SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A suspected Islamic terrorist opened fire at a gay nightclub in Florida, killing 50 people and wounding another 53 before he was killed by police. While authorities continue to investigate to determine whether this man had ties to ISIS, the terror organization has not been quiet in praising the attack. This comes three days after ISIS announced they would attack somewhere in Florida. Today's attack marks the largest act of terrorism on US soil since 9/11.
takyon: The gunman reportedly called 911 emergency services to pledge allegiance to ISIS. The President will hold a briefing momentarily. Compare this article to the original submission.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Islamic Terrorist Opens Fire on Florida Nightclub; 50 Killed, 53 Wounded
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 434 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Remember Darwin; building a better mousetrap merely results in smarter mice.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Sunday June 12 2016, @07:04PM
If this guy had gone on a rampage in a Pentacostal revival meeting, he probably would have faced return fire. He chose a venue with demographics that minimized that risk.
For the record, as a liberal atheist peace type hippie, the whole things is just gross: the religiously tinged massacre, the further militarization of the police to follow, and the additional burden placed on civil liberties that is sure to come.
(Score: 2) by julian on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:11PM
He chose the venue because his religion taught him those people are subhuman and deserve to be killed, and that he'd be rewarded for doing so--especially if he died in the process.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:21PM
Demographically, many LBGTQ individuals identify with the DNC positions including banning personal firearm ownership. Many pentacostals identify as RNC and support the NRA. In two gatherings of these two groups, it is reasonable to presume that one will be more likely to be armed than the other. If the shooter was going for maximum carnage, he would choose the least armed group.
There are no doubt other reasons including religiously induced homophobia as you indicate, but there is an advantage of shooting up a gay nightclub over shooting up the local gun range. One of those is obviously going to be easier for the murderer.
(Score: 5, Informative) by julian on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:58PM
Homosexuals and trans people identify with the DNC because they're the only game in town. The other guys want to deny them human rights, demonize them at every turn, accuse them of being pedophiles and recruiters of children into "the gay lifestyle", and systematically close spheres of public life to them. Discrimination (as much as they can legally get away with) is part of the Republican party platform. It's often disguised with language like "family" and "faith" but it's thinly veiled. A homosexual knows what it means when a politician says he will legislate for "family values".
Why would an Islamist attack socially conservative Christians, especially when there are targets that offend their Islamic sensibilities far more? Islamists agree with the socially conservative Christians on many things, including a dislike of homosexuals. Christians at least have a prescribed role in the vision of the future laid out by Islam. Atheists and homosexuals are beyond excuse, they have no place in Islamic society.
And again, this man intended to die in battle, that's one of the end goals in these sorts of attacks. So no amount of armed deterrence would work. I'll even submit that a shootout with multiple gunmen in a dark and crowded nightclub could have had a death toll even higher than it was with just the one attacker.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 13 2016, @01:23AM
Armed deterrence would have worked if only one person had been armed, and shot the bastard dead with the first iteration of "Allahu Akhbar!" There might have been three victims, instead of over 100.
(Score: 2) by julian on Monday June 13 2016, @01:52AM
Or there could have been a shootout with even more dead in the crossfire and the chaos. In my experience the sort of people who advocate for this policy tend to overestimate their own capabilities with a firearm, and place an absurd amount of trust and faith in the capabilities of other people. It just feels good to believe you'd snap into tactical operator mode, draw, and double tap the bad guy before he could do much harm. That's a paranoid delusional hero fantasy. In reality, even trained military and police routinely make mistakes.
You are not an asset to the public making everyone safer by carrying, you are a dangerous liability. I say this as a gun owner myself. I wouldn't carry in public even if it were legal to do so. I have no business attempting to use a firearm in that way, and I know my own limitations.
It's much more likely I'd simply add to the carnage instead of stopping the shooter. Every jacked up moron who thinks differently is even more of a liability because they don't know how dangerous they really are.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 13 2016, @02:01AM
Citation necessary. Surely, you can find a story of just such an even, possibly in some lawless state such as Texas.
