenous to the area. (Who were former conquerors and colonialists, as their genesis is in the Arabian Peninsula). Who do have a right to self-determination and a nation. As they have “rights of long standing prescience”. That the majority are descendants of immigrants themselves to the area over the last 150 years. Where some will though descend back to the time of the colonisation by the Arabs and even former Jews and Christians who converted. Should supersede the Jews who are indigenous to the area.  It shows the extent of indoctrination in the Muslim world, where Muslims are being killed in the tens of thousands each year by Muslim extremists as secondary to their hate of Israel. There is something very fundamentally wrong with that and shows the sham claim on Palestinian deaths in conflicts started by the likes of Hamas and the PLO, is to use their deaths. As a means to delegitimize Israeli’s. What is worse some on the left champion this.

Even their own Quran emphatically states the area belongs to the Jews. They ignore that Palestinians started this conflict and have continued this conflict, because they refuse to except the right of Israel to exist, just as they do not accept the right of Israel to exist. Its easily proven, just by to British Muslims, with no other connection, but their faith that has them also claim the Jews have no right to a nation. These are supposedly two progressive Muslims as well. I believe in a two state solution. So why is it they are more vocal over this conflict. Than they are over Muslims killing Muslims in Syria, Yemen, Iraq civil wars at the moment? Because they have been brought up to look down on Jews and blame Jews.

Through narratives of hate, that seeks to delegitimize Jews. That is all the evidence you need to understand the problem in the Muslim world. One of which we need to back real progressives to tackle the narratives of hate and conspiracies that are fuelling Muslim hatred of the West and Jews. People simply do not understand the ethos of the religious mentality.

I mean imagine that some white Germans and Russians constantly argued that Poland should not exist, (which is what both Stalin and Hitler both agreed on). Where they constantly delegitimized Poland and the Polish people, with the one sole intent that the world would come to view this nation with so much hate, they would rendered it defenceless. Where on the border of Poland, they are surrounded by hostile nations.  Just waiting for this to happen. Just so they could could invade and repeat history. Would the left be championing such a cause, as they do now with those who constantly try to deligitimize Israel and its people. Where they blatantly ignore the aggressors have constantly been the Aarb states? Peace will come when the world stops pandering to Muslim anti-Semitism and hate. The Muslims by this one act championing a two state solutioin, would go miles to improving Muslim relations in the world. It would see Muslims as advocates of peace in a conflict where they are known to deny the existence of a people to a home.

Like I have said, the religion is engineered to react to any challenge and through violence. Which is evident as its geared to use violence through jihad and martyrdom, based off a fear of punishment in the afterlife. That plays on the insecurities of people over death. Its this insecurities combined with a hateful narrative that can so easily corrupt vunerable Muslims. The west once went through the same problems, where the Church tried to prevent progression and of losing its control and power. We are seeing the same in the Islamic world, where after the Arab Spring. It is this more than anything that has made some islamists, again play off a fear invented that the west is out to destroy islam. They are denying any progression and using the most extreme violence, hate promoted to achieve this aim.

Now you would think as happens in many societies, that it is from the younger generations that we have seen where progression happens best. Since the Arab spring. Islamists though have realised that it is the Muslim youth who they must target with indoctrination and narratives of hate based on fear, islamophobia  etc, as a recruiting drive to stem western influence. Its working so well. That we are seeing where many young Muslims were growing up progressive. Instead we are now seeing the opposite in some Muslim majority countries and now even in the west where there is now a society within a society of Muslims. The left simply fail to understand the root cause and again look again at progressive Muslims like Maajid Nawaz. He arguses that its not against islam to be homosexual. But where is the support for him? Instead, he is seen as a white puppet and many Muslims are against him, but why?

See his views on the religion below on homosexuality which is progressive. Maybe someone can tell me what is wrong with that and why many Muslims are not supporting his views about homosexuality in Islam?

Islam and homosexuality wrote:
It is true that many early Muslim scholars condemned homosexuality, and cited scripture to justify their position. But the themes of love and sexuality have been debated and discussed by Muslim theologians and artists for centuries. The word “homosexuality” is not even used in the Quran. In fact, it did not exist in the Arabic language. The modern Muslim conclusion that homosexuality is “unnatural” is therefore not based on anything in scripture.

The Quranic story of the prophet Lot is often invoked by religious-conservative Muslims to denounce homosexuals. But even here, there has been debate. A renowned traditional authority on the Quran, al-Kisa’i al-Kufi, took the view that the story of Lot referred to heterosexual men who raped other men.

