Omar Mateen and Rightwing Homophobia

Recent Forum Topics Forums The Public House Omar Mateen and Rightwing Homophobia

Viewing 30 posts - 31 through 60 (of 86 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #46070
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    maybe he wanted his death to mean something other than that of a conflicted self-hating homosexual.

    still. you may know that he wasn’t directly affiliated with an extremist terrorist group. but does the average american know that? will they make that distinction?

    and it could be argued that it is affecting the policy and conduct of a government. look at how trump’s running with it now. trump and isis will use this for their own interests almost like a weapon. and a weapon doesn’t need to have a political agenda to be an instrument of terrorism.

    does that make sense?

    and does that make trump a terrorist? hahahaha!

    • This reply was modified 8 years, 6 months ago by Avatar photoInvaderRam.
    #46072
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    and it could be argued that it is affecting the policy and conduct of a government. look at how trump’s running with it now. trump and isis will use this for their own interests almost like a weapon.

    It would be a false argument IR. It’s just a string of associations.

    Terrorists act to achieve specific goals. It’s not just “let’s shoot some guys and see if it influences an election.”

    As in my prior example, when the IRA was bombing London, it wasn’t just cause they wanted to see what would happen. They wanted England out of northern Ireland.

    Law works by close understanding of the words, and in the case of terrorists groups, they are trying to achieve something specific. They want a specific action. For example one primary motivation for the Al Qaeda attack on the USA in 2001 was to get american military bases out of Saudi Arabia.

    Vague associative indirect connections we have to guess at? That’s not why terrorists act. As perverse as it sounds, they are using “warfare by another means” (ie. without overt military forces capable of sustained combat) to achieve a specific purpose.

    Anytime you hear that that purpose is vague or general, it’s because the people reporting it don’t understand it, and they are passing that lack of understanding on to you.

    The Tamil Tigers waged a secessionist campaign to create an independent state of Tamil Eelam for the Tamil people in Sri Lanka. The KKK wanted to push back Reconstruction and defend racial segregation. The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia—People’s Army fights in the name of a national re-structuring to implement agrarianism and resist foreign imperialism and to that end they fund themselves by kidnapping, extortion, forced taxation, and distributing drugs.

    It does not meet the definition of terrorist demands to act alone, just shoot people, see what happens, and maybe it will influence elections. IF that’s what Mateen was even thinking.

    And I can tell you, if he was badgering his co-workers by saying BOTH that he was associated with Al Qaida and Hezbollah, then I know more about Islamic extremist groups than he does.

    That;s like saying you’re both a member of the KKK and the Black Panthers. It makes no sense to any decently informed person.

    #46073
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    i hear what you’re saying. and i don’t think this guy was a terrorist.

    but i do think that it was an act of terrorism and could have an affect on government policy. whether that was his intention or not.

    i mean the more i read. he seems like just a mentally unstable person who acted out.

    but again. the ripple effect of this could be huge. i mean i would hope not. but i could see it happening. and then does it really matter if it was intentional or not?

    #46074
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    i hear what you’re saying. and i don’t think this guy was a terrorist.

    but i do think that it was an act of terrorism and could have an affect on government policy. whether that was his intention or not.

    i mean the more i read. he seems like just a mentally unstable person who acted out.

    but again. the ripple effect of this could be huge. i mean i would hope not. but i could see it happening. and then does it really matter if it was intentional or not?

    But to be terrorism it has to have a specific, completely known, and deliberate goal in relation to the policies and actions of a state. Back to my IRA example. The IRA is bombing pubs in London. The representatives of the State of England say, “why are you doing that.” The IRA is not going to go “uh, we dunno, have an election and let’s see what happens.” No…they go “get out of Ireland.”

    Otherwise you just let the word “terrorism” mean anything. And that, my friend, is a dangerous thing to let happen in our time.

    It’s like you’re a ref and you throw a flag when a defender makes a tackle because, according to you, a tackle meets the definition of defensive holding.

    #46076
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    you make very good points.

    #46077
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    but again. the ripple effect of this could be huge. i mean i would hope not. but i could see it happening. and then does it really matter if it was intentional or not?

    you make very good points.

