The Orlando shooting

by eddie Mon Jun 13, 2016 1:03 pm

First topic message reminder :

Just wanted to get my facts straight, so if anyone can answer these I'd be grateful.

Did The shooter act alone?
Did The shooter have a machine gun or loads of different guns and lots of ammo?
Did The shooter first, have a set-to in front of the club, with police?
How did The shooter get into the club?
Did The shooter start shooting straight away once inside the club?

Just answer each question for me if you can as I have some questions of my own.
I want someone else to clarify this for me.
Thanks

by Guest Mon Jun 20, 2016 4:05 pm

Eilzel wrote:I haven't said we haved stopped gun crime didge, just that it is significantly less frequent than in the states. Even proportionally. Why?

Gibberish, again by having tight gun controls has this stopped terrorist attacks or them or criminals obtaining an arsenal of weapons

At each point you avoid this.

by Guest Mon Jun 20, 2016 4:06 pm

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.

The I suggest you counter my points Eddie or you simply are just giving me a deflection, diverting and talking nonmsense

Here you go, one last try

Reply with quote
Edit/Delete this post

Re: The Orlando shooting

Post by Didge Today at 2:18 am
Anyway I am off to bed and as much fun as it is to constantly show up veya, as he lacks any intelligence, i will at least allow him one more chance to read properly my post to Eddie, which as seen by his answers he never read,

Here is the post for you Veya, this will help you in the furture and prevent you from making many errors as you did above
I imaginer you will just come back with some of the same nonsense though and to be honest thanks for proving to everyone again you back the murder of civillians by terrorism. You do this everytime, just make my job that much easier of exposing you. lol

Anyway, my points have show you to be so badly wrong, I need not further expand, as people can read for themselves.

Goodnight

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.

by Guest Mon Jun 20, 2016 4:09 pm

Eilzel wrote:Eds, refusing to answer questions is the biggest cop out, especially following a statement like that. Would you prefer them to allow public ownership if semi-automatic and automatic guns in the UK then? If not, why not? You obviously see it as a precious right.

And you do know there have been hundreds of gun deaths in the US since Orlando don't you? Are they all orchestrated by the government? Are they not reason enough to have greater restrictions?

I do not think anyone should have the right to bear arms, but you are talking about a centuries old culture in the US which even placing strict controls would have zero bearing in the US. All you would do is create a further criminal demand for such weapons. If you went one further, by banning firearms, you would like prohibition, see a lucrative trade made off arms.
This is the point you are missing.
In the Case of the two attacks in Paris, and Beligium, all the arms were obtained illegally, which of yet you have avoided talking about, mainly as it makes your point on gun control moot.

by Ben Reilly Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:47 pm

Didge wrote:
Eilzel wrote:Eds, refusing to answer questions is the biggest cop out, especially following a statement like that. Would you prefer them to allow public ownership if semi-automatic and automatic guns in the UK then? If not, why not? You obviously see it as a precious right.

And you do know there have been hundreds of gun deaths in the US since Orlando don't you? Are they all orchestrated by the government? Are they not reason enough to have greater restrictions?

I do not think anyone should have the right to bear arms, but you are talking about a centuries old culture in the US which even placing strict controls would have zero bearing in the US. All you would do is create a further criminal demand for such weapons. If you went one further, by banning firearms, you would like prohibition, see a lucrative trade made off arms.
This is the point you are missing.
In the Case of the two attacks in Paris, and Beligium, all the arms were obtained illegally, which of yet you have avoided talking about, mainly as it makes your point on gun control moot.

Practically speaking, we're likely never going to ban guns in the U.S. The Supreme Court is charged with interpretation of the constitution, and it has ruled several times that there is a constitutionally protected right to own guns in the U.S. We'd have to amend the constitution (a daunting challenge) or completely overthrow the government.

However, a right to private gun ownership still leaves a lot of leeway. Liberals like myself focus on balancing the right of the gun owner against the safety of the public. So why can't we limit legal gun ownership to guns which are adequate for so-called "home defense" and ban private ownership of guns that can be used to kill 49 people in a span of hours?

by Guest Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:53 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
Didge wrote:

I do not think anyone should have the right to bear arms, but you are talking about a centuries old culture in the US which even placing strict controls would have zero bearing in the US. All you would do is create a further criminal demand for such weapons. If you went one further, by banning firearms, you would like prohibition, see a lucrative trade made off arms.
This is the point you are missing.
In the Case of the two attacks in Paris, and Beligium, all the arms were obtained illegally, which of yet you have avoided talking about, mainly as it makes your point on gun control moot.

Practically speaking, we're likely never going to ban guns in the U.S. The Supreme Court is charged with interpretation of the constitution, and it has ruled several times that there is a constitutionally protected right to own guns in the U.S. We'd have to amend the constitution (a daunting challenge) or completely overthrow the government.

However, a right to private gun ownership still leaves a lot of leeway. Liberals like myself focus on balancing the right of the gun owner against the safety of the public. So why can't we limit legal gun ownership to guns which are adequate for so-called "home defense" and ban private ownership of guns that can be used to kill 49 people in a span of hours?

I understand your points, but I simply think you fail to understand the American gun culture itself, which is imbedded in your own constitution to bear arms. Then any restriction on this right to bear arms, will have those who wil be and directly stand in opposition. To the point any restriction will to me easily see a rise in illegal arms. The fact of the matter is America has already lost the war on drugs, being the fact it is just too vast an area of geography to have string controls inplace. As i say you would see then a rise in illegal arm sales of then fully automatic weapons gained easily from places like central America. Sadly America went on too long with this law and it will continue in a status of stalemate on any progression and no matter how many times there is a mass killing, it will never seem to change that. The point is though on terrorism, you will never hinder those set and out to commit terror and hence why I gave an example of israel who does actually have some of the best controls in the world. There people when inspired with hate will look to other methods to kill. It may minimise the number of victims, but you still will run the risk of their being victims.
America simply does not have the ability to control illegal firearms and that is going to cost them I think even more with terrorism, unles they drastically place controls in place that will stop any illegal arms sales

by Guest Mon Jun 20, 2016 7:48 pm

Didge wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:
Practically speaking, we're likely never going to ban guns in the U.S. The Supreme Court is charged with interpretation of the constitution, and it has ruled several times that there is a constitutionally protected right to own guns in the U.S. We'd have to amend the constitution (a daunting challenge) or completely overthrow the government.

However, a right to private gun ownership still leaves a lot of leeway. Liberals like myself focus on balancing the right of the gun owner against the safety of the public. So why can't we limit legal gun ownership to guns which are adequate for so-called "home defense" and ban private ownership of guns that can be used to kill 49 people in a span of hours?
I understand your points, but I simply think you fail to understand the American gun culture itself, which is imbedded in your own constitution to bear arms. Then any restriction on this right to bear arms, will have those who wil be and directly stand in opposition. To the point any restriction will to me easily see a rise in illegal arms. The fact of the matter is America has already lost the war on drugs, being the fact it is just too vast an area of geography to have string controls inplace. As i say you would see then a rise in illegal arm sales of then fully automatic weapons gained easily from places like central America. Sadly America went on too long with this law and it will continue in a status of stalemate on any progression and no matter how many times there is a mass killing, it will never seem to change that. The point is though on terrorism, you will never hinder those set and out to commit terror and hence why I gave an example of israel who does actually have some of the best controls in the world. There people when inspired with hate will look to other methods to kill. It may minimise the number of victims, but you still will run the risk of their being victims.
America simply does not have the ability to control illegal firearms and that is going to cost them I think even more with terrorism, unles they drastically place controls in place that will stop any illegal arms sales

Well, at one point in my nations history, we had a 3 former presidents taking this issue to heart and acting on it - stridently and pointedly > > >