The chapter of al-Nur (Quran 24:31) specifically recognizes “men who are not in need of women.” As the context of the passage shows, these are men who are not attracted to women. They may have been gay or asexual, but, by definition, they were not heterosexual men. They are also not judged or condemned anywhere in the Quran. The Prophet’s own example shows that he accepted men living around him who were called “Mukhannath,” seen to be “acting like women.”

This subtle early recognition grew to a point where it was open within the courts of various caliphs in the Muslim Golden Age. Abu Nuwas (756-814) was one of the greatest classical Arab poets. He flourished during the start of the Abbasid era Golden Age (750-1258), based in Baghdad.

As was normal during this period, sexual roles were only imagined in terms of active and passive participants, not as gay or straight sex, and what we would today describe as homosexuality was clear and present in this society.

Biographies of the bohemian Abu Nuwas recount his many sexual relationships with women and teenage boys, especially under the patronage of Caliph al-Amin (809-13), with whom Abu Nuwas shared many experiences. One of Abu Nuwas’s most famous compilations of poetry is known as Ghazal. In it, he celebrates his love for 15-year-old teenagers (khumasi), young men in military training or even those who have started growing facial hair (muaddir). In his “Love in Bloom,” Abu Nuwas describes his bond with a male lover as an “unbreakable rope.”

Many other excellent classical Muslim poets wrote in homoerotic tones, including the Persian Ibn Dawud (868-909), Andalusian Ibn Quzman (1080-1160), and the Arab Sicilian Ibn Hamdis (1053-1133). Lovemaking manuals are also to be found, such as The Perfumed Garden (al-Rawd al-Atir fi Nuzhat al-Khatir) by the Tunisian Shaiykh Muhammad ibn Umar al-Nafwazi, between 1410 and 1434, and The Book of Respective Merits of Maids and Young Men (Kitab Mafaharat al-Jawari wa al-Ghilman) by the prolific al-Jahiz (777-869).

Later on still, Omar Khayyam (d. 1126) set the tone for sexuality in his Quartets (Ruba’iyyat), and Sa’di of Shiraz (1184-1291) graphically discusses his love of young men. Most famous of them all, Jalal al-Din Rumi (1207-1273) passionately writes about his deep affection for the wandering mystic Shams al-Din Tabriz, leading many modern academics to conclude that he must have been deeply in love with him.

But as prudish Victorian values spread from Europe to the Middle East through colonialism, and as 19th century neo-fundamentalist Wahhabism began to take hold in the Arabian peninsula, and as 20th century Islamism gained ground, spreading from Egypt around the globe, censorship, misogyny and homophobia began to spread among Muslims worldwide.

The best example of the way in which Muslim attitudes to sex have gone backwards is found in the Arabian fantasy A Thousand and One Nights. Keen to read a version of this masterpiece in its original Arabic, I once excitedly rushed to purchase a copy from an Egyptian bazaar. Imagine my disbelief when I came home to find “family version” stamped on the inside. The famed court of the late Abbasid Caliph Harun al-Rashid, where this story was originally related, was able to tolerate the racier parts of this classic Arabic tale while parts of modern Egypt apparently could not.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/13/why-does-gay-sex-scare-modern-Muslims-it-didn-t-in-the-golden-age.html

That is what people need to ask themselves as to why they would be against someone progressive and for liberal values. As even again one of the Muslims on here is against him. That is telling in itself. I put this down again to the indoctrination and fear placed around islamophobia on the religion itself that is driving this by Islamists. I want to see progression and for islam to become as other religions into the 21st century, so what you need to ask is why many on the left and Muslims themselves are not backing them. I never changed my views because of Sam Harris. I changed them because of the views I have heard from Muslims and read on here that made me appalled at their stance. I do not blame them. I blame those who have corrupted them.

Sorry if I have side tracked, buts its to show the extent and root cause of the problem, and its not a new problem either, as its happened before where religions look to defend their control. As that is what mainly religions are about.
Control.

Now unlike Quill and co who can only attempt character assassination of me. I am not doing the same to the two resident Muslims, but using and citing their views as evidence to the extent of the problem. The problem with Quill is that he generally gets his facts wrong and why his reasoning makes next to no sense. Where as I use factual reasoning for my points. Though am happy if he wishes to continue to character assassinate me, as that just proves that is all he is capable of when debating me.

So take it or leave my views, but that is the extent of the fear from the left, that they are afraid to speak out in fear of being classed bigots. I say this based on the forum thread, where simply its often the case , they lack an understanding of facts, which is ironic after a couple of them stating this. Like I say, if the facts are wrong from the start point, the reasoning that follows is immediately flawed based off a falsehood.