Try this link - https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=13890 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by julian on Monday June 13 2016, @02:09AM
Here's just one [khou.com]. Oh look, it's even from Texas.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 13 2016, @02:26AM
That scenario isn't what you implied. You implied that two, six, a dozen, even scores of people might be sucked into a gun battle, if guns were allowed in "gun free zones". In this instance, we have two criminals, one victim, and one passerby who appears to be a fucking idiot. He shot the victim he was trying to help?
Someone needs to look a little harder at this incident. I'm not sure the shooter wasn't part of the car-jacking.
(Score: 2) by julian on Monday June 13 2016, @02:38AM
My point was that gun owners are usually far less competent than they believe themselves to be, and that they will do more harm than good by using their gun to stop a crime in progress.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 13 2016, @04:30AM
Well then, your opinion is noted. Your opinion is no more and no less valid than any other person's opinion. If you could cite statistics supporting your opinion, it might have more value. Or not, as the case may be. Hoplophobes cite all kinds of statistics to support their concept of gun control - yet Chicago sees more people killed every week than Texas sees in a year.
I still hold out Texas as a model state for "common sense gun control".
Ya know what's odd? I went looking for a follow-up on your story. I find nothing. The story is carried by a myriad of news sources, but there is no follow-up. The victim isn't named, the shooter doesn't seem to be apprehended or named, the carjackers aren't named. The perps and the shooter just disappear, and leave the victim to be hauled off to the hospital.
As you might imagine, I'm having problems with the credibility of this story . . .
Note, that I am not questioning your credibility, it's the story I'm having problems with. I just gullibly believed the headline when I read it. Apparently, you did too. Ehh . . . .
(Score: 3, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Monday June 13 2016, @12:40PM
Also, how would a person in the club know which guy with guns is part of the attack, and which isn't? They weren't wearing uniforms. So if you have multiple people in the club carrying guns and the shooter comes in, how do you know which one of the subsequent people pulling guns (assuming you can calmly observe the situation) isn't in cahoots with him? All you can see is that they're firing a weapon, too.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15 2016, @04:35AM
The lighter skinned folk will shoot the darker skin folk and vice versa :).
Seriously as the original AC commenter it's amazing how retarded the rest are that they still can't even realize my obvious point that when there are lot of strangers around, how would you know who are the bad guys when everyone whips out their guns and starts shooting at others?
As I said:
everyone would have whipped out their guns and shot all the _gunmen_ dead in self-defence. Oh wait there was only one gunman? Hard to tell in a nightclub...
From what I see most people in the USA are too retarded and dangerous to be allowed to have guns. Especially most of the US police force.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @03:09AM
Remember, kids, always pick up your shells.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @01:46AM
Homosexuals and trans people identify with the DNC because they're the only game in town.
Oh bullshit.
Gays serving in the military? Log Cabin Republicans.
Gay marriage? Someone considered by the Bush administration for the post of Attorney General to succeed Alberto Gonzales. The Democrats, however, were so vehemently opposed that Bush nominated Michael Mukasey instead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Olson [wikipedia.org]
I won't deny there is a lot of hostility from social conservatives, but you are oversimplifying the issue to the point of misrepresentation.
(Score: 2) by julian on Monday June 13 2016, @01:58AM
Gays serving in the military?
Every person in the military is a Republican? Or are you talking about DADT? Obama ended that. What party is he from again?
Log Cabin Republicans
A joke. Openly hated by half their party. If the GOP ever abandoned their social conservative positions the party would be over. It'd fracture into at least two parties and with their strength divided would never again hold office. Face it, you don't have a viable party without anti-gay, anti-trans, anti-abortion, Christian persecution complex social conservatives.