    As do you…but what you describe possibly happening (ripple effects) will be (I guess) due to fear, and to not understanding something. I mean yes this horrible mass murder may become a symbol, for some, of the (false of course) idea that the USA is just at war with all of Islam. If we act on that false belief, it could be awful.

    And we didn’t move as a mighty nation to stamp out racism in the wake of Charleston.

    Yeah we will all end up fighting over what Orlando means.

    BTW here’s something about the mass killer in Colorado, Holmes. He planned on killing people for a while and went through a thought process about it:

    He ruled out striking an airport because he didn’t want people to think he was a terrorist. “Terrorism isn’t the message,” he wrote. “The message is, there is no message.”

    #46080
    Avatar photoEternal Ramnation
    Participant

    from: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/the-extraordinarily-common-violence-against-lgbt-people-in-america/486722/

    In a 2011 analysis of FBI hate-crime statistics, the Southern Poverty Law Center found that “LGBT people are more than twice as likely to be the target of a violent hate-crime than Jews or black people,” said Mark Potok, a senior fellow at the center. Because the population of LGBT Americans is relatively small, and the number of hate crimes against that group is significant, LGBT individuals face a higher risk than other groups of being the victim of an attack. “They are more than four times as likely as Muslims, and almost 14 times as likely as Latinos,” Potok added. Sexual orientation motivated roughly 20 percent of hate crimes in 2013, according to the FBI; the only factor that accounted for more was race.

    The vast majority of those crimes are not carried out by Muslim extremists, Potok said. “It’s a mix of white supremacists and their ilk and people who would be considered relatively normal members of society,” Potok said. “The majority of attacks on gay people do not come from people who are members of organized hate groups.”

    The numbers for Muslims attacked might be higher except for the idiot white supremacists mistakenly kill Sikhs because they think they are Muslim.

    #46083
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    As do you…but what you describe possibly happening (ripple effects) will be (I guess) due to fear, and to not understanding something. I mean yes this horrible mass murder may become a symbol, for some, of the (false of course) idea that the USA is just at war with all of Islam. If we act on that false belief, it could be awful.

    for sure. and that’s just what some people will want us to think. that’s part of what is so horrible about this. along with the attack on a community which had been making significant progress.

    i am under no false belief that we are at war with all of islam but i do believe that trump and extremists would have us believe that. this plays right into their hands.

    #46089
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    These are important points from the article that starts this thread.

    This is the kind of issue people should want to read around on…because information and good analysis will be crucial. Just spontaneous impressions will be far less useful, because those will be influenced by mass media ways of framing this. Gotta get outside the box on this one.

    I have another article from the same expert up, rejecting the idea (for very good reasons) that Mateen was an actual jihadi terrorist.

    Top 7 ways to tell if Someone is lying about being a ‘Salafi Jihadi’

    And from the article above:

    What we know about Mateen so far doesn’t indicate that he was a member of a terrorist organization. If the authorities thought that he was, the crime would have been labeled international terrorism, not domestic.

    The great thing about this definition is that it focuses on the motive behind the act. And it specifies that the motive has to be to coerce people or influence or affect government policy.

    So if the alleged shooter, Omar Mateen, was a terrorist you would expect him to make demands about US government policy. There will be more such acts, he would have said, unless the US government passes a law outlawing homosexuality. Or unless the US government withdraws from Afghanistan. (But if he aimed to change the latter policy, why shoot up a civilian gay club on Latin night? Wouldn’t he have targeted, say, a US Army base?)

    #46092
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    The definition being used for terrorism easily places the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in that category. “Shock and awe” in Iraq, the firebombing of Dresden and Tokya, to name just a few.

    Israel is also a terrorist nation, under that definition. There are many others, of course.

    I think it’s time to include states in the mix with this too. If it’s politically correct to always name things as a certain kind of ____ terrorism, it should be done when states act in this manner as well.

    • This reply was modified 8 years, 6 months ago by Avatar photoBilly_T.
    #46094
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    The definition being used for terrorism easily places the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in that category. “Shock and awe” in Iraq, the firebombing of Dresden and Tokya, to name just a few.