Ford, Carter, Reagan Push for Gun Ban
May 05, 1994|WILLIAM J. EATON | TIMES STAFF WRITER
WASHINGTON — Three former presidents endorsed legislation Wednesday to ban the future manufacture, sale and possession of combat-style assault weapons as a closely divided House neared a showdown today on the hotly controversial issue.
Gerald R. Ford, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan sent a letter to all House members expressing their support for the measure, effectively joining President Clinton in urging approval of the ban.
Together, the four make a formidable lobby, stretching across a broad ideological spectrum and giving political cover to wavering House members.
As pressures intensified Wednesday, several lawmakers who had never voted against the National Rifle Assn., the leading opponent of the ban, announced that they would support the measure.
The last time the House voted on a bill to bar assault-style weapons--in late 1991--the measure was rejected, 247 to 177. Both sides agreed Wednesday that the outcome will be far closer this time.
There were some surprising expressions of support for the ban Wednesday as the House approached a decision that could have an impact on the 1994 elections.
For example, Rep. Ronald D. Coleman (D-Tex.) agreed to support the ban although he has never voted against an NRA position since coming to Congress in 1972. After Clinton telephoned him Wednesday, however, Coleman switched and said he will go along with the wishes of law enforcement officers in his district.
"If it is a political offense that costs me my job to try to take Uzis out of the hands of schoolkids and make it harder for drug thugs and gangs to get the machine guns that wantonly kill our police officers and children, then so be it," Coleman said in a statement.
Similarly, Rep. Michael A. Andrews (D-Tex.), who said he voted against a proposed ban in 1991 because it was too vague, endorsed the current bill as drawn narrowly enough to protect the rights of hunters and sportsmen.
"I have always believed in the old Texas saying that gun control means steady aim," Andrews told reporters. "At the same time . . . I am convinced that if we limit the availability of military-style assault weapons, we will be taking a meaningful step toward improving the safety of our streets without trampling on our constitutional rights."
Andrews, a lifelong hunter, asked: "Who can, in good conscience, defend such weapons as appropriate for hunters or sportsmen? Anyone that needs a 20-round clip of high-velocity ammunition to fell a duck or deer needs to look into taking up golf."
Conversions like these have raised the hopes of supporters of the ban.
"For the first time last night, I went to bed thinking that this was winnable," Schumer said. "We are really gaining momentum."
Sen. Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz.), sponsor of a previous assault-weapons ban that passed the Senate but died in the House, said police organizations will deserve the credit if the bill succeeds in the House this time around.
"This is the time for the House to take the political risk and do the right thing," DeConcini said. "There is political life if you vote against the NRA."
Plea From 3 Ex-Presidents
The letter from three former presidents to the House:
May 3, 1994
To Members of the U.S. House of Representatives:
We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons. This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety. Although assualt weapons account for less than 1% of the guns in circulation, they account for nearly 10% of the guns traced to crime.
Every major law enforcement organization in America and dozens of leading labor, medical, religious, civil rights and civic groups support such a ban. Most importantly, poll after poll shows that the American public overwhelmingly support a ban on assault weapons. A 1993 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll found that 77% of Americans support a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of semi-automatic assault guns, such as the AK-47.
The 1989 import ban resulted in an impressive 40% drop in imported assault weapons traced to crime between 1989 and 1991, but the killing continues. Last year, a killer armed with two TEC9s killed eight people at a San Francisco law firm and wounded several others. During the past five years, more than 40 law enforcement officers have been killed or wounded in the line of duty by an assault weapon.
While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons.
Sincerely,
Gerald R. Ford
Jimmy Carter
Ronald Reagan
http://articles.latimes.com/1994-05-05/news/mn-54185_1_assault-weapons-ban/2

The bill ended up passing the House by two votes, 216-214.
This wasn’t the first time that Reagan had come out against the Republican position on gun rights.

In 1991, he authored a New York Times Op-Ed in which he called for passage of The Brady Bill:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ronald-reagan-helped-pass-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban/

**********************
If only we had a group of elected officials that could remember 'WHO' they represent and it is not the NRA! Evil or Very Mad

by Tommy Monk Mon Jun 20, 2016 11:25 pm

"...The Orlando LGBT nightclub killer described himself as an “Islamic soldier” out to avenge the US war on the Islamic State, according to his phone conversations with police during the 12 June massacre..."

by Tommy Monk Mon Jun 20, 2016 11:29 pm

Widely reported... supposedly...

by Guest Mon Jun 20, 2016 11:42 pm

eddie wrote:Just wanted to get my facts straight, so if anyone can answer these I'd be grateful.
Did The shooter act alone?
Did The shooter have a machine gun or loads of different guns and lots of ammo?
Did The shooter first, have a set-to in front of the club, with police?
How did The shooter get into the club?
Did The shooter start shooting straight away once inside the club?
Just answer each question for me if you can as I have some questions of my own.
I want someone else to clarify this for me.
Thanks

News Orlando Nightclub Massacre
Jun 20 2016, 3:54 pm ET
FBI Releases Full Transcript of 911 Calls from Orlando Massacre
by Corky Siemaszko
The FBI reversed direction Monday and released the full transcript of the 911 call Orlando massacre shooter Omar Mateen made while in the midst of shooting-up the Pulse nightclub.

Just hours after FBI Assistant Special Agent in Charge Ron Hopper had said he didn't want to "give credence to to individuals who have done terrorist acts in the past," the feds did an about face at about 3 p.m. ET and released the unredacted text.
In it, both Mateen and the ISIS leader to whom he pledged allegiance, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, are named.

"Unfortunately, the unreleased portions of the transcript that named the terrorist organizations and leaders have caused an unnecessary distraction from the hard work that the FBI and our law enforcement partners have been doing to investigate this heinous crime," the statement read.

"As much of this information had been previously reported, we have re-issued the complete transcript to include these references in order to provide the highest level of transparency possible under the circumstances."
The change of heart came after House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., and other critics of the Obama Administration called the FBI's decision to redact the transcript of Mateen's call to the dispatchers "preposterous."

"We know the shooter was a radical Islamist extremist inspired by ISIS," an angry Ryan said in a statement. "We also know he intentionally targeted the LGBT community. The administration should release the full, unredacted transcript so the public is clear-eyed about who did this, and why."
Meanwhile, NBC News has learned that, so far, federal investigators following Mateen's paper trail have found no evidence to back up claims that the gunman had ever been inside Pulse or any of gay nightclub in Orlando before the June 12 mass shooting.
What they have found, sources told NBC, is that the married Mateen recently used websites to get dates with women — not men.
Noor Salman has told investigators she once drove her husband to Pulse so he could scope it out and regulars at the nightclub have reported seeing him there.

The newly-released transcripts revealed that Mateen paused from the slaughter inside the Pulse nightclub to call the Orlando police and confess to his crime.
"Praise be to God, and prayers as well as peace be upon the prophet of God," Omar Mateen said in a transcript of his call to police dispatchers that the FBI released on Monday. "I let you know, I'm in Orlando and I did the shootings."

