socialist Posted December 5, 2015 Report Posted December 5, 2015 Number 1 is right. Muslim fundamentalists obviously don't agree with Western ways of living, but I disagree that it's a primary motive for terrorism against the West. Bin Laden never claimed this as a primary reason, for instance. Going back to #1, if you read what these terrorists have been saying since the 90's, they always refer to us as "Crusaders". The Crusades from the middle-ages were Christian-led wars by Western countries in Europe designed to take back control of the Christian biblical holy lands around Jerusalem (now mainly Israel) from Muslim control. Fundamentalists see Western support of Israel/Zionists and domination of the region as a modern Crusade, essentially Christians in cahoots with the Jews to defeat Muslims in the middle east. Completely understandable viewpoint really. Fundamentalists also see those Muslim regimes friendly with the West (like the Saudis) as apostates, traitors of Islam. Similar to how the Western-backed Shah was overthrown by the people of Iran in favour of an anti-West Muslim theocracy that's also been hostile to Israel. This is truly a holy war, even though we may not see it like that. It's Christians and Jews vs Muslims, Sunni vs Shia, secular "apostates" vs true believers. It's how the whole region works. It just gets worse and worse for the USA and national security. Apparently the disgusting terrorist Tashfeen Malik used a fake address on her VISA application, but the American government, that Obama claims we can trust during the vetting process, let her in anyway. When confronted with this, State Department spokesperson Elizabeth Trudeau said Friday that the State Department stands behind the visa process that allowed a terrorist into the United States and killed 13 Americans and wounded many more. Knowing that the Islamic terrorist had sworn her allegiance to ISIS, they had a bomb factory in their house, killed 13 Americans and wounded many more. . . . White House spokesman Josh Earnest insisted that the administration still does not know a motive for the slaughter. DAMN THE NRA!!! Quote Thankful to have become a free thinker.
BubberMiley Posted December 5, 2015 Report Posted December 5, 2015 DAMN THE NRA!!! I agree. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
GostHacked Posted December 5, 2015 Report Posted December 5, 2015 I find it really odd when looking at the reporters rummage through what is left of the FBI 'investigation'. Would that still not be considered a crime scene and access restricted to everyone? It makes no sense to me at all. Quote
Moonlight Graham Posted December 5, 2015 Report Posted December 5, 2015 There you go, giving them excuses that they don't even want. Of course it's about our lifestyle, Sure, they mention crusader countries but also that Paris is the capital of prostitution and vice. We know how they feel about homosexuality and women. Us men are unbelievers, so they hate us too. It's all western countries and also those Muslims that they don't feel believe strongly enough. They've told us over and over again, yet you refuse to listen to them. What do they have to do to make you believe them? Sheesh! I'm not saying lifestyle has nothing to do with it. But a primary reason for a jihad? Show me some evidence of that. Here's my evidence from the horses mouth: the 1998 Fatwa from Bin Laden and a bunch of other Muslim terrorist groups declaring jihad against the "Jews and Crusaders". Read what it says. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Big Guy Posted December 5, 2015 Author Report Posted December 5, 2015 In case people haven't figured this out this is a war. The radical Islamists cannot abide the idea of ... In case people haven't figured this out this is a war. The radical Islamists cannot abide the idea of the West trying to dictate and control what the people of the region want. Go Home Western do-gooders! Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Argus Posted December 5, 2015 Report Posted December 5, 2015 In case people haven't figured this out this is a war. The radical Islamists cannot abide the idea of the West trying to dictate and control what the people of the region want. Go Home Western do-gooders! Yes, leave California! You have no business in the holy land of San Bernadino, evil Christians! Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
