How does the World view America these days?

[Lane Visitor]

I have no problem whatsoever using the phrases "radical Islam" or "Islamic extremism." not sure what you're on about mate.

 

but let's be clear, you popped into this thread and threw out the term and peppered some commentary with no links in which you placed emphasis entirely on the notion that this was an organized terrorist attack by an Islamic radical. if you want to use the phrase, fine by me. but be prepared to back dat shit up.

 

note that my response to you directly was in no way a rejection of your terminology but with you excited straying from the facts. and as more facts roll in this seems imho to be a case in which radical islam really wasn't the singularity here.

 

my beef is not at all with people who use those terms or who have rational and legitimate issues with islam, which as I mentioned is a religion rife with all kinds of repulsive ideas and doctrines. What I have a problem with is people who basically just see that a crime was perpetrated by a Muslim and then make lame, half-baked comments about all the problems with Islam and muslims. I mean let's be clear, lumpy returned from the grave to point out that the guy's father said something offensive and a leader at a mosque in the city of Orlando preached violence against homosexuals. He then downplayed the role of mental illness. This was met by at least one poster agreeing that his comments were insightful.

 

Basically, when you and caze or whoever are prone to see me and others as people who irrationally refuse to admit there is anything wrong with Islam and who insist upon denigrating those who even mention the words "radical Islam" I find that precisely to be a kind of straw man argument. I think Islam is fucked up mate. I think the same about most religions tbh and clearly when people commit these terrible crimes in the name of Islam that is a seriously fucked up problem. but we have to go further than just vilifying Islam or simply taking nut jobs at their word and making some huge uneducated claims about Islam vs civilization. The fact is we live in a world in which this basic characterization of Islam is already promulgated by the most powerful nations. It's unnecessary to merely parrot shit I can read on trump' Twitter page.

 

In lushness my vapor wave warrior.

 

 

"Orlando gunman who pledged loyalty to ISIS was ‘homegrown’ extremist radicalized online, Obama says"

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/06/13/police-orlando-gunman-was-cool-and-calm-during-hostage-standoff/?utm_term=.6b4a636e2314

 

"FBI links Orlando shooter to 2014 suicide bomber"

 

http://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/2016/06/13/fbi-links-orlando-shooter-suicide-bomber/85818938/

 

Where American suicide bomber AND the country's worst mass shooter worshiped: Inside the tiny Florida mosque now connected to two terrorists - but whose imam insists is no place for extremism

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3639089/Inside-small-Florida-mosque-Orlando-gunman-worshiped.html#ixzz4Bf6NKy00

 

FBI confirms Orlando shooter claimed links to ISIS & Al-Nusra, cited Boston bomber https://www.rt.com/usa/346562-fbi-orlando-shooter-islamist-investigation/

 

Organized and planned doesn't have to mean a fleet of tanks with biochemical weapons and 5-10 armed men attacking multiple locations. It can still be homegrown and be an organized, thought out, intentional act inspired by or possibly guided by connections overseas or within local religious communities. I mean the dude pledged allegiance to ISIS- what other motivations would one need to dig for lol

 

I think at this point anyone denying this guy was an Islamic radical or that he held extremist views is naive at best. Just because he may have happened to have been gay, and was in the closet and targeted gays, that doesn't minimize his religious extremism. In fact, if anything religious hardliners (of all faiths) have a problem with gays. So while I think part of the motivation may have been homophobia, I think its safe to say it was a terror attack committed by an Islamic extremist targeting gays. Why is that so hard to fathom? lol

 

"my beef is not at all with people who use those terms or who have rational and legitimate issues with islam, which as I mentioned is a religion rife with all kinds of repulsive ideas and doctrines. What I have a problem with is people who basically just see that a crime was perpetrated by a Muslim and then make lame, half-baked comments about all the problems with Islam and muslims."

 

If you want to consider him "just a Muslim", that's your choice, but I don't think "Muslims in general" pledge allegiance to ISIS, and have these kinds of connections and interests.

 

P.s. never made any half baked comments about problems with Islam and Muslims- this is again, your delusion.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Lane Visitor

[chenGOD]

Ah the old naive at best gambit. Can't beat that one. You win!

 

So now that you've identified him as a "radical Islamist", what next?

[Lane Visitor]

Ah the old naive at best gambit. Can't beat that one. You win!

 

So now that you've identified him as a "radical Islamist", what next?