Asked for his name, Mateen answered: "My name is I pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of the Islamic State."
That chilling admission was among the excerpts of the 911 calls the feds released along with a timeline of the terror at the gay nightclub that left 49 dead and more than 50 people wounded.
Mateen also warned that there was a vehicle packed with explosives outside the nightclub that he would "ignite" if police tried "to do anything stupid." No explosives were found.
Hopper said they have "no evidence that he was directed by a foreign terrorist group, but was radicalized domestically." He said there are a "myriad of things" that could have motivated the attack.
Taking his cue from earlier remarks by President Obama, Hopper also said the gunman held a "perverted view" of Islam.
Hopper also said that "out of respect for the victims" it would not be releasing audio of Mateen's call or "audio or transcripts of the calls made by victims at the Pulse nightclub during the incident."
Orlando Police Department Chief John Mina said his officers were at the nightclub "within minutes and engaged the suspect in gunfire."
"That engagement and that initial entry caused him to retreat, stop shooting and barricade himself in the bathroom with hostages," Mina said. "There was no other gunfire until the hostage rescue took place."
Mina said he also wanted to clear up "misconceptions that we didn't do anything for three hours" before the SWAT team moved in and went after the 29-year-old shooter.
"We let our negotiators take over in an effort to save lives while out SWAT team set up," Mina said.
Asked if any of the victims may have been accidentally shot by police, Mina said "that's all part of the investigation."
"But here's what I can tell you," he said. "Those killings are on the suspect and on the suspect alone. Our officers acted heroically."
Two federal officials told NBC News that while all the forensic work is not complete, based on surveillance video analysis and available ballistic evidence it doesn't appear any of the victims died from friendly fire.
U,S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch is expected to travel to Orlando on Tuesday to meet with federal and local investigators.
Among the new revelations contained in the transcripts was that at 4:21 a.m., on the night of the mayhem, Orlando police officers pulled an air conditioning unit out of a Pulse dressing room window, enabling at least eight people trapped inside to escape.
Meanwhile, NBC News has learned that the Orange County Medical Examiner's Office has released the body of Mateen.
Contacted by NBC News, the suspect's father, Siddique Mateen, said he was not aware of any plans to have his son's body transferred to him. A source close to Mateen's widow said she was asked if she would take her husband's body and she said no.
The transcript and timeline is below:
Orlando Police Dispatcher (OD): Emergency 911, this is being recorded.
Shooter (OM): In the name of God the Merciful, the beneficial [in Arabic]
OD: What?
OM: Praise be to God, and prayers as well as peace be upon the prophet of God [in Arabic]. I let you know, I'm in Orlando and I did the shootings.
OD: What's your name?
OM: My name is I pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of the Islamic State..
OD: Ok, What's your name?
OM: I pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi may God protect him [Arabic], on behalf of the Islamic State.
OD: Alright, where are you at?
OM: In Orlando.
OD: Where in Orlando?
[End of call.]
Shortly after, the shooter engaged in three conversations with the Orlando Police Department's Crisis Negotiation Team.
2:48 a.m.: First crisis negotiation call occurred lasting approximately nine minutes.
3:03 a.m.: Second crisis negotiation call occurred lasting approximately 16 minutes.
3:24 a.m.: Third crisis negotiation call occurred lasting approximately three minutes.
Here's a description of what he said:
In these calls, the shooter, who identified himself as an Islamic soldier, told the crisis negotiator that he was the person who pledged his allegiance to [omitted], and told the negotiator to tell America to stop bombing Syria and Iraq and that is why he was "out here right now." When the crisis negotiator asked the shooter what he had done, the shooter stated, "No, you already know what I did." The shooter continued, stating, "There is some vehicle outside that has some bombs, just to let you know. You people are gonna get it, and I'm gonna ignite it if they try to do anything stupid." Later in the call with the crisis negotiator, the shooter stated that he had a vest, and further described it as the kind they "used in France." The shooter later stated, "In the next few days, you're going to see more of this type of action going on." The shooter hung up and multiple attempts to get in touch with him were unsuccessful.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/orlando-nightclub-massacre/fbi-releases-transcripts-911-calls-orlando-massacre-n595626

Video Link > > http://www.nbcnews.com/video/fbi-orlando-gunman-was-radicalized-domestically-708988995602

**Eddie, I've bolded - blue fonted & italicized some text that you've asked about specifically {more than once}, in regards to what the Orlando Police Officers were doing; the ability to view the Pulse's security camera have provided the FBI & Commanding Police Dept. Officer a clear concise answer to the activity within the camera view.

See, loads of those 'eye witness' reports ...are just people wanting to have their 2 minutes of fame; we jus have to be patient and wait for the actual information and timeline to flow out from the officials.

Now hopefully this nice discussion won't become derailed my more off topic rants and Islamic bashing diatribes! Suspect

by Tommy Monk Tue Jun 21, 2016 12:07 am

Only the first little bit of 'the transcript' in your post is actually 'a transcript'...

Why the 2 diversions in bold...?

One of his wives has already told FBI that she drove him to the club to scout it out and she was well aware of his intentions...

And you highlight "TRANSCRIPT" when only the first little part is a direct transcript!

by Tommy Monk Tue Jun 21, 2016 12:11 am

Tommy Monk wrote:

"...The Orlando LGBT nightclub killer described himself as an “Islamic soldier” out to avenge the US war on the Islamic State, according to his phone conversations with police during the 12 June massacre..."

Just a reminder...

by Guest Tue Jun 21, 2016 12:19 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Only the first little bit of 'the transcript' in your post is actually 'a transcript'...
Why the 2 diversions in bold...?
One of his wives has already told FBI that she drove him to the club to scout it out and she was well aware of his intentions...
And you highlight "TRANSCRIPT" when only the first little part is a direct transcript!

Unlike you ...the simpleton of this entire community - I put the entire text with the - entire article 'AS IS' unless I clearly stated that I HAVE EDITED THIS TO MAKE IT SHORTER!
DID I STATE THAT ANYWHERE IN MY POST ...Geee, that would be a firm 'NO'!
If as with everything you view - you become highly agitated and mentally confused by bolded text then just try R E A D I N G what the words say and stop all of your constant WHINING!

I've always cleaned up everyone of my articles - removed all of the advertisements / inserts that distract and bring the full articles in here for the ADULTS to read and discuss; in your case - there's just not enough stick figures - chalk boards and time to explain what you can't understand! The Orlando shooting - Page 4 1132368643

The Orlando shooting - Page 4 1132368643

FFS, you are such a annoying whiner! The Orlando shooting - Page 4 1094176690

by Original Quill Tue Jun 21, 2016 10:51 am

Tommy Monk wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

"...The Orlando LGBT nightclub killer described himself as an “Islamic soldier” out to avenge the US war on the Islamic State, according to his phone conversations with police during the 12 June massacre..."
Just a reminder...

Just one of about ten different associations he gave us. Lessee, he was homophobic, likes guns, is a southerner, hates women, beats wives...on and on and on...

Just another nutcase.

by Guest Tue Jun 21, 2016 2:37 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:
Just a reminder...

Just one of about ten different associations he gave us. Lessee, he was homophobic, likes guns, is a southerner, hates women, beats wives...on and on and on...

Just another nutcase.

So by your view or religious people are nutjobs then, when with th Abrahamic faiths in the literal view, they teach homophobia?
Religious hate has lead to so much violence through the centuries, people still are badly excusing this crime based off mental health.
That is not only nonsense it is being based off the simple fact you have zero qualifications or an understanding of psychology.
If it was racism, you would not even claim a nut job, but again racism is a belief, just like religion is a belief and in this one this belief uses fear in order to play on the insecurities of people over death. It thus is able to control their views and instill hate, espcically where some Muslims view claims to historical deeds by Muhammad which has him executing homosexuals. Muslims are taught to emulate Muhammad, and if this is an act they believed he did, then to the literal Muslims insecure and hateful of homosexuals. They believe they are doing Allahs will.

by Original Quill Tue Jun 21, 2016 4:22 pm

Yes, he was a troubled young man. He's rather like Zimmerman in that he gravitated toward police roles, liked guns and pushing people around.

He wasn't particularly religious, but he did say he wanted the US to stop bombing his country. That's understandable ... if some nation were bombing your country, you'd probably want them to stop, too.

by Guest Tue Jun 21, 2016 4:47 pm

Original Quill wrote:Yes, he was a troubled young man. He's rather like Zimmerman in that he gravitated toward police roles, liked guns and pushing people around.

He wasn't particularly religious, but he did say he wanted the US to stop bombing his country. That's understandable ... if some nation were bombing your country, you'd probably want them to stop, too.