I won't deny there is a lot of hostility from social conservatives
Also known as the GOP base. There is no Republican party without bringing the bigots on board, they simply don't have the numbers, just like the Democrats have to pander to social justice warriors and misandric feminists. A pox on both their houses, IMO.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday June 13 2016, @02:06AM
I never understood the Log Cabin Republicans. It must take some powerful delusion to think that party doesn't want you dead or worse if you're gay. That sounds like being a chicken who owns stock in KFC.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @08:35AM
Social conditioning - its easier to trivialize bad actions when you haven't born the brunt of them yourself. Especially when your friends are telling you its mostly just the exaggerations of SJWs. Ironically, it is sort of a victory for those SJWs - the fact that some people can be out and still live in republican social circles with minimal discrimination directly to their faces is significant progress over previous generations. Trickle down progressivism.... (next up latinos, blacks and muslims are still at the back of the bus)
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday June 13 2016, @04:27PM
Yeah, I suppose. These things take time, and we have to fight every day, and the haters only need to be lucky once to undo decades of progress. It sucks. But we gotta fight the good fight, right?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @02:38AM
Obama ended that
Um, you mean had his hand forced after defending it, and purposely signed a repeal thereby avoiding having it a part of case law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log_Cabin_Republicans_v._United_States [wikipedia.org]
Now show me anything that DNC has changed for homosexuals in the last decade.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @02:44AM
Hillary opposed gay marriage until just recently. That includes her 2008 campaign and her time as the Secretary of State. Her emails reveal a strong dislike of LGBT stuff.
Trump welcomes trans people to use the restroom of their choice at his businesses.
Hmmm, looks like you'd better choose Trump. Hillary might flip-flop on you. To her, gay rights count about as much as opposing the trans-Pacific trade partnership. It's just a position to be taken, temporarily and insincerely, as required for today's political maneuver.
(Score: 4, Informative) by julian on Monday June 13 2016, @02:57AM
I'm not a Hillary supporter. I'm a liberal, not a Democrat. I've been supporting Bernie Sanders and will vote for Jill Stein if Hillary is the Democrat's nominee. Yet I am not blind to the fact that, on most issues, in most years, in most places, the Democrats are far more in favor of gay rights than the Republicans. Are you seriously proposing the Republicans will stand up for gay rights? You think I'm that big of a fool?
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday June 13 2016, @05:51PM
Are you seriously proposing the Republicans will stand up for gay rights? You think I'm that big of a fool?
With Trump now leading the party, this might just change. Trump doesn't seem to care much about LGBTQ people, said that Caitlyn Jenner could use whichever bathroom at Trump Tower she was comfortable with (and she did), and has said it's a states' rights issue (which of course is just a way for GOP politicians to avoid an issue, so they don't piss off the more conservative people too much).
And now, with this incident squarely placing Islam against LGBT acceptance, and the Donald having a history of both nationalistic and anti-Islam statements (banning all Muslims from entering the country "until we can figure out what's going on"), while the Democrat side and the liberals having a history of cozying up to Muslims (crying "Islamophobia" against anyone who criticizes them), I could definitely see Trump using this as an opportunity to gain more mainstream acceptance by cozying up to LGBT groups while demonizing Islam even more. Obviously, as we can see here, we really do have good reasons to fear Islam: its adherents do go on killing sprees from time to time. Whereas with LGBT people, there is precisely zero evidence we have anything to fear with them: when was the last time you heard of gay people mass-murdering straight people? A politician looking to exploit fear here can do so pretty easily.
Personally, I think this will likely go down in history books as one of the factors that helped propel Trump into the White House. Now, I'm not saying this is necessarily a horrible thing either; the alternative doesn't look any better, and in some ways worse. If Hillary gets elected, I definitely foresee us getting involved in a large-scale war in Syria within 100 days. It'll be a repeat of the Bush Administration, though probably worse since Russia is already operating in Syria and is directly working to prop up Assad, who neo-liberal globalists like Hillary hate and want to remove from power at all costs. With Trump, I expect he'll work with Russia to drop a few bombs on ISIS and that's about it, but I worry he'll wreck the economy by trying to change course too fast towards more isolationist policies.