 

 

What next? Nothing next- Alco asked me for links essentially proving that this was more than just some one off crazy guy who happened to be Muslim rather than a radicalized ISIS supporter with connections to terrorists. And I did so.

[usagi]

congs.

[Rubin Farr]

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/kacem-el-ghazzali/fight-terrorism_b_10356954.html

[chenGOD]

 

Ah the old naive at best gambit. Can't beat that one. You win!

 

So now that you've identified him as a "radical Islamist", what next?

 

What next? Nothing next- Alco asked me for links essentially proving that this was more than just some one off crazy guy who happened to be Muslim rather than a radicalized ISIS supporter with connections to terrorists. And I did so.

Pure congers mate.

 

I don't suppose you read any of those articles past the headlines?

[chenGOD]

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/kacem-el-ghazzali/fight-terrorism_b_10356954.html

Except no one is trying to silence criticism of Islam. There's all kinds of problems with it, like with most religion.

 

The issue at hand is simply this: when we identify terrorists as radical Islamists, it insinuates that terrorism is linked with Islam, which it clearly isn't, no more than IRA terrorism is linked with Catholicism, or Buddhists who use fear and violence to achieve their political aims are linked with Buddhism.

[Lane Visitor]

 

 

Ah the old naive at best gambit. Can't beat that one. You win!

 

So now that you've identified him as a "radical Islamist", what next?

 

What next? Nothing next- Alco asked me for links essentially proving that this was more than just some one off crazy guy who happened to be Muslim rather than a radicalized ISIS supporter with connections to terrorists. And I did so.

Pure congers mate.

 

I don't suppose you read any of those articles past the headlines?

 

 

 

HA! what do you want from me dude, what's your point? did you read every single article on the matter from every single press outlet?

 

i mean if there's something in any of those articles that refute the headline, by all means. but give me a freakin break lol

[joshuatxuk]

The underlying reason for the Orlando massacre was homophobia. The homophobia that permeates society is why the murderer did what he did, since he couldn't accept himself and it manifested in this awful way. All this talk about radical Islam is just deflecting the underlying issue which can be found in both cultures. And the hypocrisy of conservatives who now are quick to act like they support LGBTQ rights since their Islamophobia trumps their homophobia is sickening.

 

Excellent point.

 

Related interview of Florida Attorney General (i.e. head prosecutor of the state) being grilled on said hypocrisy. She's obviously not some violent hateful murderer but she has in the past pushed for legislation that has worked against LQBT rights legally.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldYC0bMj9ms

[caze]

[Lane Visitor]

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/kacem-el-ghazzali/fight-terrorism_b_10356954.html

Except no one is trying to silence criticism of Islam. There's all kinds of problems with it, like with most religion.

 

The issue at hand is simply this: when we identify terrorists as radical Islamists, it insinuates that terrorism is linked with Islam, which it clearly isn't, no more than IRA terrorism is linked with Catholicism, or Buddhists who use fear and violence to achieve their political aims are linked with Buddhism.

 

 

 

How on Earth would that insinuate that? So if I mentioned the fact that an abortion clinic bombing was planned and executed by a Christian fundamentalist group or member, that statement and identification insinuates that terrorism is linked with Christianity?

 

First, that's reaching really far... insinuates to who? Maybe it does for people who are extremely ultra-sensitive about hearing any negative world events that people who identify as their religion are a part of, or on the other hand, extremely ignorant people who are already racist or Islamophobic... but for the rest of the people, the common person, it doesn't insinuate that at all. We clearly know the difference between Radical Islamists and average Muslims. Why are you arguing this in a forum like watmm where we are mostly all intelligent analytical people? I honestly think you're fighting the wrong fight here- this isn't the Alex Jones YT channel lol

[chenGOD]

Right, which is why Donald Trump is calling for a ban on only radical terrorists, and not all Muslims.

[Lane Visitor]

Right, which is why Donald Trump is calling for a ban on only radical terrorists, and not all Muslims.

 

 

case in point:

 

Why are you arguing this in a forum like watmm where we are mostly all intelligent analytical people? I honestly think you're fighting the wrong fight here- this isn't the Alex Jones YT channel lol

 

.. edit: or r/DonaldTrump lol

Edited June 15, 2016 by Lane Visitor

[caze]

Except no one is trying to silence criticism of Islam. There's all kinds of problems with it, like with most religion.