Didge wrote:Bumped for anyone to actully challenge all of my points

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Bumped for anyone to actully challenge all of my points

Been there, done that.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Been there, done that.

You mean you chose to opt out simply because you had no answer to my points

Thanks, but move along and allow those with intelligence and reason then to debate

Thanks

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

You mean you chose to opt out simply because you had no answer to my points

Thanks, but move along and allow those with intelligence and reason then to debate

Thanks

Well no...I simply don't want to engage in any more exchanges like this .

Islam and homosexuality wrote:
It is true that many early Muslim scholars condemned homosexuality, and cited scripture to justify their position. But the themes of love and sexuality have been debated and discussed by Muslim theologians and artists for centuries. The word “homosexuality” is not even used in the Quran. In fact, it did not exist in the Arabic language. The modern Muslim conclusion that homosexuality is “unnatural” is therefore not based on anything in scripture.

The Quranic story of the prophet Lot is often invoked by religious-conservative Muslims to denounce homosexuals. But even here, there has been debate. A renowned traditional authority on the Quran, al-Kisa’i al-Kufi, took the view that the story of Lot referred to heterosexual men who raped other men.

The chapter of al-Nur (Quran 24:31) specifically recognizes “men who are not in need of women.” As the context of the passage shows, these are men who are not attracted to women. They may have been gay or asexual, but, by definition, they were not heterosexual men. They are also not judged or condemned anywhere in the Quran. The Prophet’s own example shows that he accepted men living around him who were called “Mukhannath,” seen to be “acting like women.”

This subtle early recognition grew to a point where it was open within the courts of various caliphs in the Muslim Golden Age. Abu Nuwas (756-814) was one of the greatest classical Arab poets. He flourished during the start of the Abbasid era Golden Age (750-1258), based in Baghdad.

As was normal during this period, sexual roles were only imagined in terms of active and passive participants, not as gay or straight sex, and what we would today describe as homosexuality was clear and present in this society.

Biographies of the bohemian Abu Nuwas recount his many sexual relationships with women and teenage boys, especially under the patronage of Caliph al-Amin (809-13), with whom Abu Nuwas shared many experiences. One of Abu Nuwas’s most famous compilations of poetry is known as Ghazal. In it, he celebrates his love for 15-year-old teenagers (khumasi), young men in military training or even those who have started growing facial hair (muaddir). In his “Love in Bloom,” Abu Nuwas describes his bond with a male lover as an “unbreakable rope.”

Many other excellent classical Muslim poets wrote in homoerotic tones, including the Persian Ibn Dawud (868-909), Andalusian Ibn Quzman (1080-1160), and the Arab Sicilian Ibn Hamdis (1053-1133). Lovemaking manuals are also to be found, such as The Perfumed Garden (al-Rawd al-Atir fi Nuzhat al-Khatir) by the Tunisian Shaiykh Muhammad ibn Umar al-Nafwazi, between 1410 and 1434, and The Book of Respective Merits of Maids and Young Men (Kitab Mafaharat al-Jawari wa al-Ghilman) by the prolific al-Jahiz (777-869).

Later on still, Omar Khayyam (d. 1126) set the tone for sexuality in his Quartets (Ruba’iyyat), and Sa’di of Shiraz (1184-1291) graphically discusses his love of young men. Most famous of them all, Jalal al-Din Rumi (1207-1273) passionately writes about his deep affection for the wandering mystic Shams al-Din Tabriz, leading many modern academics to conclude that he must have been deeply in love with him.

But as prudish Victorian values spread from Europe to the Middle East through colonialism, and as 19th century neo-fundamentalist Wahhabism began to take hold in the Arabian peninsula, and as 20th century Islamism gained ground, spreading from Egypt around the globe, censorship, misogyny and homophobia began to spread among Muslims worldwide.

The best example of the way in which Muslim attitudes to sex have gone backwards is found in the Arabian fantasy A Thousand and One Nights. Keen to read a version of this masterpiece in its original Arabic, I once excitedly rushed to purchase a copy from an Egyptian bazaar. Imagine my disbelief when I came home to find “family version” stamped on the inside. The famed court of the late Abbasid Caliph Harun al-Rashid, where this story was originally related, was able to tolerate the racier parts of this classic Arabic tale while parts of modern Egypt apparently could not.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/13/why-does-gay-sex-scare-modern-Muslims-it-didn-t-in-the-golden-age.html

eddie wrote:What has religion to do with this thread?