waldo Posted December 5, 2015 Report Posted December 5, 2015 The idea that what we commonly think of as "mass shootings" happens hundreds of times a year in the US, frequently claimed in this thread, is a lie. Of course its a lie a lie? Imagine you two guys wanting to draw upon Mother Jones, no less! let's examine your linked article definitions: the 4 count is common between the 2 "competing mass shooting" definitions with a bit of an odd distinction as to whether the dead shooter is included. Other than that it seems your favoured definition only includes "shootings that occur in public places". Yes, you clearly don't like one of these definitions... care to elaborate on why? for what it's worth: as I interpret, over a decade ago, the U.S. FBI established the threshold count for mass killing as "an incident with four or more homicide victims"... in 2013 U.S. President Obama signed a federal law that defined the threshold as three or more victims killed. it seems this defining of mass shootings topic has really taken off of late! Lot's of pro-gunners are adamant that incidents shouldn't be included if gang victims are involved... shouldn't be included if the shooter and the victims generally were related and known to each other. It seems this latter caveat exclusion presumes to omit domestic/family type incidents. So these types of multiple shootings... even if they involve a dead count of 4... well, you just can't label them a "mass shooting"! You just can't, dagnabit! . Quote
Wilber Posted December 5, 2015 Report Posted December 5, 2015 I agree. Me to. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Derek 2.0 Posted December 5, 2015 Report Posted December 5, 2015 it seems this defining of mass shootings topic has really taken off of late! Lot's of pro-gunners are adamant that incidents shouldn't be included if gang victims are involved... shouldn't be included if the shooter and the victims generally were related and known to each other. It seems this latter caveat exclusion presumes to omit domestic/family type incidents. So these types of multiple shootings... even if they involve a dead count of 4... well, you just can't label them a "mass shooting"! You just can't, dagnabit! . Do near domestic disputes get wall to wall coverage in the MSM? Does CNN do 24/7 reporting on gang warfare in some of the largest (and poorest) cities in the United States.....the locations of the majority of said violence? Quote
waldo Posted December 5, 2015 Report Posted December 5, 2015 Do near domestic disputes get wall to wall coverage in the MSM? Does CNN do 24/7 reporting on gang warfare in some of the largest (and poorest) cities in the United States.....the locations of the majority of said violence? are you refining your preferred definition of "mass shooting" as one determined by the degree of media coverage? Really? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 5, 2015 Report Posted December 5, 2015 are you refining your preferred definition of "mass shooting" as one determined by the degree of media coverage? Really? Sure, 30 people killed and injured is a regular week in some inner city neighborhoods.........if I put on CNN right now, would they have 24/7 coverage of gang killings in Greater Chicago or Detroit? Quote
waldo Posted December 5, 2015 Report Posted December 5, 2015 Sure, 30 people killed and injured is a regular week in some inner city neighborhoods.........if I put on CNN right now, would they have 24/7 coverage of gang killings in Greater Chicago or Detroit? perfect! Do you have media coverage threshold meter to qualify just how much media coverage is needed before you're willing to accept a 'mass shooting' designation? . Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 5, 2015 Report Posted December 5, 2015 perfect! Do you have media coverage threshold meter to qualify just how much media coverage is needed before you're willing to accept a 'mass shooting' designation? . Interruption of regularly scheduled programming, combined with warranting a new topical thread on MLW? Quote
socialist Posted December 5, 2015 Report Posted December 5, 2015 Sure, 30 people killed and injured is a regular week in some inner city neighborhoods.........if I put on CNN right now, would they have 24/7 coverage of gang killings in Greater Chicago or Detroit? Approximately, there are 32,000 gun deaths per year in the United States. Of those, around 60% are suicides. About 3% are accidental deaths (between 700-800 deaths). About 34% of deaths (just over 11,000 in both 2010 and 2011) make up the remainder of gun deaths and are classified as homicides. Sometimes the 32,000 and 11,000 figures are used interchangeably by gun control advocates. Clearly, the 32,000 figure is a far more dramatic number and it is often used for impact by anti-gun activists. The murder rate and gun violence rate spikes in large cities with large gun populations. Solve the problem of gang violence, and a huge chunk of the gun homicide and violence problem is solved. And what national gun control measures would slow the gang violence problem, when local gun control laws have failed in cities like Chicago? If politicians were really worried about gun deaths, wouldn't they be specifically targeting where a majority of the problems exist? How many deaths in the USA are gang related? If guns were banned, would gang members stop killing gang members? Or would they all get along counting unicorns? Quote Thankful to have become a free thinker.