    Israel is also a terrorist nation, under that definition. There are many others, of course.

    I think it’s time to include states in the mix with this too. If it’s politically correct to always name things as a certain kind of ____ terrorism, it should be done when states act in this manner as well.

    Well, no, since by definition an act of terrorism is committed by a group outside the norms of military combat and declared war. That’s the whole point…terrorism is warfare by another means, ie. it is committed by groups who cannot wage war in the military sense.

    This is simply not the time and place in american history to let the legal definition of terrorism be subject to mere impressions. If this gets out of hand, we will all regret it beyond belief.

    You can however argue that mass bombings of civilian populations is wrong. But in doing so include actions in Europe by both sides and also for that matter include the Japanese.

    #46096
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    ter·ror·ism
    ˈterəˌrizəm/
    noun
    noun: terrorism

    the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

    That would include states.

    And, yes, of course, all the sides “did it” in WWII — and most, if not all, other wars. But we have virtually no control over what these other nations decide to do, with regard to future use. We have next to no ability to control other nations along those lines. We do, however, have control over our own actions. To me, that’s why it’s more important for us to recognize and admit to our use of terrorism as a tactic, when we’ve resorted to it over time. Against striking workers, dissidents of all stripes, Native Americans, blacks (and other minorities), women, etc. etc. and overseas.

    • This reply was modified 8 years, 6 months ago by Avatar photoBilly_T.
    #46098
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    ter·ror·ism
    ˈterəˌrizəm/
    noun
    noun: terrorism

    the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

    That would include states.

    And, yes, of course, all the sides “did it” in WWII — and most, if not all, other wars. But we have virtually no control over what these other nations decide to do, with regard to future use. We have next to no ability to control other nations along those lines. We do, however, have control over our own actions. To me, that’s why it’s more important for us to recognize and admit to our use of terrorism as a tactic, when we’ve resorted to it over time. Against striking workers, dissidents of all stripes, Native Americans, blacks (and other minorities), women, etc. etc. and overseas.

    Dictionary definitions don’t help us understand and properly think about legal definitions, since those are different things.

    I am not in huge favor right now of confusing the legal definition of terrorism because it plays into the hands of some very serious demagogues. Fact is, just running around with the word “terrorism” as a general damning and loaded pejorative doesn’t help that discussion.

    And so you can think what you want, but, I am staying within the intelligible parameters of understanding what the legal definitions are of domestic and international terrorism, instead of participating in the whole “have an agenda, change the word” phenomena right now.

    I know you like to continue old fights, but I was done with the hiroshima discussion and fully acknowledge that we see it very differently. I know there was some “ah but my opinion is the truth” stuff going on with that but I regard that as par for the course in discussions like this.

    My eye is on the actual legal definition of terrorism and what it means. There are people right now being lied to about this issue in relation to this incident, so I am keeping my eye on the ball. I ask you to accept that.

    #46099
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    And so you can think what you want, but, I am staying within the intelligible parameters of understanding what the legal definitions are of domestic and international terrorism, instead of participating in the whole “have an agenda, change the word” phenomena right now.

    I know you like to continue old fights, but I was done with the hiroshima discussion and fully acknowledge that we see it very differently. I know there was some “ah but my opinion is the truth” stuff going on with that but I regard that as par for the course in discussions like this.

    My eye is on the actual legal definition of terrorism and what it means.

    You assume far too much in these discussions. It’s the biggest reason why you and I have these disagreements. You are forever assuming you just know the real motives behind my posts, and you don’t. You never have. You’re actually quite tin-eared about these things, routinely, primarily because you’re so certain you do know the hidden rationale behind all things. Judging from the ways you consistently mischaracterize them, your certainty is misplaced. Severely misplaced.

    Please just stop. Take them on face value, or please just ignore them altogether.

    I said what I said because I believe it to be true, not because I “have an agenda.”