Tommy Monk wrote:Not sure eddie... but the shooter was a Muslim and proclaimed his allegiance to isis and other islamist terrorist groups and proclaimed his hatred for homosexuals and jews...


But... as veya is saying... religion is not a valid reason for his murdering spree... so it wasn't the reason for it... and it was nothing to do with islam... again... even though again the perpetrator was telling us clearly that this was the whole reason for it...


But it can't be... so it isn't... and anyone who says otherwise is a racist islamaphobic xenaphobic Nazi Brexiteer right wing nutcase with blood on their hands!!!

veya_victaous wrote:Actually the guy didn't tell us shit
following him though we can see he is clearly a derranged individual
with issues with homosexuality and his personal religion.

To go 'ohh it becuase some old book says some shit that is also said in Bible and Torah' is a cope out.
Just racists looking to Blame rather than solve, and that Blame Cycle is exactly why this dumb ass shit has been going on for thosand years.
Like any argument between pathetic Children it takes one of them to be the bigger and for the west to be the bigger, People like you and didge need to be told to Shut the fuck up with you regressive primitive backwards caveman like mentality. Stop Pretending you are any better you are just as fucking base as them seeking to Blame like them, they Blame the west.

Here is an Idea Be PROGRESSIVE (the exact opposite of Didge) an look for a Solution that doesn't boil down to Genocide of the other guy.
Like the Fucking Obvious BAN ASSAULT WEAPONS!!
Let be realistic there will always be people that are crazy and commit acts like this, it is about minizing their capacity for harm. Mulsim wasn;t the isseu for any other ther mass shooting so far this year for the thousands of othetr gun murders in the US so far this year.

veya_victaous wrote:and how did we stop Christians murdering and gays?

that is right we just progressed with Secualrism in SPITE of the Chritistin hatred of Homosexuals the Murder, the forced castration.
We, the good secularist, ignored them and progressed because that is what being Progressive Fucking is!
you cannot have plans based around giving blaming a 1700 year old book and claim to be progressive that is not progress at all.
Progress is Not looking and spending all you time worrying about what someone else is doing. We must keep improving and we don't do that by with the Fear driven regressive wank by Pathetic people that live in the past cause they know they are too lacking in quality to persist into the future.

Eilzel wrote:You are all debating details, truth is you are right and wrong.

This was an attack on a gay nightclub- it was homophobic.

The hate for homosexuality must come from somewhere, and it is pretty obvious in this case that the source is his religion- it was to an extent causedby religion.

He pledged allegiance (meaningless or otherwise) to IS- so it was a terrorist attack.

And without access to a powerful weapon, he couldn't have killed so many people- so lax gun control allowed this to happen.

It isn't any 1-3 of these things to blame, it is all of them. The Right can shout Islam, the Left can shout homophobia and gun control, but that is political ball games. It is all these things, and if we don't accept that then we cannot guarantee something like this won't happen again.

Didge wrote:Oh and I forgot to very easily debunk the point on guns

Tell me veya how eaxactly did Israelis murdered by knives and being run over by terrorist acts, would have had their lives saved with guns banned?

Explosives are banned in Israel to be carried by terrorists,m so tell me how and why people get blown up?

People who make the argument over banning guns simple again have limited intelligence, as the guns is a just the means to carry out the act. Without a gun, other methods would have been used.

Not only that, in this country guns are banned and yet people still die of guns by murder, which means that banning guns does not prevent gun deaths.

veya_victaous wrote:

Didge wrote:Oh and I forgot to very easily debunk the point on guns

Tell me veya how eaxactly did Israelis murdered by knives and being run over by terrorist acts, would have had their lives saved with guns banned?

Explosives are banned in Israel to be carried by terrorists,m so tell me how and why people get blown up?

People who make the argument over banning guns simple again have limited intelligence, as the guns is a just the means to carry out the act. Without a gun, other methods would have been used.

Not only that, in this country guns are banned and yet people still die of guns by murder, which means that banning guns does not prevent gun deaths.

yeah we already did those gun numbers with tommy

More people have gone to hospital from gun shot wounds in Chicago in 6 months than 3.5 years worth of 'firearms discharged' in London even though London has triple the population, means the instance per capita is about 18 time higher and that is comparing fired to injured.

And Israel is A Terrorist nation at war with another terrorist nation, Hardly an Example relevant to Western Secular nations

Maybe that is why your ideas are so warped you keep using terrorist as examples, you only listen to terrorists rather than normal people.
It's not a debate You are not intelligent nor freethinking enough to debate, speaking to you is the same as speaking to any other fundamentalist wack job.