 

Hilarious, you can't be serious with this. No-one is trying to silence criticism of Islam??!?!? The first thing that happens when anyone attempts to offer even the tamest criticism of Islam is that conservative Islamic groups cry Islamophobia, quickly followed by the useful idiots of the left backing them up, both groups are attempting to shame people into silence with slanderous claims of bigotry.

 

 

 

The issue at hand is simply this: when we identify terrorists as radical Islamists, it insinuates that terrorism is linked with Islam, which it clearly isn't, no more than IRA terrorism is linked with Catholicism, or Buddhists who use fear and violence to achieve their political aims are linked with Buddhism.

 

More nonsense, we've been over this before, you were as wrong then as you are now.

How on Earth would that insinuate that? So if I mentioned the fact that an abortion clinic bombing was planned and executed by a Christian fundamentalist group or member, that statement and identification insinuates that terrorism is linked with Christianity

 

If a christian fundamentalist bombs an abortion clinic then that act of terrorism is linked with christianity, quite clearly.

[chenGOD]

 

 

 

Ah the old naive at best gambit. Can't beat that one. You win!

 

So now that you've identified him as a "radical Islamist", what next?

 

What next? Nothing next- Alco asked me for links essentially proving that this was more than just some one off crazy guy who happened to be Muslim rather than a radicalized ISIS supporter with connections to terrorists. And I did so.

Pure congers mate.

 

I don't suppose you read any of those articles past the headlines?

 

 

 

HA! what do you want from me dude, what's your point? did you read every single article on the matter from every single press outlet?

 

i mean if there's something in any of those articles that refute the headline, by all means. but give me a freakin break lol

 

 

From your "FBI Links Bomber to ISIS" article:

 

 

 

“We determined that contact (with Abu-Salha) was minimal, and did not constitute a substantive relationship or threat at that time.”

 

From the washington post article

 

 

here is no evidence so far that he was in fact directed by ISIL, and at this stage there’s no direct evidence that he was part of a larger plot.”

 

I'm not going to bother with the dailymail and RT links cause those sites are nothing more than clickbait bullshit filled with the worst sort of yellow journalism.

 

I want you to read past the headlines.

 

That WaPo article was interesting for this though:

 

 

 

Law enforcement officials in Florida, meanwhile, offered a new accounting of the shootout. Orlando Police Chief John Mina said that police first encountered Mateen shortly after the initial gunfire at about 2 a.m., when an off-duty officer working at the club — Adam Gruler, a 15-year veteran of the force — exchanged shots with Mateen.

Additional officers called to the scene soon joined in another gun battle, at which point Mateen retreated further into the building and, eventually, into a bathroom. The police then held back because there were no more gunshots, Mina said, and they tried to negotiate with Mateen to avoid any more bloodshed.

[Alcofribas]

Lane, yeah i'm not sure what you think you're providing by those links (which i did not ask for btw). honestly, did you read them?

 

it appears to me that the links you provided suggest the guy had no idea what he was talking about. the fbi placed him on a watch list after some shit he said to his coworkers. after an investigation they determined that his relationship to the suicide bomber was "minimal" and "did not constitute a substantive relationship or threat." obama said "we see no clear evidence that he was directed externally. it does appear that at the last minute, he announced alligiance to isil" and "there's no direct evidence that he was part of a larger plot." as for his "allegiance" to ISIS one article says there is "no indication" that he'd been aided by isis "or that he'd been in contact with members of any terrorist groups". furthermore, he claimed allegiance to organizations in bitter conflict with one another; the fbi director says it's unclear exactly what groups he supported.

 

idk man, not really sure how you think this backs up your point. unless your point is that he was muslim and said random contradictory shit about terrorist groups. in which point "half baked" seems about right.

 

lol what chen said basically

Edited June 15, 2016 by Alcofribas

[chenGOD]

 

Except no one is trying to silence criticism of Islam. There's all kinds of problems with it, like with most religion.

 

Hilarious, you can't be serious with this. No-one is trying to silence criticism of Islam??!?!? The first thing that happens when anyone attempts to offer even the tamest criticism of Islam is that conservative Islamic groups cry Islamophobia, quickly followed by the useful idiots of the left backing them up, both groups are attempting to shame people into silence with slanderous claims of bigotry.