Nothing like Zimmerman and as usual you have no comprehension what you are talking about.
It does not matter whether or how religious he was, clearly he followed wahhabism and ISIS ideology of Islam.
So being born an American makes him believe that some bombing to remove a regime like the Taliban is reason to murder loads of homosexuals? Here we go again with the daft and absurd regressive leftish methodology.
Tell me Quill, are you making a racist argument there is something wrong withn Afghanistani's or that there is something wrong with Islam as to why they murder people due to conflicts in other nations, where the connection is his father fleeing the Taliban?
Tell me how many Vietmanese, Laos, Cambaodian terrorist attacks have their been in the US or around the world based off the the Veitnam war and bombing in all these 3 countries? I mean using your methodolgy, there should be countless terrosim from American Vietmanese should there not? If not clearly you are either making a racial argument there is something wrong with people from Afghanistan, which would be scientifcally nonsense or Islam is at fault and that there then is a very big issue with Islam, where it views freeing people from oppression by the taliban as an offence to murder people

Please explain that gibberish you just claimed?

by eddie Tue Jun 21, 2016 4:50 pm

4EVER2 wrote:
eddie wrote:Just wanted to get my facts straight, so if anyone can answer these I'd be grateful.
Did The shooter act alone?
Did The shooter have a machine gun or loads of different guns and lots of ammo?
Did The shooter first, have a set-to in front of the club, with police?
How did The shooter get into the club?
Did The shooter start shooting straight away once inside the club?
Just answer each question for me if you can as I have some questions of my own.
I want someone else to clarify this for me.
Thanks

News Orlando Nightclub Massacre
Jun 20 2016, 3:54 pm ET
FBI Releases Full Transcript of 911 Calls from Orlando Massacre
by Corky Siemaszko
The FBI reversed direction Monday and released the full transcript of the 911 call Orlando massacre shooter Omar Mateen made while in the midst of shooting-up the Pulse nightclub.

Just hours after FBI Assistant Special Agent in Charge Ron Hopper had said he didn't want to "give credence to to individuals who have done terrorist acts in the past," the feds did an about face at about 3 p.m. ET and released the unredacted text.
In it, both Mateen and the ISIS leader to whom he pledged allegiance, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, are named.

"Unfortunately, the unreleased portions of the transcript that named the terrorist organizations and leaders have caused an unnecessary distraction from the hard work that the FBI and our law enforcement partners have been doing to investigate this heinous crime," the statement read.

"As much of this information had been previously reported, we have re-issued the complete transcript to include these references in order to provide the highest level of transparency possible under the circumstances."
The change of heart came after House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., and other critics of the Obama Administration called the FBI's decision to redact the transcript of Mateen's call to the dispatchers "preposterous."

"We know the shooter was a radical Islamist extremist inspired by ISIS," an angry Ryan said in a statement. "We also know he intentionally targeted the LGBT community. The administration should release the full, unredacted transcript so the public is clear-eyed about who did this, and why."
Meanwhile, NBC News has learned that, so far, federal investigators following Mateen's paper trail have found no evidence to back up claims that the gunman had ever been inside Pulse or any of gay nightclub in Orlando before the June 12 mass shooting.
What they have found, sources told NBC, is that the married Mateen recently used websites to get dates with women — not men.
Noor Salman has told investigators she once drove her husband to Pulse so he could scope it out and regulars at the nightclub have reported seeing him there.

The newly-released transcripts revealed that Mateen paused from the slaughter inside the Pulse nightclub to call the Orlando police and confess to his crime.
"Praise be to God, and prayers as well as peace be upon the prophet of God," Omar Mateen said in a transcript of his call to police dispatchers that the FBI released on Monday. "I let you know, I'm in Orlando and I did the shootings."

Asked for his name, Mateen answered: "My name is I pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of the Islamic State."
That chilling admission was among the excerpts of the 911 calls the feds released along with a timeline of the terror at the gay nightclub that left 49 dead and more than 50 people wounded.
Mateen also warned that there was a vehicle packed with explosives outside the nightclub that he would "ignite" if police tried "to do anything stupid." No explosives were found.
Hopper said they have "no evidence that he was directed by a foreign terrorist group, but was radicalized domestically." He said there are a "myriad of things" that could have motivated the attack.
Taking his cue from earlier remarks by President Obama, Hopper also said the gunman held a "perverted view" of Islam.
Hopper also said that "out of respect for the victims" it would not be releasing audio of Mateen's call or "audio or transcripts of the calls made by victims at the Pulse nightclub during the incident."
QOrlando Police Department Chief John Mina said his officers were at the nightclub "within minutes and engaged the suspect in gunfire."
"That engagement and that initial entry caused him to retreat, stop shooting and barricade himself in the bathroom with hostages," Mina said. "There was no other gunfire until the hostage rescue took place."
Mina said he also wanted to clear up "misconceptions that we didn't do anything for three hours" before the SWAT team moved in and went after the 29-year-old shooter.
"We let our negotiators take over in an effort to save lives while out SWAT team set up," Mina said.
Asked if any of the victims may have been accidentally shot by police, Mina said "that's all part of the investigation."
"But here's what I can tell you," he said. "Those killings are on the suspect and on the suspect alone. Our officers acted heroically."
Two federal officials told NBC News that while all the forensic work is not complete, based on surveillance video analysis and available ballistic evidence it doesn't appear any of the victims died from friendly fire.
U,S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch is expected to travel to Orlando on Tuesday to meet with federal and local investigators.
Among the new revelations contained in the transcripts was that at 4:21 a.m., on the night of the mayhem, Orlando police officers pulled an air conditioning unit out of a Pulse dressing room window, enabling at least eight people trapped inside to escape.
Meanwhile, NBC News has learned that the Orange County Medical Examiner's Office has released the body of Mateen.
Contacted by NBC News, the suspect's father, Siddique Mateen, said he was not aware of any plans to have his son's body transferred to him. A source close to Mateen's widow said she was asked if she would take her husband's body and she said no.
The transcript and timeline is below:
Orlando Police Dispatcher (OD): Emergency 911, this is being recorded.
Shooter (OM): In the name of God the Merciful, the beneficial [in Arabic]
OD: What?
OM: Praise be to God, and prayers as well as peace be upon the prophet of God [in Arabic]. I let you know, I'm in Orlando and I did the shootings.
OD: What's your name?
OM: My name is I pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of the Islamic State..
OD: Ok, What's your name?
OM: I pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi may God protect him [Arabic], on behalf of the Islamic State.
OD: Alright, where are you at?
OM: In Orlando.
OD: Where in Orlando?
[End of call.]
Shortly after, the shooter engaged in three conversations with the Orlando Police Department's Crisis Negotiation Team.
2:48 a.m.: First crisis negotiation call occurred lasting approximately nine minutes.
3:03 a.m.: Second crisis negotiation call occurred lasting approximately 16 minutes.
3:24 a.m.: Third crisis negotiation call occurred lasting approximately three minutes.
Here's a description of what he said:
In these calls, the shooter, who identified himself as an Islamic soldier, told the crisis negotiator that he was the person who pledged his allegiance to [omitted], and told the negotiator to tell America to stop bombing Syria and Iraq and that is why he was "out here right now." When the crisis negotiator asked the shooter what he had done, the shooter stated, "No, you already know what I did." The shooter continued, stating, "There is some vehicle outside that has some bombs, just to let you know. You people are gonna get it, and I'm gonna ignite it if they try to do anything stupid." Later in the call with the crisis negotiator, the shooter stated that he had a vest, and further described it as the kind they "used in France." The shooter later stated, "In the next few days, you're going to see more of this type of action going on." The shooter hung up and multiple attempts to get in touch with him were unsuccessful.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/orlando-nightclub-massacre/fbi-releases-transcripts-911-calls-orlando-massacre-n595626
Video Link > > http://www.nbcnews.com/video/fbi-orlando-gunman-was-radicalized-domestically-708988995602

**Eddie, I've bolded - blue fonted & italicized some text that you've asked about specifically {more than once}, in regards to what the Orlando Police Officers were doing; the ability to view the Pulse's security camera have provided the FBI & Commanding Police Dept. Officer a clear concise answer to the activity within the camera view.

See, loads of those 'eye witness' reports ...are just people wanting to have their 2 minutes of fame; we jus have to be patient and wait for the actual information and timeline to flow out from the officials.

Now hopefully this nice discussion won't become derailed my more off topic rants and Islamic bashing diatribes!

Orlando Police Department Chief John Mina said his officers were at the nightclub "within minutes and engaged the suspect in gunfire."
"That engagement and that initial entry caused him to retreat, stop shooting and barricade himself in the bathroom with hostages," Mina said. "There was no other gunfire until the hostage rescue took place."
Mina said he also wanted to clear up "misconceptions that we didn't do anything for three hours" before the SWAT team moved in and went after the 29-year-old shooter.
"We let our negotiators take over in an effort to save lives while out SWAT team set up," Mina said.