As You admit you are Catholic by birth and raised as that explains why you act like a catholic and not a secularist.
I stop calling myself an atheist because of people like you have hijacked it and made it the opposite of what it was and made it everything it is meant to be greater than, i don’t want to associated with ones so primitive and dumb, same reason i wouldn't join a church.


Why Are Chrisitians not mudering Gays? because some idiot kept quoting old text to them and telling them they had not and could not change from thoausand year old texts? NO NOT AT ALL.  That would not have achieved jack shit, like you achieve jack shit now.

we focred them to be better by being better oursleves, that is progressive secularism. You are the opposite of progress, Complains of the past but no suggestion for the future..

Eilzel wrote:It's clearly not. Since Orlando over 100 more people have died in shootings in the USA. In countries with gun control (ie: in Europe), shootings happen rarely, and to a fantastically lesser degree. So it does work. Rare bomb attacks cannot compare with hundreds of shootings a year. Israel is too extreme a comparison due to its geography and regional politics.

veya_victaous wrote:At Point 3 than WHY dont you accept that Muslims can be too?

And that is game set match, nothing you posted is relevant after pointing out that Islam like Catholism, Does not define the complete person, particualrly not one that is crazy enough to commit terrorist acts. Until we can agree it is the 'willingness to commit terrorism' that is the problem the world will not progeess on this issue. for Islam or Israel or EDL makes no difference.


AND Monkeys are to blame, Stupid hairless apes, not a fucking book. cause even that was written by You guessed it Stupid hairless apes.  

Didge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:It's clearly not. Since Orlando over 100 more people have died in shootings in the USA. In countries with gun control (ie: in Europe), shootings happen rarely, and to a fantastically lesser degree. So it does work. Rare bomb attacks cannot compare with hundreds of shootings a year. Israel is too extreme a comparison due to its geography and regional politics.

Irrelevant.
If the means was to murder homosexuals, which is seperate as its a terrorist act, are you claiming to me other means to murder could not have been used?
Bombs are not rare at all these days Compared to shooting in the USA, yes they are
Israel has guns banned by non-Israeli's, so does that stop terrorism? how can terorist stop terrorism? Israel is not relvant they are clearly in a Situation no one else is in no one else is in. contsantly boming and attackcing a neighbour so much weaker than themseleves.
No, and its the best point to make on this.
The only thing you could argue off is limiting the number of deaths if they do not have access to bombs.
You still would not prevent deaths

veya_victaous wrote:

Didge wrote:


Irrelevant.
If the means was to murder homosexuals, which is seperate as its a terrorist act, are you claiming to me other means to murder could not have been used?
Bombs are not rare at all these days Compared to shooting in the USA, yes they are
Israel has guns banned by non-Israeli's, so does that stop terrorism? how can terorist stop terrorism? Israel is not relvant they are clearly in a Situation no one else is in no one else is in. contsantly boming and attackcing a neighbour so much weaker than themseleves.
No, and its the best point to make on this.
The only thing you could argue off is limiting the number of deaths if they do not have access to bombs.
You still would not prevent deaths

you are right all that you posted is Irrelevant

seems you care nothing for the twices as many deaths in the same city since then because you canot warp them into your islamaphobia.

Islam and homosexuality wrote:
It is true that many early Muslim scholars condemned homosexuality, and cited scripture to justify their position. But the themes of love and sexuality have been debated and discussed by Muslim theologians and artists for centuries. The word “homosexuality” is not even used in the Quran. In fact, it did not exist in the Arabic language. The modern Muslim conclusion that homosexuality is “unnatural” is therefore not based on anything in scripture.

The Quranic story of the prophet Lot is often invoked by religious-conservative Muslims to denounce homosexuals. But even here, there has been debate. A renowned traditional authority on the Quran, al-Kisa’i al-Kufi, took the view that the story of Lot referred to heterosexual men who raped other men.

The chapter of al-Nur (Quran 24:31) specifically recognizes “men who are not in need of women.” As the context of the passage shows, these are men who are not attracted to women. They may have been gay or asexual, but, by definition, they were not heterosexual men. They are also not judged or condemned anywhere in the Quran. The Prophet’s own example shows that he accepted men living around him who were called “Mukhannath,” seen to be “acting like women.”

This subtle early recognition grew to a point where it was open within the courts of various caliphs in the Muslim Golden Age. Abu Nuwas (756-814) was one of the greatest classical Arab poets. He flourished during the start of the Abbasid era Golden Age (750-1258), based in Baghdad.