 

 

 

The issue at hand is simply this: when we identify terrorists as radical Islamists, it insinuates that terrorism is linked with Islam, which it clearly isn't, no more than IRA terrorism is linked with Catholicism, or Buddhists who use fear and violence to achieve their political aims are linked with Buddhism.

 

More nonsense, we've been over this before, you were as wrong then as you are now.

How on Earth would that insinuate that? So if I mentioned the fact that an abortion clinic bombing was planned and executed by a Christian fundamentalist group or member, that statement and identification insinuates that terrorism is linked with Christianity

 

If a christian fundamentalist bombs an abortion clinic then that act of terrorism is linked with christianity, quite clearly.

 

 

 

You can read accounts criticizing islam all over the net, and in all the mainstream media. No one with any power is trying to silence criticism of Islam, and no one here is either.

I wasn't wrong then, and I'm not wrong now (solid argument by the way).

No it's not, it's the act of a deranged individual who has warped the core tenets of Christianity to fit his world view and to justify his actions.

[Lane Visitor]

 

Except no one is trying to silence criticism of Islam. There's all kinds of problems with it, like with most religion.

 

Hilarious, you can't be serious with this. No-one is trying to silence criticism of Islam??!?!? The first thing that happens when anyone attempts to offer even the tamest criticism of Islam is that conservative Islamic groups cry Islamophobia, quickly followed by the useful idiots of the left backing them up, both groups are attempting to shame people into silence with slanderous claims of bigotry.

 

 

 

The issue at hand is simply this: when we identify terrorists as radical Islamists, it insinuates that terrorism is linked with Islam, which it clearly isn't, no more than IRA terrorism is linked with Catholicism, or Buddhists who use fear and violence to achieve their political aims are linked with Buddhism.

 

More nonsense, we've been over this before, you were as wrong then as you are now.

How on Earth would that insinuate that? So if I mentioned the fact that an abortion clinic bombing was planned and executed by a Christian fundamentalist group or member, that statement and identification insinuates that terrorism is linked with Christianity

 

If a christian fundamentalist bombs an abortion clinic then that act of terrorism is linked with christianity, quite clearly.

 

 

 

Okay, well now we're all having interpretation issues here. I think no one's on the same page haha

 

So, the link between terrorist acts in the name of religion are there on a fundamental level (of course).. As in some crazy extremist found a violent verse in his holy text, and took it literally and acted upon it. So yes- a link in that literal sense- but on a higher more abstract level- in terms of legitimate societal link, different story. "Link" is more murky, but then again the subject is really murky too.

 

Apples example, I used earlier- A rotten apple doesn't dilute all apples, nor does identifying a rotten apple as a rotten apple make any kind of political statement on apples as a whole. Of course, if one just referred to a rotten apple as "an apple" and nothing more, it might not necessarily be fair, or telling the full story. Context. That rotten apple is still an apple of course, but it wouldn't quite do justice to all apples to not use the term rotten. At the same time, calling it just a "rotten" or putting it into another category of fruits entirely might be pleasing for other apples who aren't rotten, but it's not truthful, nor is it helpful in identifying the issue. Hence rotten apple is the most logical and sound way to describe what it in fact is- a rotten apple.

[caze]

 

 

Except no one is trying to silence criticism of Islam. There's all kinds of problems with it, like with most religion.

 

Hilarious, you can't be serious with this. No-one is trying to silence criticism of Islam??!?!? The first thing that happens when anyone attempts to offer even the tamest criticism of Islam is that conservative Islamic groups cry Islamophobia, quickly followed by the useful idiots of the left backing them up, both groups are attempting to shame people into silence with slanderous claims of bigotry.

 

 

 

The issue at hand is simply this: when we identify terrorists as radical Islamists, it insinuates that terrorism is linked with Islam, which it clearly isn't, no more than IRA terrorism is linked with Catholicism, or Buddhists who use fear and violence to achieve their political aims are linked with Buddhism.

 

More nonsense, we've been over this before, you were as wrong then as you are now.

How on Earth would that insinuate that? So if I mentioned the fact that an abortion clinic bombing was planned and executed by a Christian fundamentalist group or member, that statement and identification insinuates that terrorism is linked with Christianity

 

If a christian fundamentalist bombs an abortion clinic then that act of terrorism is linked with christianity, quite clearly.

 

 

 

You can read accounts criticizing islam all over the net, and in all the mainstream media. No one with any power is trying to silence criticism of Islam, and no one here is either.