Ok excuse my question again: but was this OUTSIDE THE CLUB? This initial gunfire?

My main point in all of this is that if you have three men on one, how does the shooter get inside the club??? Physically?? He has three cops behind him! As soon as he opens the door (holding this big gun) his does he get inside without a policeman shooting him?

It makes no sense! They know he's going in there to shoot,people yet they allow him to walk in?
He presumably shot the security guard/doorman at the club doorway? So whilst he's busy shooting doorman - why hasn't the THREE POLICE BEHIND HIM, took a shot at him and brought him down?

It makes no sense at all.

by Guest Tue Jun 21, 2016 4:59 pm

Easily as again you fail to understand weapons Eddie

Assaut rifle against pistols

Uneven match, he would have them pinned down with a superior firepower weapon, in veolcity, and rounds per minute. I have explained this already to you and if you botherted to read the long explanation I gave to you, then you simply what not keep making the same amateurish mistakes. Also it was an unuiformed Police officer that exchanged fire, after he had entered the club and if you actually read above he already was in the club when these other officers arrived.

Orlando shooting wrote:Sunday, 1:58 a.m. ET: Some 320 people are enjoying a "Latin flavor" event at Pulse, a gay nightclub in the heart of Orlando. Clubgoer Patience Carter hears gunshots in the center section of the club shortly after she and friends agree to contact Uber for a ride home. They rush into a bathroom.

Around 2:02 a.m. ET: An officer working extra duty in uniform at the club hears gunshots and engages the shooter. The officer feels he is outgunned, retreats from the club, and calls for assistance. Two SWAT officers in a nearby patrol car are among units that respond and a gunbattle ensues.
Other patrol officers rush into the club during the shootout to pull survivors out.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/12/us/orlando-shooting-timeline/

I already told you the following where you clearly did not read or understand

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.

by Original Quill Tue Jun 21, 2016 5:05 pm

eddie wrote:My main point in all of this is that if you have three men on one, how does the shooter get inside the club??? Physically?? He has three cops behind him! As soon as he opens the door (holding this big gun) his does he get inside without a policeman shooting him?

It makes no sense! They know he's going in there to shoot,people yet they allow him to walk in?
He presumably shot the security guard/doorman at the club doorway? So whilst he's busy shooting doorman - why hasn't the THREE POLICE BEHIND HIM, took a shot at him and brought him down?

It makes no sense at all.

People misunderstand the gun so much, it's pathetic. Most people will pull a gun to bluff. They've witnessed so many TV westerns where the gun is pulled, and hands go up, that they think that is the way it works.

No that's not the way it works. Guns fire, and that's the way it works. But when gun-wielders are forced to realize that, they aim away and fire. Actually, they don't want to hit anybody. That's why there are so many holes in the wall. It's a 'bluff' instrument.

Now the way to use a 'bluff' instrument is to actually correctly aim the firearm...something that only snipers were taught. So in a crowd of gun-carriers, there would be walls with crowed bullet holes.

I would guess that this guy in Orlando was taught by someone how to use a firearm. The 3 guards outside were taught 'bluffing'. That's my guess.

Incidentally, the side comment is: Never pull a gun unless you are determined to use it. Most likely you won't have a choice. When you pull the gun, the other man will force your choice.

by Guest Tue Jun 21, 2016 5:06 pm

Original Quill wrote:
eddie wrote:My main point in all of this is that if you have three men on one, how does the shooter get inside the club??? Physically?? He has three cops behind him! As soon as he opens the door (holding this big gun) his does he get inside without a policeman shooting him?

It makes no sense! They know he's going in there to shoot,people yet they allow him to walk in?
He presumably shot the security guard/doorman at the club doorway? So whilst he's busy shooting doorman - why hasn't the THREE POLICE BEHIND HIM, took a shot at him and brought him down?

It makes no sense at all.

People misunderstand the gun so much, it's pathetic. Most people will pull a gun to bluff. They've witnessed so many TV westerns where the gun is pulled, and hands go up, that they think that is the way it works.

No that's not the way it works. Guns fire, and that's the way it works. But when gun-wielders are forced to realize that, they aim away and fire. Actually, they don't want to hit anybody. That's why their are so many holes in the wall. It's a 'bluff' instrument.

Now the way to use a 'bluff' instrument is to actually correctly aim the firearm...something that only snipers were taught. So in a crowd of gun-carriers, there would be walls with crowed bullet holes.

I would guess that this guy in Orlando was taught by someone how to use a firearm. The 3 guards outside were taught 'bluffing'. That's my guess.

Which also fails to understand the facts and inventing again gibberish

by Original Quill Tue Jun 21, 2016 5:15 pm

didge wrote:Which also fails to understand the facts and inventing again gibberish

I know didge, you just want to argue. I mean, wtf do you see this guy swearing allegiance to wahhabism; or do you just make this shit up as you go along?

It's an ignorant statement from and ill-informed person.

by Guest Tue Jun 21, 2016 5:18 pm

Original Quill wrote:
didge wrote:Which also fails to understand the facts and inventing again gibberish

I know didge, you just want to argue. I mean, wtf do you see this guy swearing allegiance to wahhabism; or do you just make this shit up as you go along?

It's an ignorant statement from and ill-informed person.

Nothing to do with an argument, you claimed the Poilice were untrained and were3 bluffing based on no facts but gibberish.
Again if you read ther accounts which I have posted to eddie above you will see why youa re talking nonsense.
You do this all the time and hence why when you get your facts wrong your reasoning is utterly flawed
I know for a fact you simply do not know what you are talking about and I am easily proving that

Again for you to answer

Nothing like Zimmerman and as usual you have no comprehension what you are talking about.
It does not matter whether or how religious he was, clearly he followed wahhabism and ISIS ideology of Islam.
So being born an American makes him believe that some bombing to remove a regime like the Taliban is reason to murder loads of homosexuals? Here we go again with the daft and absurd regressive leftish methodology.
Tell me Quill, are you making a racist argument there is something wrong withn Afghanistani's or that there is something wrong with Islam as to why they murder people due to conflicts in other nations, where the connection is his father fleeing the Taliban?
Tell me how many Vietmanese, Laos, Cambaodian terrorist attacks have their been in the US or around the world based off the the Veitnam war and bombing in all these 3 countries? I mean using your methodolgy, there should be countless terrosim from American Vietmanese should there not? If not clearly you are either making a racial argument there is something wrong with people from Afghanistan, which would be scientifcally nonsense or Islam is at fault and that there then is a very big issue with Islam, where it views freeing people from oppression by the taliban as an offence to murder people

Please explain that gibberish you just claimed?

by Original Quill Tue Jun 21, 2016 5:30 pm

didge wrote:Please explain that gibberish you just claimed?

I know...you shoot off your mouth so quickly that your brain can't keep up! I'll slow down for you:

You said: "clearly he followed wahhabism..." He has never said a word about wahhabism, but you clairvoyantly know what was on his mind? With respect to ISIS he mentioned "...I pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of the Islamic State." Nowhere did he mention wahhabism. You made that up.

Why do you clutter up these threads with such lies? No wonder your posts take up 2 pages, you have to revise your **ahem** misstatements.

by Guest Tue Jun 21, 2016 5:40 pm

Original Quill wrote:
didge wrote:Please explain that gibberish you just claimed?

I know...you shoot off your mouth so quickly that your brain can't keep up! I'll slow down for you:
didge wrote:Attempting to derail the thread, first warning, next time i will report you?

You said: "clearly he followed wahhabism..." He has never said a word about wahhabism, but you clairvoyantly know what was on his mind? With respect to ISIS he mentioned "...I pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of the Islamic State." Nowhere did he mention wahhabism. You made that up.
didge wrote:ISIS is wahhabism ideology, if he backs ISIS he backs wahhabism ideology, nothing is made up and see the link for him to state that he does?

Why do you clutter up these threads with such lies? No wonder your posts take up 2 pages, you have to revise your **ahem** misstatements.

didge wrote:Attempting to derail the thread, first warning, next time i will report you?