As was normal during this period, sexual roles were only imagined in terms of active and passive participants, not as gay or straight sex, and what we would today describe as homosexuality was clear and present in this society.

Biographies of the bohemian Abu Nuwas recount his many sexual relationships with women and teenage boys, especially under the patronage of Caliph al-Amin (809-13), with whom Abu Nuwas shared many experiences. One of Abu Nuwas’s most famous compilations of poetry is known as Ghazal. In it, he celebrates his love for 15-year-old teenagers (khumasi), young men in military training or even those who have started growing facial hair (muaddir). In his “Love in Bloom,” Abu Nuwas describes his bond with a male lover as an “unbreakable rope.”

Many other excellent classical Muslim poets wrote in homoerotic tones, including the Persian Ibn Dawud (868-909), Andalusian Ibn Quzman (1080-1160), and the Arab Sicilian Ibn Hamdis (1053-1133). Lovemaking manuals are also to be found, such as The Perfumed Garden (al-Rawd al-Atir fi Nuzhat al-Khatir) by the Tunisian Shaiykh Muhammad ibn Umar al-Nafwazi, between 1410 and 1434, and The Book of Respective Merits of Maids and Young Men (Kitab Mafaharat al-Jawari wa al-Ghilman) by the prolific al-Jahiz (777-869).

Later on still, Omar Khayyam (d. 1126) set the tone for sexuality in his Quartets (Ruba’iyyat), and Sa’di of Shiraz (1184-1291) graphically discusses his love of young men. Most famous of them all, Jalal al-Din Rumi (1207-1273) passionately writes about his deep affection for the wandering mystic Shams al-Din Tabriz, leading many modern academics to conclude that he must have been deeply in love with him.

But as prudish Victorian values spread from Europe to the Middle East through colonialism, and as 19th century neo-fundamentalist Wahhabism began to take hold in the Arabian peninsula, and as 20th century Islamism gained ground, spreading from Egypt around the globe, censorship, misogyny and homophobia began to spread among Muslims worldwide.

The best example of the way in which Muslim attitudes to sex have gone backwards is found in the Arabian fantasy A Thousand and One Nights. Keen to read a version of this masterpiece in its original Arabic, I once excitedly rushed to purchase a copy from an Egyptian bazaar. Imagine my disbelief when I came home to find “family version” stamped on the inside. The famed court of the late Abbasid Caliph Harun al-Rashid, where this story was originally related, was able to tolerate the racier parts of this classic Arabic tale while parts of modern Egypt apparently could not.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/13/why-does-gay-sex-scare-modern-Muslims-it-didn-t-in-the-golden-age.html

Didge wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:At Point 3 than WHY dont you accept that Muslims can be too?

And that is game set match, nothing you posted is relevant after pointing out that Islam like Catholism, Does not define the complete person, particualrly not one that is crazy enough to commit terrorist acts. Until we can agree it is the 'willingness to commit terrorism' that is the problem the world will not progeess on this issue. for Islam or Israel or EDL makes no difference.


AND Monkeys are to blame, Stupid hairless apes, not a fucking book. cause even that was written by You guessed it Stupid hairless apes.  

Again refer to my post to eddie, where i certainly accept some Muslims are secularists and I back them

This is why it helps if you read posts and stop acting like a 2 year old.

I will state again the problem with the left as i pointed out in my post to eddis is they do not back the secularist Muslims like as shown who teach homosexuality is not a sin. As seen though instead they defend those who follow main stream islam that teaches homosexuality is a crime
Maybe you should like any child learn to crawl before you learn how to walk.

The last point to show how ineffective gun bans are, which does not stop terrorism.

Exhibit 1) The IRA

Eilzel wrote:So didge, tell us why we don't have so many deaths from gun violence in the UK when compared to the US, even proportionally? You don't think it has anything to do with the lack of availability of guns?

Didge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:So didge, tell us why we don't have so many deaths from gun violence in the UK when compared to the US, even proportionally? You don't think it has anything to do with the lack of availability of guns?

Tell me why we still have gun deaths Eilzel?

Tell me why the IRA was able to get their hands on many guns Eilzel?

Tell me why we still have around 600 murders per year Eilzel?

You see you are doing the same failed and flawed reasoning.
Your reason is that such controls reduce gun deaths, but they do not stop gun deaths.
Now again the example I gave you was the IRA, that smuggled into both Ireland and the UK countless guns.
Again if a gun is not available, then there is bombs, modes of transport, chemicals or any number of innovative methods that can kill. The most effective way with a nightclub, would have been arson.
To argue that banning guns will stop gun deaths is as seen gobbledygook.