I wasn't wrong then, and I'm not wrong now (solid argument by the way).

No it's not, it's the act of a deranged individual who has warped the core tenets of Christianity to fit his world view and to justify his actions.

 

Silencing criticism doesn't mean the government arresting someone and putting them in a reeducation camp, you're in serious denial here.

 

You were wrong then, and you are wrong now, and that isn't my argument, my argument was presented back when we had it before.

 

Yes it is, one of the core tenets of Christianity is that the life begins at the moment of conception, so from that point of view abortion is clearly murder (this isn't open to discussion, that's the logical consequence of that belief), this tenet isn't being twisted in any way, this person's worldview is a profoundly Christian worldview. Sure they'd have to violate some other tenet of the religion to kill another person because of this, but religion is never internally consistent so it doesn't really require twisting things to end up where such a person would end up, it just takes a certain reading to arrive at there. Just as the readings literalist Muslims give to their scripture are perfectly valid from their point of view, clearly justifying their severe homophobia, misogyny, and bigotry.

[caze]

 

 

Except no one is trying to silence criticism of Islam. There's all kinds of problems with it, like with most religion.

 

Hilarious, you can't be serious with this. No-one is trying to silence criticism of Islam??!?!? The first thing that happens when anyone attempts to offer even the tamest criticism of Islam is that conservative Islamic groups cry Islamophobia, quickly followed by the useful idiots of the left backing them up, both groups are attempting to shame people into silence with slanderous claims of bigotry.

 

 

 

The issue at hand is simply this: when we identify terrorists as radical Islamists, it insinuates that terrorism is linked with Islam, which it clearly isn't, no more than IRA terrorism is linked with Catholicism, or Buddhists who use fear and violence to achieve their political aims are linked with Buddhism.

 

More nonsense, we've been over this before, you were as wrong then as you are now.

How on Earth would that insinuate that? So if I mentioned the fact that an abortion clinic bombing was planned and executed by a Christian fundamentalist group or member, that statement and identification insinuates that terrorism is linked with Christianity

 

If a christian fundamentalist bombs an abortion clinic then that act of terrorism is linked with christianity, quite clearly.

 

 

 

Okay, well now we're all having interpretation issues here. I think no one's on the same page haha

 

So, the link between terrorist acts in the name of religion are there on a fundamental level (of course).. As in some crazy extremist found a violent verse in his holy text, and took it literally and acted upon it. So yes- a link in that literal sense- but on a higher more abstract level- in terms of legitimate societal link, different story. "Link" is more murky, but then again the subject is really murky too.

 

Apples example, I used earlier- A rotten apple doesn't dilute all apples, nor does identifying a rotten apple as a rotten apple make any kind of political statement on apples as a whole. Of course, if one just referred to a rotten apple as "an apple" and nothing more, it might not necessarily be fair, or telling the full story. Context. That rotten apple is still an apple of course, but it wouldn't quite do justice to all apples to not use the term rotten. At the same time, calling it just a "rotten" or putting it into another category of fruits entirely might be pleasing for other apples who aren't rotten, but it's not truthful, nor is it helpful in identifying the issue. Hence rotten apple is the most logical and sound way to describe what it in fact is- a rotten apple.

 

 

yes but pointing out a link to Islam, or Christianity, or any other ideology, doesn't automatically taint others who follow those ideologies in different non-problematic ways. that's just projection on the part of the religious apologist. there is no true/single/pure version of any religion, and religion isn't defined by some subset of beliefs westerners or any other group find acceptable, it's defined by the beliefs and practices of the people who identify themselves with that religion, often in contradictory ways.

Edited June 15, 2016 by caze

[caze]

 

Interesting to note that she seems pretty convinced he was coordinating the attack with somebody else, talking in arabic to someone else, or maybe he was on the phone to the police again after the first instance she talks about (where he plegged allegiance to ISIS)? He could also have been just so demented that he was talking to himself of course, but interesting none the less.

[Lane Visitor]

 

 

 

 

Ah the old naive at best gambit. Can't beat that one. You win!

 

So now that you've identified him as a "radical Islamist", what next?

 

What next? Nothing next- Alco asked me for links essentially proving that this was more than just some one off crazy guy who happened to be Muslim rather than a radicalized ISIS supporter with connections to terrorists. And I did so.

Pure congers mate.