(Score: 2) by julian on Monday June 13 2016, @08:25PM
It's funny, because I get the exact opposite impression. I think Trump is likely to start a war. He's so thin skinned and takes everything personally, he's likely to get frustrated that he can't bully other governments around like he can with his own executive branch and impulsively escalate military tension past the point of no return. I don't know where in the world it would happen but his attitude makes me nervous. He's dangerously unhinged and emotional. Not the kind of calm and thoughtful personality I want for the job (Hillary isn't either, but she's a lot closer).
He's made so many contradictory statements. One day he's an isolationist, the next we're going to ramp up the war against ISIS; torture them and murder their families (good luck getting the military to go along with that, btw).
On the other hand I am fairly confident that Hillary will simply continue Obama's policies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @06:23PM
Heck no, but Trump would. Rick Santorum on the other hand...
You don't lump democrats together, as shown by your acceptance of Bernie and non-acceptance of Hillary. Why lump republicans together?
(Score: 2) by julian on Monday June 13 2016, @08:36PM
So just answer a thought experiment for me:
There's a person who is a homophobe, and it's really important to them. It's one of the primary things they vote on. They like seeing their homophobia translated into real legislation like banning same-sex marriage (kind of a lost cause now, but maybe it can be reversed later?) and allowing businesses to deny serving customers based on sexual orientation. They have their one vote to cast in November to do the most "good" for their worldview that they can. What party do they vote for?
You know the correct answer to this question as much as I do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @08:58PM
They focus on congress. Maybe there would be a difference.
It's very clear that the republican party is trying to drop the issue. There are some who still claim to care, not that they actually care, in order to win votes in the deep south.
(Score: 2) by julian on Monday June 13 2016, @09:37PM
It's very clear that the republican party is trying to drop the issue.
I think this is true as well. The problem I see for the GOP is that they don't have a working coalition without social conservatives, especially religious ones. If they joined with the liberals on same-sex issues they'd lose both houses of congress and the presidency for a generation.
So I am really hoping that happens!
It wouldn't be a total failure, however. Conservatism doesn't really exist to win or govern anyway. Conservatism is necessary for liberalism to have something to struggle against and triumph over, and secondarily to slow the rate of change to something manageable on a human timescale. It's been going on for thousands of years. Conservatism sets the agenda for what the next generation of liberals have to overcome. This issue is the perfect example of that process in action. In as little as 20 years it won't be possible to be a conservative who is against marriage equality; just like you can't be a serious candidate of any party today and be against interracial marriage.
I hope our dysfunctional electoral system doesn't result in a total victory for the left however, because there are some areas where they've been overreaching. Our culture for example can only absorb so many externally sourced demographic changes. Or in other words, immigration needs to be slow enough that the new arrivals have no other option than to become American instead of arriving in sufficiently large groups that they can clump together into their own communities and preserve their birth country's culture entirely. That's very destabilizing and ultimately bad for everyone including the immigrants.
There are a couple other issues I'm concerned with, which is why I am not entirely thrilled to see The Right imploding and losing its mind following this charlatan Trump. He's exactly the wrong kind of politician that conservatives need at this moment. Contrast him with William F. Buckley.
I guess Trump is what you get for courting anti-intellectualism for so long.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 13 2016, @01:21AM
" If the shooter was going for maximum carnage, he would choose the least armed group."
Yes - and you put the lie to "gun free zones" right there.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @01:24AM
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 13 2016, @01:51AM
Name calling makes you right? Idiot?
Speaking of specific groups - a fucking MUZZIE gunned down a hundred AMERICANS. I guess you missed those groups? Do you even bother to read and think about the news?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/12/us/orlando-shooter-omar-mateen/ [cnn.com]
Omar Mateen pledged allegiance to ISIS, official says
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @02:36AM
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 13 2016, @04:14AM
Gays are an insignificant group of Americans, totaling less than 3% of the population. They don't come equipped with guns, and they have no mission in life.