    • This reply was modified 8 years, 6 months ago by Avatar photoBilly_T.
    • This reply was modified 8 years, 6 months ago by Avatar photoBilly_T.
    • This reply was modified 8 years, 6 months ago by Avatar photoBilly_T.
    #46101
    bnw
    Blocked

    Yet he is a registered DEMOCRAT. Oops.

    I really appreciate everyone who posts here and all the contributions.

    That said, don’t fucking do that. Just fucking don’t. Don’t play puerile politics days after the mass murder of 50 people.

    There is no political party affiliation that makes any difference here.

    The man had serious mental illness. The man may or may not have engaged in terrorism in addition to the hate crime it clearly was.

    You know what doesn’t matter? What corporate fucking club he belonged to.

    So can we please NOT?

    If for no other reason than out of respect for the dead.

    Respect for the dead demands we can’t say he is a registered democrat? I disagree. The democrats are using this to try to deny our 2nd Amendment right. You know it too. It was an act of terrorism. You know that too.

    Sure. But it is just as logical to point out that he worked as a security guard.

    But you don’t do that because it doesn’t serve your political itch.

    Mackeyser is right. You are politicizing mass murder to serve your own interest.

    No I’m not. But those calling for more gun control sure are…..and they are DEMOCRATS.

    The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.

    Sprinkles are for winners.

    #46104
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    No I’m not. But those calling for more gun control sure are…..and they are DEMOCRATS.

    Those seeking gun control are responding to THE reason for these killing sprees. Easy access to weapons of mass destruction. The obvious and logical response is to get rid of those weapons. It’s beyond the political. It’s just common sense.

    Btw, and this should be obvious. Not all Democrats favor gun control. In fact, few in the Democratic establishment want to deal with it at all. They’re too petrified of the NRA for that, and wrongly attribute Gore’s loss to Bush to his stance on guns. Dems haven’t added any new gun restrictions in decades, and have let Republicans loosen gun laws all over the country. Neither party has the guts to stand up to the fascists at the NRA.

    Mateen was likely one of those Dems who simply don’t want any gun control measures. But we’ll probably never know.

    #46105
    bnw
    Blocked

    And so you can think what you want, but, I am staying within the intelligible parameters of understanding what the legal definitions are of domestic and international terrorism, instead of participating in the whole “have an agenda, change the word” phenomena right now.

    I know you like to continue old fights, but I was done with the hiroshima discussion and fully acknowledge that we see it very differently. I know there was some “ah but my opinion is the truth” stuff going on with that but I regard that as par for the course in discussions like this.

    My eye is on the actual legal definition of terrorism and what it means.

    You assume far too much in these discussions. It’s the biggest reason why you and I have these disagreements. You are forever assuming you just know the real motives behind my posts, and you don’t. You never have. You’re actually quite tin-eared about these things, routinely, primarily because you’re so certain you do know the hidden rationale behind all things. Judging from the ways you consistently mischaracterize them, your certainty is misplaced. Severely misplaced.

    Please just stop. Take them on face value, or please just ignore them altogether.

    I said what I said because I believe it to be true, not because I “have an agenda.”

    Both of you are guilty of making the poster the issue. That is expressly against the rules and will not be permitted. The moderator should know better.

    The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.

    Sprinkles are for winners.

    #46106
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    And so you can think what you want, but, I am staying within the intelligible parameters of understanding what the legal definitions are of domestic and international terrorism, instead of participating in the whole “have an agenda, change the word” phenomena right now.

    I know you like to continue old fights, but I was done with the hiroshima discussion and fully acknowledge that we see it very differently. I know there was some “ah but my opinion is the truth” stuff going on with that but I regard that as par for the course in discussions like this.

    My eye is on the actual legal definition of terrorism and what it means.

    You assume far too much in these discussions. It’s the biggest reason why you and I have these disagreements. You are forever assuming you just know the real motives behind my posts, and you don’t. You never have. You’re actually quite tin-eared about these things, routinely, primarily because you’re so certain you do know the hidden rationale behind all things. Judging from the ways you consistently mischaracterize them, your certainty is misplaced. Severely misplaced.

    Please just stop. Take them on face value, or please just ignore them altogether.

    I said what I said because I believe it to be true, not because I “have an agenda.”