 

I don't suppose you read any of those articles past the headlines?

 

 

 

HA! what do you want from me dude, what's your point? did you read every single article on the matter from every single press outlet?

 

i mean if there's something in any of those articles that refute the headline, by all means. but give me a freakin break lol

 

 

From your "FBI Links Bomber to ISIS" article:

 

 

 

“We determined that contact (with Abu-Salha) was minimal, and did not constitute a substantive relationship or threat at that time.”

 

From the washington post article

 

 

here is no evidence so far that he was in fact directed by ISIL, and at this stage there’s no direct evidence that he was part of a larger plot.”

 

I'm not going to bother with the dailymail and RT links cause those sites are nothing more than clickbait bullshit filled with the worst sort of yellow journalism.

 

I want you to read past the headlines.

 

That WaPo article was interesting for this though:

 

 

 

Law enforcement officials in Florida, meanwhile, offered a new accounting of the shootout. Orlando Police Chief John Mina said that police first encountered Mateen shortly after the initial gunfire at about 2 a.m., when an off-duty officer working at the club — Adam Gruler, a 15-year veteran of the force — exchanged shots with Mateen.

Additional officers called to the scene soon joined in another gun battle, at which point Mateen retreated further into the building and, eventually, into a bathroom. The police then held back because there were no more gunshots, Mina said, and they tried to negotiate with Mateen to avoid any more bloodshed.

 

 

 

Lane, yeah i'm not sure what you think you're providing by those links (which i did not ask for btw). honestly, did you read them?

 

it appears to me that the links you provided suggest the guy had no idea what he was talking about. the fbi placed him on a watch list after some shit he said to his coworkers. after an investigation they determined that his relationship to the suicide bomber was "minimal" and "did not constitute a substantive relationship or threat." obama said "we see no clear evidence that he was directed externally. it does appear that at the last minute, he announced alligiance to isil" and "there's no direct evidence that he was part of a larger plot." as for his "allegiance" to ISIS one article says there is "no indication" that he'd been aided by isis "or that he'd been in contact with members of any terrorist groups". furthermore, he claimed allegiance to organizations in bitter conflict with one another; the fbi director says it's unclear exactly what groups he supported.

 

idk man, not really sure how you think this backs up your point. unless your point is that he was muslim and said random contradictory shit about terrorist groups. in which point "half baked" seems about right.

 

lol what chen said basically

 

Haha, ok ya'll, but none of that disproves my point in that he was an extremist with radical ideas/influences (and i havent read those articles yet but will). So he may have been contradictory or just bragging about things without any merit, but all we need to know is his influences and mindset to understand his potential for political violence. No where in the definition of a terrorist does it say they need to be 100% organized, fluid, and efficient in order to be considered a terrorist. Same with a radical or extremist. You don't need to have studied with Osama Bin Laden himself, in order to have the philosophy. Clearly his worldview spoke for itself.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Lane Visitor

[Lane Visitor]

It's ridiculously simple.

 

So from a CNN article: This is literally all anyone needs to know in order to draw the conclusion that this was a terrorist attack committed by an Islamic extremist.

 

Mateen also made calls to 911 and a producer at CNN affiliate News 13 Orlando, saying he carried out the massacre out of allegiance to ISIS.

 

Edited June 15, 2016 by Lane Visitor

[joshuatxuk]

 

 

Interesting to note that she seems pretty convinced he was coordinating the attack with somebody else, talking in arabic to someone else, or maybe he was on the phone to the police again after the first instance she talks about (where he plegged allegiance to ISIS)? He could also have been just so demented that he was talking to himself of course, but interesting none the less.

 

 

ISIS recognizes pledges of allegiance as a way to acquire posthumous membership to their group and in turn they claim responsibility for the attack even though they did not coordinate it. They did it with the San Bernadino attacks as well. He called 911 a total of 3 times and I believe on the 2nd and or 3rd he pledged allegiance.

[Hugh Mughnus]

It's ridiculously simple.

 

So from a CNN article: This is literally all anyone needs to know in order to draw the conclusion that this was a terrorist attack committed by an Islamic extremist.

 

Mateen also made calls to 911 and a producer at CNN affiliate News 13 Orlando, saying he carried out the massacre out of allegiance to ISIS.

 

 

What if I killed someone right now and called 911 and said it was out of allegiance to ISIS?

 

Would that make me an islamic extremist?