Muslims, on the other hand, are more significant, because they are 1% of the population, and they come with guns and a mission in life. One of those missions is to eradicate homos.
Significance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @02:42AM
You are quick to label yet take offense at being labeled. That's a really cute combination you have, there. ;)
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 13 2016, @04:31AM
I'm an American. I have that right.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @04:42AM
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 13 2016, @04:52AM
The difference between us is, you seem to give a damn that I might be "offended". Me? I don't give a rat's ass that you might be offended. I don't even care enough about you to try to offend you. I realize that those of you who wish to be offended would be offended even if I offered praise and flattery, so it just doesn't matter.
Now, if you don't mind, I'll just keep on being offended that muslims are free to walk about in my country, gunning down people they disapprove of. It's my right to shoot my fellow Americans, he has no such right.
Oh yeah - did you read this link, posted by frojack? http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/06/former-coworker-pulse-killer-omar-mateen-employer-nothing-homophobic-racist-comments-cuz-muslim/ [thegatewaypundit.com]
This dirtball Muslim had been talking about killing faggots for YEARS, but he was given a free pass because he's a Muzzie.
Geez, I wonder if that offends you?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @05:56AM
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 13 2016, @06:16AM
What does that mean, exactly? Profiling works, doesn't it? We got an immigrant raghead who runs at the mouth about hating queers, and even talks about killing them - and he's given a free pass. His employer, the FBI, and God knows who else gave him a pass. This is liberal tolerance, at it's worst.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @06:26AM
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 13 2016, @07:04AM
This is life, Gomer. There aren't any goalposts, unless you consider your tombstone to be a goal post. While you philosophize about goal posts, some Muzzie is planning another attack on Christians, Americans, gays, infidels, or even his own fellow Muslims because they don't worship in some precise method of worship.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @07:27AM
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 13 2016, @08:40AM
You've not been paying attention, have you? Remember Sandy Hook? The gun-free sign DID NOT MATTER!! How many, 20 kids, dead because idiots thought a stupid assed sign mattered. Another idiot proved them dead wrong.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @11:42AM
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday June 13 2016, @07:08AM
I love watching people like him have a meltdown when people like you back them into a corner and point out their complete dysfunctional hypocrisy! It's like watching a very large toddler inching closer and closer to a massive, red-faced, floor-pounding temper tantrum. The worst part, though, is they expect everyone else to be dumb enough to mistake their macho posturing for anything approaching common sense, civility, or self-control.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @07:43AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @05:28PM
I'll just keep on being offended that muslims are free to walk about in my country, gunning down people they disapprove of. It's my right to shoot my fellow Americans, he has no such right.
So how long do we have to wait till it's your turn to be the wackjob in the news gunning down Americans? This time for being muzzies instead of faggots.
How different really are you from him?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:26PM
> He chose a venue with demographics that minimized that risk.
Implied in that statement is that he choose that venue because it minimized that risk.
Seems much more likely he chose that venue because it was gay. There are, after all, a bunch of places without many guns.
Seems he had a problem with gay people. [newser.com]
Want to bet he was in the closet?
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday June 13 2016, @05:25AM
Not unless I get to bet that he was in the closet (although consider the source): http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/12/drag-queen-orlando-gunman-omar-mateen-was-my-friend.html [thedailybeast.com]
Basically my position is that this was both ideological and homophobic, which isn't that much of a leap because those who would take up this kind of suicide mission, must be really totally immersed in some kind of ideological humbug and in our time, that sort of dangerous insanity is usually religion based and religions love to pick on gays for some reason I can't comprehend. Anyway, all I'm saying is that he could have picked any number of ideological targets -- you have the right wing evangelicals hell bent on pushing our latest crusade for example or military bases where people are trained to engage in that crusade as another. Either of those two groups however, are much more likely to shoot back.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @10:10PM
If this guy had gone on a rampage in a Pentacostal revival meeting, he probably would have faced
poisonous snakes and poisonous poison and rolling on the floor and speaking in tongues.
There, FTFY!!