    Both of you are guilty of making the poster the issue. That is expressly against the rules and will not be permitted. The moderator should know better.

    Well BT you misread me. The first bit you bolded (end of my 1st paragraph you quote) was not a personal description of anyone, let alone you, just something I see happening generally. That was not a personal blast aimed at you. It was a description of a national phenomena, one that has me concerned, and for good reasons.

    As for the 2nd bolded bit, it;s just true that I personally am done with the hiroshima discussion, although I also added that you could think (and by implication) say what you want. That’s mostly just me announcing that I personally didn’t want to discuss that anymore. It was natural to assume that bringing it back up was at least partly aimed at your former debate partner. In fact it would be hard to avoid that assumption, whether it was the case or not. If not, then fine.

    The third bolded bit was deliberately written so that it applied equally to both of us. As a rule, if I slam someone (whether I should or not) I openly do it. If I don’t openly do it I’m not doing it.

    The rest? I dunno, you call me to task for assuming motives but then do the same in the process. As usually is the case in things like this, however, it’s simple—we probably misread each other to an extent.

    And bnw is right about us both personalizing. It’s discouraged. BNW is right to say what he says. To the degree I did that myself, I apologize.

    So let me start over. Which I hereby do.

    I am personally going to stay out of any discussion that seeks to leave behind the specific legal definition of terrorism (as defined in USA law or by the UN), because in my mind letting that definition get misrepresented by people afraid of islam, especially in relation to Orlando, is dangerous.

    I am not saying what you could post nor would I. Just announcing I have a very specific and focused purpose in mind here in this discussion and will be sticking to it. That is simply a description of my own intentions.

    #46108
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    So let me start over. Which I hereby do.

    I am personally going to stay out of any discussion that seeks to leave behind the specific legal definition of terrorism (as defined in USA law or by the UN), because in my mind letting that definition get misrepresented by people afraid of islam, especially in relation to Orlando, is dangerous.

    I am not saying what you could post nor would I. Just announcing I have a very specific and focused purpose in mind here in this discussion and will be sticking to it. That is simply a description of my own intentions.

    I’m fine with starting over as well, and it’s obviously your choice when it comes to what you’ll discuss here.

    On definitions, from Wikipedia:

    There are many reasons as to why there is no universal consensus regarding the definition of terrorism. Angus Martyn in a briefing paper for the Australian Parliament has stated that “The international community has never succeeded in developing an accepted comprehensive definition of terrorism. During the 1970s and 1980s, the United Nations attempts to define the term foundered mainly due to differences of opinion between various members about the use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and self-determination.”[7] These divergences have made it impossible to conclude a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism that incorporates a single, all-encompassing, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism.[8]

    In the meantime, the international community adopted a series of sectoral conventions that define and criminalize various types of terrorist activities. In addition, since 1994, the United Nations General Assembly has condemned terrorist acts using the following political description of terrorism: “Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.”[9]

    #46109
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    That said, I didn’t want to get bogged down in a discussion of definitions, either.

    The main thing for me, is to do whatever we can to radically reduce these tragedies, if not end them altogether. To find ways to do this.

    This particular case seems among the most complex in recent times, with the most seeming contradictions. But the bottom line for me is, he could not have slaughtered so many people without the tools to do so. And the tool of choice among mass shooters is a semi-automatic gun, most often an AR-15.

    We can’t solve for the variable of hate — at least not right away. But we can solve for the variable of weapons. That’s within our control. Changing the way people think about “the Other” will take decades. Changing our gun laws can be done now. Yesterday.

    • This reply was modified 8 years, 6 months ago by Avatar photoBilly_T.
    #46112
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    So let me start over. Which I hereby do.

    I am personally going to stay out of any discussion that seeks to leave behind the specific legal definition of terrorism (as defined in USA law or by the UN), because in my mind letting that definition get misrepresented by people afraid of islam, especially in relation to Orlando, is dangerous.

    I am not saying what you could post nor would I. Just announcing I have a very specific and focused purpose in mind here in this discussion and will be sticking to it. That is simply a description of my own intentions.

