SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 13 submissions in the queue.
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This discussion has been archived.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.
So you're back... about time...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday June 13 2016, @12:33AM
I am not going to surrender my liberties, even temporarily. Since our government is supposed to be bound by the Constitution, I expect the government to follow it at all times, and so should you. Mass surveillance and the like are deeply unethical, even if we pretend these massive violations of our liberties won't continue forever. People who surrender their liberties--whether in response to events like this or not--are authoritarian cowards.
I greatly object to your assertion that we "have to" make temporary concessions. Why? Your comment seems to be built on the idea that safety is more important than freedom, which I don't think it is. I'd rather risk dying in a terrorist attack than surrender everyone's liberties and allow the government to violate the highest law of the land to possibly make us safer. But that's just me, a person who lives in a country that is supposedly 'the land of the free and the home of the brave', which curiously seems to lack both freedom and people who are brave.
(Score: 2) by Username on Monday June 13 2016, @03:06PM
Why? Well, I do not want the United States of America to become the Islamic States of America. Something needs to be done. I do not like people being at war with me and doing nothing about it. Any kind of political solution will come head to head with the first amendment since their ideology is also a religion. If something isn’t done politically a social solution will form and that will end up very badly. Like crusade badly.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday June 13 2016, @04:38PM
Well, I do not want the United States of America to become the Islamic States of America.
I don't think that will happen, since we could have hundreds of attacks like this a year and that still wouldn't come to pass. But even if it would happen, sacrificing our liberties to try to stop it would be the wrong approach entirely.
Something needs to be done.
Ah, yes, "something". Meaning, you'll do anything and sacrifice any liberty our of fear.
Any kind of political solution will come head to head with the first amendment since their ideology is also a religion.
So you don't care about the government following the constitution, and the ends justify the means? Okay.
(Score: 2) by Username on Monday June 13 2016, @05:25PM
Let’s say we try separate the mosque from the state route where the US would embargo any government that is Islamic in an effort to force them to secularize. or if you wanted to go hardcore, could give in and acknowledge islam as a state, and require muslims to go through security checks to get visas, and if it isn’t clear they will be deported back to islamic state. Any way you go about it i think would be challenged based on the first amendment because it effects domestic muslims, telling how their religion works. Then would need another clause stipulating government and religion has to be explicit no matter what, or it would be gambled in the courts and they decided whether Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion applies to a religion that is an establish government elsewhere. Or there will be a check on how far the presidents foreign policies extend. Either way parts would be redefined.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday June 13 2016, @05:29PM
So you want to 'redefine' (i.e. ignore) parts of the constitution. We've seen that done before, and it has led to massive violations of people's rights. I have no interest in 'redefining' the constitution in order to make it less difficult for the government to stop the terrorist bogeyman.