waldo Posted December 5, 2015 Report Posted December 5, 2015 Interruption of regularly scheduled programming, combined with warranting a new topical thread on MLW? well, this is a thread for discussion on 'mass shootings'. It would seem you should be able to better support your 'lie declaration' on the definition of mass shooting within this very thread... not sure why it would warrant, as you say, "a new topical thread". I appreciate others really want to talk about gun control and get into statistics... but, as you know, that's been so done in other MLW threads. Quote
eyeball Posted December 5, 2015 Report Posted December 5, 2015 Trouble is, it's not the way the rest of the world works. It's how it's worked in this case. Just because people are waiting for Haitians and First Nations to strap on suicide belts for what happened in the case of their humiliation and subjugation doesn't automatically mean that's how it works everywhere. Doing the same thing in the ME region over and over again and not seeing the same result means there's something wrong with your theory about how the world works. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 5, 2015 Report Posted December 5, 2015 (edited) Firearms deaths in the United States have actually declined about 30% since 1993. Gun homicides per capita by country: Edited December 5, 2015 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Derek 2.0 Posted December 5, 2015 Report Posted December 5, 2015 well, this is a thread for discussion on 'mass shootings'. It would seem you should be able to better support your 'lie declaration' on the definition of mass shooting within this very thread... not sure why it would warrant, as you say, "a new topical thread". I appreciate others really want to talk about gun control and get into statistics... but, as you know, that's been so done in other MLW threads. I was to assume the OP was wishing to discuss the one in California.......as opposed to the daily "mass shootings" in the trailerhoods of the South or in the ghetto of major cities. Quote
jbg Posted December 5, 2015 Report Posted December 5, 2015 In case people haven't figured this out this is a war. The radical Islamists cannot abide the idea of the West trying to dictate and control what the people of the region want. Go Home Western do-gooders! Is San Bernardino or Paris in the "region"? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
waldo Posted December 5, 2015 Report Posted December 5, 2015 I was to assume the OP was wishing to discuss the one in California.......as opposed to the daily "mass shootings" in the trailerhoods of the South or in the ghetto of major cities. your now stated assumption does not align with your reply to the broader reference made to the definition/qualification of 'mass shooting'... you declared one of those broad all-encompassing definitions a lie. You also seem somewhat reserved in wanting to respond to a request for you to qualify and further elaborate on your lie labeling... in this thread. Quote
Rue Posted December 5, 2015 Report Posted December 5, 2015 The lunatics in this matter were making bombs. Bombs. Hundreds of bombs, Here let me spell that, its b o m b s. One of the posters who responded to me seems a tad confused between bombs and guns and seems to think if you regulate guns, bombs just go poof like terrorists just go poof. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 5, 2015 Report Posted December 5, 2015 your now stated assumption does not align with your reply to the broader reference made to the definition/qualification of 'mass shooting'... you declared one of those broad all-encompassing definitions a lie. You also seem somewhat reserved in wanting to respond to a request for you to qualify and further elaborate on your lie labeling... in this thread. Not at all, I think conflating the data with near daily gang hits in the United States, into events such as this one involving the wanton killing of "regular people", be it from a nutbar or a terrorist, is disingenuous. Quote
Hal 9000 Posted December 5, 2015 Report Posted December 5, 2015 The lunatics in this matter were making bombs. Bombs. Hundreds of bombs, Here let me spell that, its b o m b s. One of the posters who responded to me seems a tad confused between bombs and guns and seems to think if you regulate guns, bombs just go poof like terrorists just go poof. I think what we need to consider is a law that requires people to register their bombs. Quote The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so. - Ronald Reagan I have said that the Western world is just as violent as the Islamic world - Dialamah Europe seems to excel at fooling people to immigrate there from the ME only to chew them up and spit them back. - Eyeball Unfortunately our policies have contributed to retarding and limiting their (Muslim's) society's natural progression towards the same enlightened state we take for granted. - Eyeball
eyeball Posted December 5, 2015 Report Posted December 5, 2015 Is San Bernardino or Paris in the "region"? The dissonance and outrage are like Skynet...there is no Central Core...it's software, it's everywhere. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
waldo Posted December 5, 2015 Report Posted December 5, 2015 Not at all, I think conflating the data with near daily gang hits in the United States, into events such as this one involving the wanton killing of "regular people", be it from a nutbar or a terrorist, is disingenuous. is it the word 'mass' that you object to... to labeling them 'mass shootings'? How about the word 'multiple'... is the label 'multiple shootings' one more palatable to you? What's in a word, hey? Oh wait, surely it's not that you want to just ignore all those other instances of gun deaths/gun violence, is it? . Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.