Its not worth responding to veya, you at least are intelligent, he is just immature and clueless and like I say, did not read my post.

veya_victaous wrote:

Didge wrote:


Tell me why we still have gun deaths Eilzel?

Tell me why the IRA was able to get their hands on many guns Eilzel?

Tell me why we still have around 600 murders per year Eilzel?

You see you are doing the same failed and flawed reasoning.
Your reason is that such controls reduce gun deaths, but they do not stop gun deaths.
Now again the example I gave you was the IRA, that smuggled into both Ireland and the UK countless guns.
Again if a gun is not available, then there is bombs, modes of transport, chemicals or any number of innovative methods that can kill. The most effective way with a nightclub, would have been arson.
To argue that banning guns will stop gun deaths is as seen gobbledygook.

Its not worth responding to veya, you at least are intelligent, he is just immature and clueless and like I say, did not read my post.

You make
Zero Sum statements...
So Never suggest you are intelligent.
All those Bolded statements PROVE you are not.

veya_victaous wrote: No reasoning just waffle

Literally those statements Define you as a Non-thinking application.

veya_victaous wrote: No reasoning just waffle

we have literally made computer programs with superior logic and reasoning than you are capale of.

veya_victaous wrote: No reasoning just waffle and talking about me

Because Your Fault is the one that terminatior series taught programmers to avoid.

veya_victaous wrote: No reasoning just waffle

Zero Sum Statements Do not fit in the real world!

veya_victaous wrote: No reasoning just waffle

people that use them are stupid and should be kept away for any sort of power or decision making.

veya_victaous wrote: No reasoning just waffle

no 2 ways about it it is only through a Simplistic logic Algorthm can zero sum statements even be expected to carry a result.
And we started to make programs 'smarter' than that in the 90's.

veya_victaous wrote: No reasoning just waffle

I have never made a Algorthm that dumb in my professonal life yet, (be unemployed if I did)  

veya_victaous wrote: No reasoning just waffle

your monkey brain still relies on them and you are self conceited enough to think that others are as simple as you.

veya_victaous wrote: No reasoning just waffle and more abuse withj so far nothing on the actual debate, just gibberish

to expalin some Basic maths
600 murders instead of....
6,000 of those attributed to handguns in the USA in one year.
even allowing for population that is more than double the total number of murders by any means compared to Just had guns !!!
there are another 2000 for unspecificed guns types
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

veya_victaous wrote: Now explain israel and Swedon that have more gun ownership and far less gun murders?
Oh dear

that is a Huge Statisical imporvement, Uk Gun control works, undeniably effective at REDUCING gun crime and deaths.

veya_victaous wrote: No reasoning, which the Uk is one country and was not effective against the IRA who smuggled in weapons and your stats is off the US and fails to understand why there is high crime levels, no matter if guns were avialable.
Again we are talking about terrorism

Didge wrote:I am also glad to see Eddie has conceded the points over her conspiracy claims.

This is what happens when people start from a position that lacks understanding, which in this case was guns and their capabilities.

eddie wrote:

Didge wrote:I am also glad to see Eddie has conceded the points over her conspiracy claims.

This is what happens when people start from a position that lacks understanding, which in this case was guns and their capabilities.

I haven't conceded any points at all I just stopped replying on here; I asked some questions and got the answers I needed.
I never made any claims.
I don't read conspiracy stories I read alternate stories to the official version. "Conspiracy theories" is a term made up to deflect and a meaningless label, used by the lazy.

I think that covers your whole post, except to say, you can have the thread now, to use for religion, as I've no further need for it.

eddie wrote:http://www.wnd.com/2015/09/obama-puts-u-s-on-fast-track-to-world-government/

This is why they want to ban guns; to disarm the public.

Perhaps all the shootings are organised by powerful people at the very, very top of our food chain. Orchestrated and carried out by those that eventually want a world government.

What do you think the EU will eventually, (and it will appear to happen  so organically), become? It will grow bigger, other counties will join - by silent (violent)  manipulation and it will be for want of a better phrase, A World Government.

You can't rule a world when a big huge country like the US has guns on its streets.

Get rid of the guns!

How?

Make the public hate them. Make the public think it's a good idea to get rid becasue "look at all the deaths!"


You think that's far-fetched? It's no more far-fetched than anything else that people thought years ago was impossible. Walking on the moon, being one, I guess.

