How does the World view America these days?

[joshuatxuk]

 

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?

 

 

The guy had a history of extremist views, vague and mostly homophobic driven ones, I think that's pretty well established. He didn't just shoot up 50 people and then halfway, pause, and say "you know, I'm going to put a religious zealot angle to this and I'll make it ISIS related"

[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?

 

 

The guy had a history of extremist views, vague and mostly homophobic driven ones, I think that's pretty well established. He didn't just shoot up 50 people and then halfway, pause, and say "you know, I'm going to put a religious zealot angle to this and I'll make it ISIS related"

 

Yes.

[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.

 

 

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?

 

 

 

Yes, the public would justifiably label you as one. Of course, looking into your background (which they did in the case of the Orlando shooting) would further verify how far out of a claim that is or not. Example: Were you in fact an atheist turned buddhist dude who drank craft beers and went to indie rock shows, or were you a security guard, raised in a strict devout Muslim upbringing, going to hear sermons at a Mosque where known terrorists emerged from, and claimed to have connections to terrorists, and followed other radicals online?

 

But regardless, it's the claim you made (political purpose), and the act you committed (mass shooting).

 

I guess technically you could not be an Islamic extremist and still commit an Islamic extremist terrorist act. But I think committing an act like that kind of qualifies you even moreso than your background and what you studied.

 

I really don't know why/how this is so complicated.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Lane Visitor

[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?

 

 

 

Yes, the public would justifiably label you as one. Of course, looking into your background (which they did in the case of the Orlando shooting) would further verify how far out of a claim that is or not. Example: Were you in fact an atheist turned buddhist dude who drank craft beers and went to indie rock shows, or were you a security guard, raised in a strict devout Muslim upbringing, going to hear sermons at a Mosque where known terrorists emerged from, and claimed to have connections to terrorists, and followed other radicals online?

 

So what you're saying, is you need to know more than:

 

"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 StephenG

[caze]

 

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?

 

 

Seeing as you're not a muslim it would be unlikely, if you were to convert and killed him due to some religious justification, then you would be. He was a muslim though, and did something pretty extreme, at least in part (possibly largely) because of his religious beliefs, so yes, I think it's pretty fair to say he was an Islamic extremist.

[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.

 

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.

 

 

No, silencing criticism means exactly what the words written mean - silencing. And there is no silencing going on.

 

Your argument was faulty then and faulty now.

 

That is not one of the core tenets of the Christian faith.

[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.

 

 

 

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.

 

Religion is generally defined by the majority of the leaders of the religion, and the people practicing it.

So just like a Christian fundamentalist doesn't represent Christianity as it is currently practiced, neither do fundamentalist Muslims represent Islam as it is currently practiced.

 

ISIS is about power and political control, and they use religion as a tool to achieve that, much like has been done with all major religions throughout history.

[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?

 

 

Seeing as you're not a muslim it would be unlikely, if you were to convert and killed him due to some religious justification, then you would be. He was a muslim though, and did something pretty extreme, at least in part (possibly largely) because of his religious beliefs, so yes, I think it's pretty fair to say he was an Islamic extremist.

 

I'm just addressing his comment that "it's all you need to know" that he called 911 etc and proclaimed allegiance to ISIS. Which is simply not true. You need to know more.

 

[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.

 

 

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?

 

 

Seeing as you're not a muslim it would be unlikely, if you were to convert and killed him due to some religious justification, then you would be. He was a muslim though, and did something pretty extreme, at least in part (possibly largely) because of his religious beliefs, so yes, I think it's pretty fair to say he was an Islamic extremist.

 

I'm just addressing his comment that "it's all you need to know" that he called 911 etc and proclaimed allegiance to ISIS. Which is simply not true. You need to know more.

 

 

 

 

Now we're getting into semantics...

 

Cuz you could clearly draw from that quote that he infact committed an Islamic extremist terrorist attack, in that the attack itself had a self-admitted Islamic extremist motive. Technically, whether or not there is any background on this person is a moot point, if they made the political statement and carried out the attack, that part speaks for itself.