Points unanswered

Reply with quote
Edit/Delete this post

Re: The Orlando shooting

Post by Didge Today at 5:18 pm

Original Quill wrote:

didge wrote:
Which also fails to understand the facts and inventing again gibberish

I know didge, you just want to argue. I mean, wtf do you see this guy swearing allegiance to wahhabism; or do you just make this shit up as you go along?

It's an ignorant statement from and ill-informed person.

Nothing to do with an argument, you claimed the Poilice were untrained and were3 bluffing based on no facts but gibberish.
Again if you read ther accounts which I have posted to eddie above you will see why youa re talking nonsense.
You do this all the time and hence why when you get your facts wrong your reasoning is utterly flawed
I know for a fact you simply do not know what you are talking about and I am easily proving that

Again for you to answer

Nothing like Zimmerman and as usual you have no comprehension what you are talking about.
It does not matter whether or how religious he was, clearly he followed wahhabism and ISIS ideology of Islam.
So being born an American makes him believe that some bombing to remove a regime like the Taliban is reason to murder loads of homosexuals? Here we go again with the daft and absurd regressive leftish methodology.
Tell me Quill, are you making a racist argument there is something wrong withn Afghanistani's or that there is something wrong with Islam as to why they murder people due to conflicts in other nations, where the connection is his father fleeing the Taliban?
Tell me how many Vietmanese, Laos, Cambaodian terrorist attacks have their been in the US or around the world based off the the Veitnam war and bombing in all these 3 countries? I mean using your methodolgy, there should be countless terrosim from American Vietmanese should there not? If not clearly you are either making a racial argument there is something wrong with people from Afghanistan, which would be scientifcally nonsense or Islam is at fault and that there then is a very big issue with Islam, where it views freeing people from oppression by the taliban as an offence to murder people

Please explain that gibberish you just claimed?

by Guest Tue Jun 21, 2016 6:15 pm

Eddie asked > Ok excuse my question again: but was this OUTSIDE THE CLUB? This initial gunfire?

My main point in all of this is that if you have three men on one, how does the shooter get inside the club??? Physically?? He has three cops behind him! As soon as he opens the door (holding this big gun) his does he get inside without a policeman shooting him?

It makes no sense! They know he's going in there to shoot,people yet they allow him to walk in?
He presumably shot the security guard/doorman at the club doorway? So whilst he's busy shooting doorman - why hasn't the THREE POLICE BEHIND HIM, took a shot at him and brought him down?

It makes no sense at all.

Since 'I' do not know how far away the initial exchange of gun fire took place outside the 'PULSE' club, {distance does make a difference}...Mateen was able to make his entrance through the main doors.
There is no GUARD - there was a 'Bouncer' there aren't armed guards in public bars/dance clubs --- that might change after this but not likely when there is alcohol being served ...drinks/drunks and weapons = disaster waiting happen.

No body knew what Mateen had in his head - only 'MATEEN' knew what his diabolical plan was and his entire military dress code was to blend into the darkened environment that he was creeping around into.
Just try to imagine the darkness of this area - his dark looking SWAT type of outfit - the blackness of his weapon and there's no way for the police to identify exactly how many/what type of weapons he's carrying --- especially when they are trying to keep from becoming DEAD from a bullet hitting them.

The FBI and police are still working out those gory details of; did any of their friendly fire account for any of those victims/wounded ...families are asking ...so are the reporters.

This is the rear view where the SWAT people were beating holes in the building to help get hostages out and remove wounded >
The Orlando shooting - Page 4 539630784

by Guest Tue Jun 21, 2016 6:18 pm

4EVER2 wrote:
Eddie asked > Ok excuse my question again: but was this OUTSIDE THE CLUB? This initial gunfire?

My main point in all of this is that if you have three men on one, how does the shooter get inside the club??? Physically?? He has three cops behind him! As soon as he opens the door (holding this big gun) his does he get inside without a policeman shooting him?

It makes no sense! They know he's going in there to shoot,people yet they allow him to walk in?
He presumably shot the security guard/doorman at the club doorway? So whilst he's busy shooting doorman - why hasn't the THREE POLICE BEHIND HIM, took a shot at him and brought him down?

It makes no sense at all.

Since 'I' do not know how far away the initial exchange of gun fire took place outside the 'PULSE' club, {distance does make a difference}...Madeen was able to make his entrance through the main doors.
There is no GUARD - there was a 'Bouncer' there aren't armed guards in public bars/dance clubs --- that might change after this but not likely when there is alcohol being served ...drinks/drunks and weapons = disaster waiting happen.

No body knew what Mateen had in his head - only 'MADEEN' knew what his diabolical plan was and his entire military dress code was to blend into the darkened environment that he was creeping around into.
Just try to imagine the darkness of this area - his dark looking SWAT type of outfit - the blackness of his weapon and there's no way for the police to identify exactly how many/what type of weapons he's carrying --- especially when they are trying to keep from becoming DEAD from a bullet hitting them.

The FBI and police are still working out those gory details of; did any of their friendly fire account for any of those victims/wounded ...families are asking ...so are the reporters.

Orlando shooting wrote:Sunday, 1:58 a.m. ET: Some 320 people are enjoying a "Latin flavor" event at Pulse, a gay nightclub in the heart of Orlando. Clubgoer Patience Carter hears gunshots in the center section of the club shortly after she and friends agree to contact Uber for a ride home. They rush into a bathroom.

Around 2:02 a.m. ET: An officer working extra duty in uniform at the club hears gunshots and engages the shooter. The officer feels he is outgunned, retreats from the club, and calls for assistance. Two SWAT officers in a nearby patrol car are among units that respond and a gunbattle ensues.
Other patrol officers rush into the club during the shootout to pull survivors out.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/12/us/orlando-shooting-timeline/

Most victims were killed in the initial minuites he came into the club and with such a weapon, he would have been able to fire 5 mags of 30 round ammunition within 2 minutes easily, sadly.

by eddie Wed Jun 22, 2016 11:17 am

I am asking, still, with three officers engaging in gun fight with him outside - as reported - HOW did he get into the club.
He pulls open the doors - three policemen see him open these doors BECAUSE THEY HAVE HIM IN SIGHT DON'T THEY? - and those policemen just let him in? Without shooting him? Without following him?

He's opening a door to a packed club, he's armed - and they let him walk in - why?
At some point he is easy-pickings becasue he's opening a heavy club door (they're not made of light wood or chipboard??) whilst holding a gun - he's distracted surely? - and yet they can't take him down? Three of them???

Didn't make sense. Never did from the minute I heard it.
Still doesn't.

by Guest Wed Jun 22, 2016 11:32 am

eddie wrote:I am asking, still, with three officers engaging in gun fight with him outside - as reported - HOW did he get into the club.
He pulls open the doors - three policemen see him open these doors BECAUSE THEY HAVE HIM IN SIGHT DON'T THEY? - and those policemen just let him in? Without shooting him? Without following him?

He's opening a door to a packed club, he's armed - and they let him walk in - why?
At some point he is easy-pickings becasue he's opening a heavy club door (they're not made of light wood or chipboard??) whilst holding a gun - he's distracted surely? - and yet they can't take him down? Three of them???

Didn't make sense. Never did from the minute I heard it.
Still doesn't.

1) You seem to be going off no report I have read.
Please read the chain of events I posted to you.

2) Are you going to stop someone with an armed assault rifle and more to the point have you faced someone with a gun pointed at you?
What did you fail to grasp that within 120 seconds, he managed to wound or kill at least 90?
And you think people are all hero enough to face bullets?
have you tried to dodge bullets by any chance?

3) You are the only one that makes no sense and this has been explained to you many times

by eddie Wed Jun 22, 2016 11:37 am

Well everyone else that has answered me seems to know that three officers engaged with him outside before he went in?
And that's what I am discussing can

The rest of your points, regarding inside the club, bear no relation to what I am discussing.

by Guest Wed Jun 22, 2016 11:51 am

eddie wrote:

Well everyone else that has answered me seems to know that three officers engaged with him outside before he went in?
And that's what I am discussing can

The rest of your points, regarding inside the club, bear no relation to what I am discussing.

Then you did not read the links did you?