    I’m fine with starting over as well, and it’s obviously your choice when it comes to what you’ll discuss here.

    On definitions, from Wikipedia:

    There are many reasons as to why there is no universal consensus regarding the definition of terrorism. Angus Martyn in a briefing paper for the Australian Parliament has stated that “The international community has never succeeded in developing an accepted comprehensive definition of terrorism. During the 1970s and 1980s, the United Nations attempts to define the term foundered mainly due to differences of opinion between various members about the use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and self-determination.”[7] These divergences have made it impossible to conclude a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism that incorporates a single, all-encompassing, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism.[8]

    In the meantime, the international community adopted a series of sectoral conventions that define and criminalize various types of terrorist activities. In addition, since 1994, the United Nations General Assembly has condemned terrorist acts using the following political description of terrorism: “Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.”[9]

    Yeah I am very familiar with the wiki definition (which I just re-read this morning) and also with the history of debates over the concept. Going way back. That debate has come up endless times in the past in discussions of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, as well as in discussions of amercian policy toward Central America, where it got fabulously twisted by the confrontations both by indigenous liberation groups and american backed death squads.

    However, my point stands—I am sticking with the USA (and also the UN) LEGAL definitions of terrorism, because as I see it, that is what is at stake in discussing Orlando. It either gets taken as another “we are at war with islam” “terrorist attack” or seen (in my view) for what it is–a nutcase acting outside of the whole “islamic fundamentalist terrorist” thing.

    What makes this even more loaded and problematical is that “terrorism” has become a loaded pejorative, just as “racism” has, so that it is actually challenging to keep analysis focused.

    I personally think focus is important and necessary right now, given the national political climate, so will be making an effort myself to keep the focus.

    ….

    #46114
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    Also: It’s not just the fact that semi-automatic guns allow for so many victims. The knowledge going in empowers the shooter to act. Knowing the capacity he holds in his hand empowers him to go forward with the plan of mass slaughter. The tool itself does that. The tool itself radically increases the sense of power for the holder.

    Obviously, taking away that tool takes away that sense of power, which likely causes the would-be mass killer NOT to act. This is not always going to be the effect, but if it IS the effect, even one time in history, and the absence of the tool saves even one human being, it is more than worth the supposed “sacrifice” of its absence from our country. Just one life saved makes it worth it. No American’s possible joy in the legal use of these weapons should be able to trump that one saved life.

    #46116
    bnw
    Blocked

    Also: It’s not just the fact that semi-automatic guns allow for so many victims. The knowledge going in empowers the shooter to act. Knowing the capacity he holds in his hand empowers him to go forward with the plan of mass slaughter. The tool itself does that. The tool itself radically increases the sense of power for the holder.

    Not the tool. The venue is. He chose a venue in which firearms are not allowed. Common theme in these shootings.

    The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.

    Sprinkles are for winners.

    #46119
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    Well, personally, I don’t see your point at all on the effects of including states in with the definition. Honestly, I have no idea how that could lead to some sort of Islamophobic-only discussion. It doesn’t make any sense to me at all. Not in the slightest. In fact, I think by including states, it does the opposite of what you’re saying. It holds countries like Israel and the United States accountable for their actions against Muslims — among a host of others. And it includes state “terror” campaigns against a host of powerless domestic groups as well. As mentioned, striking workers, dissidents of all stripes, Occupy, blacks, Native Americans and other minorities, women, etc. etc.

    Be that as it may . . . . I don’t want to get bogged down in definitions, either.

    To be honest, I don’t think “terrorism” is an apt description of what Mateen did. I think he just snapped, and his toxic mixture of self-hatred and hatred for certain groups just boiled over. Easy access to weapons literally weaponized that self-hatred, and the rest of that toxic mix. It seems pretty clear that nothing he did by slaughtering those people could possibly further any “political” aims, so that part of the definition is out. Did he “terrorize” people? Definitely. But so do rapists and a host of other people who generally aren’t called “terrorists.”

    In short, I think “mass shooter” is more appropriate than “terrorist.” Though pretty much anything we call him is really, in the scheme of things, in the midst of this tragedy, irrelevant.