Hire some people, always loners, or Muslim terrorists, get them to shoot up loads of people, kids, gays (massive LBGT movement in the US) and make sure the shooters always kill themselves. Manipulate the story and get people hyped up. It's all about the hype.

They want the US disarmed. It's that simple. Most of these huge big gun deaths are manipulated. Of course, there are lots that simply happen because you can't stop a fool from shooting a gun.

There's my take on it. Not coming back for a Q&A session - all answers to be found about world government in lots of different newspapers

Here's one: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12018877/The-truth-how-a-secretive-elite-created-the-EU-to-build-a-world-government.html

eddie wrote:http://www.wnd.com/2015/09/obama-puts-u-s-on-fast-track-to-world-government/

This is why they want to ban guns; to disarm the public.

Perhaps all the shootings are organised by powerful people at the very, very top of our food chain. Orchestrated and carried out by those that eventually want a world government.

What do you think the EU will eventually, (and it will appear to happen  so organically), become? It will grow bigger, other counties will join - by silent (violent)  manipulation and it will be for want of a better phrase, A World Government.

You can't rule a world when a big huge country like the US has guns on its streets.

Get rid of the guns!

How?

Make the public hate them. Make the public think it's a good idea to get rid becasue "look at all the deaths!"


You think that's far-fetched? It's no more far-fetched than anything else that people thought years ago was impossible. Walking on the moon, being one, I guess.

Hire some people, always loners, or Muslim terrorists, get them to shoot up loads of people, kids, gays (massive LBGT movement in the US) and make sure the shooters always kill themselves. Manipulate the story and get people hyped up. It's all about the hype.

They want the US disarmed. It's that simple. Most of these huge big gun deaths are manipulated. Of course, there are lots that simply happen because you can't stop a fool from shooting a gun.

There's my take on it. Not coming back for a Q&A session - all answers to be found about world government in lots of different newspapers

Here's one: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12018877/The-truth-how-a-secretive-elite-created-the-EU-to-build-a-world-government.html

eddie wrote:http://www.wnd.com/2015/09/obama-puts-u-s-on-fast-track-to-world-government/
Did you read that - any of that link that you provided?
Well, I did ...and that wing nut quotes exerts from the bible and chases his own tail around from what 'his view' of world domination and how the UN needs to be in complete charge of everything - Seriously  This same organization that has been found guilty of raping/abusing women & children in those 3rd world countries - using their power and weapons to steal from the very locals that they are stationed there to provide some balance of power & protection ...those noble UN group???
And the entire article is 'HIS' stilted POV about how American ideology will destroy 3rd world countries by **I'll insert quotes below, from your own article**
This is why they want to ban guns; to disarm the public.
Perhaps all the shootings are organised by powerful people at the very, very top of our food chain. Orchestrated and carried out by those that eventually want a world government.
What do you think the EU will eventually, (and it will appear to happen  so organically), become? It will grow bigger, other counties will join - by silent (violent)  manipulation and it will be for want of a better phrase, A World Government.
You can't rule a world when a big huge country like the US has guns on its streets.
Get rid of the guns!
How?
Make the public hate them. Make the public think it's a good idea to get rid becasue "look at all the deaths!"
You think that's far-fetched? It's no more far-fetched than anything else that people thought years ago was impossible. Walking on the moon, being one, I guess.

Hire some people, always loners, or Muslim terrorists, get them to shoot up loads of people, kids, gays (massive LBGT movement in the US) and make sure the shooters always kill themselves. Manipulate the story and get people hyped up. It's all about the hype.
They want the US disarmed. It's that simple. Most of these huge big gun deaths are manipulated. Of course, there are lots that simply happen because you can't stop a fool from shooting a gun.
There's my take on it. Not coming back for a Q&A session - all answers to be found about world government in lots of different newspapers
Here's one: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12018877/The-truth-how-a-secretive-elite-created-the-EU-to-build-a-world-government.html

“The real agenda of the globalist elite through all these ‘sustainable development’ and ‘social justice’ programs are to create a new global state,” says McGuire.
His book, co-authored with journalist Troy Anderson, takes an investigative approach to examining end-times prophecies and the current state of the world in the epic battle between good and evil.
“We read in the book of Revelation that in the last days Babylon will return as a ‘born-again’ world government, religion and economic system. What is happening now with the United Nations is Babylon rising again before our very eyes.”

The late CBS anchorman, Walter Cronkite, known as “the most trusted man in America,” said in 1999, that the U.S. must give the United Nations the full power of a world government and both a police and military to enforce its international laws. Cronkite also said that America must give up its sovereignty for this U.N. world government to take over.