Sunday, 1:58 a.m. ET: Some 320 people are enjoying a "Latin flavor" event at Pulse, a gay nightclub in the heart of Orlando. Clubgoer Patience Carter hears gunshots in the center section of the club shortly after she and friends agree to contact Uber for a ride home. They rush into a bathroom.

Around 2:02 a.m. ET: An officer working extra duty in uniform at the club hears gunshots and engages the shooter. The officer feels he is outgunned, retreats from the club, and calls for assistance. Two SWAT officers in a nearby patrol car are among units that respond and a gunbattle ensues.
Other patrol officers rush into the club during the shootout to pull survivors out.

The shooter retreats and after exchanging gunfire with a SWAT lieutenant in a hallway he barricades himself and clubgoers in a bathroom.Some 100 officers from the Orange County Sheriff's Office and the Orlando Police Department respond to the chaotic scene over the next 45 minutes.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/12/us/orlando-shooting-timeline/

This is all happenning within the club, only when more officers arrive does he enagage the officers on the outside, you are getting your timleine all confused, which again is not your fault because youa re going off the initial sketchy confusing reports.
This is days later this article that has peiced togethert the evidence so far

by eddie Wed Jun 22, 2016 12:03 pm

There were stories on the news and on here that there was a Stand off OUTSIDE first.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/06/13/orlando-pulse-nightclub-terror-orlando-police-explain-sequence-of-immediate-events/

If you google it there are lots of articles

by eddie Wed Jun 22, 2016 12:05 pm

Here read underneath each headline on Google:

The Orlando shooting - Page 4 Image13

by Guest Wed Jun 22, 2016 12:14 pm

eddie wrote:There were stories on the news and on here that there was a Stand off OUTSIDE first.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/06/13/orlando-pulse-nightclub-terror-orlando-police-explain-sequence-of-immediate-events/

If you google it there are lots of articles

What did you fail to understand about how accounts can be sketchy?

Look at your source for a start

by Guest Wed Jun 22, 2016 12:17 pm

Did you listen to this Eddie, as it backs up exactly what I have said to you?

by eddie Wed Jun 22, 2016 1:28 pm

How come so many stories ran with the account that the shooter was in a standoff with three policemen outside the club? What part of that can't you see form the original Google search?

In fact, posters here said that they'd heard that too.
Seems it's only you that didn't.

Very very BIG mistake to make isn't it? For the media to go from "three officers outside with the shooter" to "that never happened"???

So until someone who heard it/read it comes along to discuss it with me, there's no need for me to further comment seeing as this is the part of the evening that I wished to discuss.

by Guest Wed Jun 22, 2016 1:33 pm

eddie wrote:How come so many stories ran with the account that the shooter was in a standoff with three policemen outside the club? What part of that can't you see form the original Google search?

In fact, posters here said that they'd heard that too.
Seems it's only you that didn't.

Very very BIG mistake to make isn't it? For the media to go from "three officers outside with the shooter" to "that never happened"???

So until someone who heard it/read it comes along to discuss it with me, there's no need for me to further comment seeing as this is the part of the evening that I wished to discuss.

You are just regurgitating the same things I have already explained to you Eddie

Again first Policeman was inside the club and outgunned and retreated.
Then more Police arrived, with firing from outside and inside from the terrorist in the club as shots are exchanged,
Terrorrist then retreats into the bathroom to stop the Police being able to outflank his position.
The Police were using covering fire to dash into the club and retrieve wounded
Take a deep breath, read the link I sent you and watch the video from your link and you will see there is nothing wierd here
The only thing is wierd is your inability to grasp this
You see its because you simply do not understand tactics and combat, as to why its all confusing for you

by Guest Wed Jun 22, 2016 1:47 pm

eddie wrote:How come so many stories ran with the account that the shooter was in a standoff with three policemen outside the club? What part of that can't you see form the original Google search?

In fact, posters here said that they'd heard that too.
Seems it's only you that didn't.

Very very BIG mistake to make isn't it? For the media to go from "three officers outside with the shooter" to "that never happened"???

So until someone who heard it/read it comes along to discuss it with me, there's no need for me to further comment seeing as this is the part of the evening that I wished to discuss.

Well, you have gotten stuck on that and I've typed this numerous times but that was back prior to all of the regurgitated derailing posts about terrorist!

How far apart do you think that stand off happened?
10ft - 20ft' - 50ft' - a block apart?
Distance between the military/full body protected shooter VS the policemen with their hand guns and Kevlar chest protectors and it's dark and the flashing lights from their squad cars are flipping around & around & around; Mateen is dressed in all black military fatigues type body armored attire {no police bullets are going to stop him, especially when he's a moving target} ...and I've no doubt that as many of those officers that were firing were praying that one - JUST ONE of their bullets would find a soft spot and wound him enough to slow him down - make him hesitate - stumble - something ...but that didn't happen!
No fault on what they were trying to do ...they only had limited means to defend themselves while trying to return fire!

by eddie Wed Jun 22, 2016 2:17 pm

Well 4ever seems that you know there was a stand off outside BEFORE THE MAIN SHOOTING INSIDE but Didge doesn't think that's true, despite all the links vive posted and the fact that others have been discussing it here also.

See what I mean? Media confuses you all adequately until we just go "Deerrrrrrrrrrrr we will wait for the "OFFICIAL STORY" and we will be programmed to believe it becasue it will be a relief after the confusion"

Happens every time. You'll see. Every time something like this happens no one knows what happened.

Then they get told the version they will then accept.
Forever.

by Guest Wed Jun 22, 2016 2:23 pm

eddie wrote:Well 4ever seems that you know there was a stand off outside BEFORE THE MAIN SHOOTING INSIDE but Didge doesn't think that's true, despite all the links vive posted and the fact that others have been discussing it here also.

See what I mean? Media confuses you all adequately until we just go "Deerrrrrrrrrrrr we will wait for the "OFFICIAL STORY" and we will be programmed to believe it becasue it will be a relief after the confusion"

Happens every time. You'll see. Every time something like this happens no one knows what happened.

Then they get told the version they will then accept.
Forever.

Wrong, at no point did I say there was no stand off
In fact, you now have to post up where I did or apologise

I stated that the first incident was with a police officer inside the club, your view was to how the terrorist got inside when he was already inside, because you went off sketchy accounts. The officer retreated and then more officers arrived, where a gunfight ewnsued inside and outside the club
Stop lying Eddie

by Guest Wed Jun 22, 2016 2:25 pm

Didge wrote:
eddie wrote:How come so many stories ran with the account that the shooter was in a standoff with three policemen outside the club? What part of that can't you see form the original Google search?

In fact, posters here said that they'd heard that too.
Seems it's only you that didn't.

Very very BIG mistake to make isn't it? For the media to go from "three officers outside with the shooter" to "that never happened"???

So until someone who heard it/read it comes along to discuss it with me, there's no need for me to further comment seeing as this is the part of the evening that I wished to discuss.

You are just regurgitating the same things I have already explained to you Eddie

Again first Policeman was inside the club and outgunned and retreated.
Then more Police arrived, with firing from outside and inside from the terrorist in the club as shots are exchanged,
Terrorrist then retreats into the bathroom to stop the Police being able to outflank his position.
The Police were using covering fire to dash into the club and retrieve wounded
Take a deep breath, read the link I sent you and watch the video from your link and you will see there is nothing wierd here
The only thing is wierd is your inability to grasp this
You see its because you simply do not understand tactics and combat, as to why its all confusing for you

Which proves again that eddie does not read my posts

i expect an apology

by eddie Wed Jun 22, 2016 2:34 pm

No. The whole event started OUTSIDE Didge then moved to inside Rolling Eyes

You kept saying that the "outside stand off" I must be referring to was when the shooter went in and the officer called for back up once the shooter was inside.

Read back. It's all there. Rolling Eyes

by Guest Wed Jun 22, 2016 2:40 pm

eddie wrote:No. The whole event started OUTSIDE Didge then moved to inside

You kept saying that the "outside stand off" I must be referring to was when the shooter went in and the officer called for back up once the shooter was inside.

Read back. It's all there.