    • This reply was modified 8 years, 6 months ago by Avatar photoBilly_T.
    #46120
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    I think he just snapped, and his toxic mixture of self-hatred and hatred for certain groups just boiled over. Easy access to weapons literally weaponized that self-hatred, and the rest of that toxic mix. It seems pretty clear that nothing he did, but slaughtering those people could possibly further any “political” aims, so that part of the definition is out. Did he “terrorize” people. But so do rapists and a host of other people who generally aren’t called “terrorists.”

    In short, I think “mass shooter” is more appropriate than “terrorist.”

    I agree with that bit, definitely.

    .

    #46121
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    bnw,

    Not the tool. The venue is. He chose a venue in which firearms are not allowed. Common theme in these shootings.

    There have been countless studies, many of them run by police departments and the military, showing how the presence of civilians with guns has no impact whatsoever on a mass shooter. In fact, there is no case of a “good guy with a gun” stopping a mass shooter in the last three decades or more.

    And this is logical. The speed of the action, the chaos this causes, “getting the jump” on everyone, wipes out the chance for any effective response by someone with a gun, and we have countless examples of police — trained police — shooting innocent bystanders in the midst of a melee. Why on earth would anyone think untrained civilians would do better?

    In reality, even if those “good guys with guns” had the time to react, chances are they’d shoot innocents by the score and add to the carnage. It’s only in movies and video games that they’d actually stop the killer. Not in real life.

    #46122
    bnw
    Blocked

    bnw,

    Not the tool. The venue is. He chose a venue in which firearms are not allowed. Common theme in these shootings.

    There have been countless studies, many of them run by police departments and the military, showing how the presence of civilians with guns has no impact whatsoever on a mass shooter. In fact, there is no case of a “good guy with a gun” stopping a mass shooter in the last three decades or more.

    And this is logical. The speed of the action, the chaos this causes, “getting the jump” on everyone, wipes out the chance for any effective response by someone with a gun, and we have countless examples of police — trained police — shooting innocent bystanders in the midst of a melee. Why on earth would anyone think untrained civilians would do better?

    In reality, even if those “good guys with guns” had the time to react, chances are they’d shoot innocents by the score and add to the carnage. It’s only in movies and video games that they’d actually stop the killer. Not in real life.

    Sigh.

    The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.

    Sprinkles are for winners.

    #46124
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    ZN,

    Your quote from my post showed me how badly it needed editing. So I made some quick changes to clarify. Glad you understood what I was getting at even before the quick edits.

    I think we agree on the basics here.

    #46126
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    Also, bnw,

    In almost EVERY case, these mass shooters are stopped when they have to reload. They’re almost always tackled by very brave people without guns. The reloading part is what gets them, nine times out of ten.

    Logic tells us that if we do away with all large capacity guns, ammo containers, accessories, etc, they’re going to have to reload a hell of a lot sooner, and this should dissuade all kinds of people from attempting mass carnage going in. If they know, up front, they’ll have just their six-shooter, with its internal chambers only, and will have to hand-load each bullet, one at a time . . . . rather than grabbing a magazine and slapping it in place . . . . their Rambo visions will disappear.

    It WILL save lives.

    • This reply was modified 8 years, 6 months ago by Avatar photoBilly_T.
    #46129
    bnw
    Blocked

    Also, bnw,

    In almost EVERY case, these mass shooters are stopped when they have to reload. They’re almost always tackled by very brave people without guns. The reloading part is what gets them, nine times out of ten.

    Logic tells us that if we do away with all large capacity guns, ammo containers, accessories, etc, they’re going to have to reload a hell of a lot sooner, and this should dissuade all kinds of people from attempting mass carnage going in. If they know, up front, they’ll have just their six-shooter, with its internal chambers only, and will have to hand-load each bullet, one at a time . . . . rather than grabbing a magazine and slapping it in place . . . . their Rambo visions will disappear.

    It WILL save lives.

    Sigh.

    The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.

    Sprinkles are for winners.

Viewing 30 posts - 31 through 60 (of 86 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.