Sorry you are talking nonsense and going off the original sketchy accounts

The stand off happened when he was in the club

First thing happens shots are fired, a policeman in the club exchanges fire and retreats because he is outgunned.
You wrongly though, thnink the stand off happened before he entered.
That is in error.
After the Policeman retreats more Police turn up, so why woulod the terrorist leave the club and have a stand off outside, that is just daft and a complete invention in your head. The stand off happened after most of the victims had been killed or wounded.
Police used covering fore to retrieve some of the wounded, trying to keep the terrorists pin down with fire, so Police could help run into the club and get people.
The terrorist retreated into the bathroom, clearly as this covering fire was going to soon outflank his position. So he retreats to a much defenable position, the bathroom. As there was only one entrance he would have to cover from any attack, the bathroom door itself, or so he throught. He was concerned at being outflanked and took hiostages in the bathroom. They later tried to go through the wall into the bathroom

Sorry i cannot do this anymore with you, where you are so wrapped up with conspiracies and people explain simple things to you, it goes in one ear and out the other

believe what you want to believe Eddie, as its pointless explaining anything to you

by eddie Wed Jun 22, 2016 2:43 pm

Okay seems you have trouble believing what was said by the media you worship. The Orlando shooting - Page 4 2190311264

by Guest Wed Jun 22, 2016 2:48 pm

eddie wrote:Okay seems you have trouble believing what was said by the media you worship.

And its comments like the above that make me have so very little respect for you

i do not worship anything but research events and more so take on view the witnesses to the events

Not some loon conspiracy site

Are you claiming all the survivors are liars now including the Police involved?

Cuckoo anmd paranoia alert

by eddie Wed Jun 22, 2016 3:07 pm

You have actually missed the point completely!
Completely. I'm lost for words.

I have not stated that anyone is lying. This has nothing to do with a conspiracy and it's not my fault that yet again, you've been arguing a point that no one else it arguing and haven't even noticed the actual point.

You have absolutely NO clue what this thread is about. Do you? lol!

by Guest Wed Jun 22, 2016 3:43 pm

Despite the 'hair splitting intentional confusion' that Didge seems intent on Evil or Very Mad

Yes, indeed there was an exchange of gun fire outside the 'PULSE' night club ...that's well documented by everyone with a cell phone that taped those sounds - the visual from their apartments - from their sidewalk vantage points - the police reports - the commanders report & following interviews --- clearly visually able to be viewed by everyone watching all of the coverage - all of the interviews - all of the FB footage etc., etc., etc.,

And for his usual stance on and about ALL THINGS, he won't admit that he has this specific item WRONG but will continue to ridicule any member in some feeble attempt to make them submit to his superior knowledge - EVEN WHEN HE'S WRONG - WRONG - WRONG!

by Guest Wed Jun 22, 2016 4:50 pm

eddie wrote:You have actually missed the point completely!
Completely. I'm lost for words.

I have not stated that anyone is lying. This has nothing to do with a conspiracy and it's not my fault that yet again, you've been arguing a point that no one else it arguing and haven't even noticed the actual point.

You have absolutely NO clue what this thread is about. Do you?

Even worse lying

I would be after that porki pie as why did you question how he got in

The Orlando shooting - Page 4 3489511464

So again do you want me to postr up your claims to now you lying yet again

You said did not say there was a stand off which all can see you stated

Do you want me to post your words again?

Seriously after me making you look very sill here this is all you can do further lie

1) Exhibit 1

eddie wrote:

He was in an altercation with police outside - three if the media is correct - I just don't understand how he got away from them and into the club?

As seen you were in error, as already explained

2) Exhibit number 2

eddie wrote:

It took the police THREE HOURS to find him/catch him/kill him?

He was walking around shooting for three hours??? Is that what you're saying?

Wrong, he walked into the club and started to fire, within a couple of minutes most of those who would die or were injured were shot within this time frame and explained how so. Police in the club returns fire but retreats as outgunned. More Police arrive and a stand off ensues, whilst the Police use covering fire to dash in and save the wounded. The terroriost clearly feels entrapped and retreats into the bathroom, as its clear he will be outflanked so in fear dud to the police being able to gail entry to the club. The bathroom has one door only to cover. He then also takes hostages.

Sorry but there is nothing worse when people continue to lie and then try and get out of it

Do you wish me to bring up more of your comments?

The Orlando shooting - Page 4 3489511464

by Guest Wed Jun 22, 2016 4:52 pm

4EVER2 wrote:Despite the 'hair splitting intentional confusion' that Didge seems intent on

Yes, indeed there was an exchange of gun fire outside the 'PULSE' night club ...that's well documented by everyone with a cell phone that taped those sounds - the visual from their apartments - from their sidewalk vantage points - the police reports - the commanders report & following interviews --- clearly visually able to be viewed by everyone watching all of the coverage - all of the interviews - all of the FB footage etc., etc., etc.,

And for his usual stance on and about ALL THINGS, he won't admit that he has this specific item WRONG but will continue to ridicule any member in some feeble attempt to make them submit to his superior knowledge - EVEN WHEN HE'S WRONG - WRONG - WRONG!

Really, so show me whereI have been wrong on?

If not i expect you to apologise for the horrible person you are to the entire forum

In your own time

by Guest Wed Jun 22, 2016 5:14 pm

Didgey-dooer > Sorry you are talking nonsense and going off the original sketchy accounts

The stand off happened when he was in the club

First thing happens shots are fired, a policeman in the club exchanges fire and retreats because he is outgunned.
You wrongly though, thnink the stand off happened before he entered.
That is in error.
After the Policeman retreats more Police turn up, so why woulod the terrorist leave the club and have a stand off outside, that is just daft and a complete invention in your head. The stand off happened after most of the victims had been killed or wounded.

The Orlando shooting - Page 4 3223660991

How deep do you enjoy digging that 'self-inflicted' trench of STUPIDITY before you'll OWN UP TO YOUR INEPT WORDS and apologize to Eddie and then to me?

Your EGO & ANGER just gets in your own way ...but then you aren't ignorant about those issues either! The Orlando shooting - Page 4 2023022481

The Orlando shooting - Page 4 2023022481

by Guest Wed Jun 22, 2016 5:27 pm

4EVER2 wrote:
Didgey-dooer > Sorry you are talking nonsense and going off the original sketchy accounts

The stand off happened when he was in the club

First thing happens shots are fired, a policeman in the club exchanges fire and retreats because he is outgunned.
You wrongly though, thnink the stand off happened before he entered.
That is in error.
After the Policeman retreats more Police turn up, so why woulod the terrorist leave the club and have a stand off outside, that is just daft and a complete invention in your head. The stand off happened after most of the victims had been killed or wounded.
How deep do you enjoy digging that 'self-inflicted' trench of STUPIDITY before you'll OWN UP TO YOUR INEPT WORDS and apologize to Eddie and then to me?

Your EGO & ANGER just gets in your own way ...but then you aren't ignorant about those issues either!

Really then prove I am wrong..

I suggest you watch the video by the Police on this very thread show you are in error

Also i showed the link days after that recontrsucts the time line

So I am not in error.

Here is my evidence

Sunday, 1:58 a.m. ET: Some 320 people are enjoying a "Latin flavor" event at Pulse, a gay nightclub in the heart of Orlando. Clubgoer Patience Carter hears gunshots in the center section of the club shortly after she and friends agree to contact Uber for a ride home. They rush into a bathroom.

Around 2:02 a.m. ET: An officer working extra duty in uniform at the club hears gunshots and engages the shooter. The officer feels he is outgunned, retreats from the club, and calls for assistance. Two SWAT officers in a nearby patrol car are among units that respond and a gunbattle ensues.
Other patrol officers rush into the club during the shootout to pull survivors out.

The shooter retreats and after exchanging gunfire with a SWAT lieutenant in a hallway he barricades himself and clubgoers in a bathroom.Some 100 officers from the Orange County Sheriff's Office and the Orlando Police Department respond to the chaotic scene over the next 45 minutes.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/12/us/orlando-shooting-timeline/

You now need to apologise to ther fourm

ha ha ha ha ha

by Sponsored content