 

I guess if you really want to be super duper technical, then yes- some extra steps need to be taken to determine whether that Islamic extremist terrorist attack was carried out by an Islamic extremist. But now we're just being silly

 

I think what the disconnect here is, is that whether or not the person was inexperienced, capable or not, how many connections he had or didn't have, his intention, message, and act spoke for itself.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Lane Visitor

[Nebraska]

https://youtu.be/h3zPXrmT9e0

[doublename]

lol don't get Southcliffe'd

[maitake]

Omar was spotted in some random documentary footage:

 

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=846_1466021191

 

Just don't go anywhere else on liveleak.. You've been warned.

The one I post here is NOT gore or violence.

Edited June 16, 2016 by maitake

[Nebraska]

https://youtu.be/2OhBBC_Cyeo

[chenGOD]

Flol. Choosing to defend your home with an AR-15 is a common sense choice.

[caze]

No, silencing criticism means exactly what the words written mean - silencing. And there is no silencing going on.

 

Your argument was faulty then and faulty now.

 

That is not one of the core tenets of the Christian faith.

 

Not sure if you're just hugely ignorant about this stuff at this point, or if you're just trolling.

[caze]

 

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.

Religion is generally defined by the majority of the leaders of the religion, and the people practicing it.

So just like a Christian fundamentalist doesn't represent Christianity as it is currently practiced, neither do fundamentalist Muslims represent Islam as it is currently practiced.

Christian fundamentalists represent Christianity as they currently practice it, non-fundamentalist Christians represent Christianity as they currently practice it. You really don't seem to get a very simple point that it's not up to outsiders to define what religious people do or don't represent or believe, they do that themselves. The majority of Muslims worldwide represent Islam in all it's conservative, misogynist and homophobic glory, they represent themselves when they do this, the minority today who take an even more backward literalist approach (Deobandis and Salafists) represent Islam as they practice and understand it, the progressive Muslim minority who do neither of those things represent their own interpretation of Islam in their own way; all three groups are Muslims (and there are many more groups besides).

 

Religion is about power and control

fixed that for you.

[xox]

what the US need to do is to start to promote violence and hatred against peace and peaceful people and that would turn terrorists in a way that they'd become extremely peaceful, radically peaceful

[chenGOD]

 

No, silencing criticism means exactly what the words written mean - silencing. And there is no silencing going on.

 

Your argument was faulty then and faulty now.

 

That is not one of the core tenets of the Christian faith.

Not sure if you're just hugely ignorant about this stuff at this point, or if you're just trolling.

Can only assume your talking about the core tenet of Christianity point. Life beginning at conception is not one of the core tenets of the faith.

[chenGOD]

 

 

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.

Religion is generally defined by the majority of the leaders of the religion, and the people practicing it.

So just like a Christian fundamentalist doesn't represent Christianity as it is currently practiced, neither do fundamentalist Muslims represent Islam as it is currently practiced.

Christian fundamentalists represent Christianity as they currently practice it, non-fundamentalist Christians represent Christianity as they currently practice it. You really don't seem to get a very simple point that it's not up to outsiders to define what religious people do or don't represent or believe, they do that themselves. The majority of Muslims worldwide represent Islam in all it's conservative, misogynist and homophobic glory, they represent themselves when they do this, the minority today who take an even more backward literalist approach (Deobandis and Salafists) represent Islam as they practice and understand it, the progressive Muslim minority who do neither of those things represent their own interpretation of Islam in their own way; all three groups are Muslims (and there are many more groups besides).

Religion is about power and control

fixed that for you.

Your argument about representing the faith is one that is absurdly reductionist. And we've had this discussion before-the majority of Muslim leaders are the people describing the acts of ISIL and the lone wolf attacks as not being representative of Islam. Not me or other outsiders.

 

And you fixed nothing, religion itself is not about power and control, while the use of organized religion for political gain is.

[Alcofribas]

 

No, silencing criticism means exactly what the words written mean - silencing. And there is no silencing going on.

 

Your argument was faulty then and faulty now.

 

That is not one of the core tenets of the Christian faith.

 

Not sure if you're just hugely ignorant about this stuff at this point, or if you're just trolling.

 

 

 

*considers the views and proposed policies concerning the republican candidate for president of the united states of america*

 

*completely agrees that there is a silencing of critical commentary about islam*

[Nebraska]

https://youtu.be/Pxj8y5ctmiE

Edited June 16, 2016 by Nebraska

[Rubin Farr]

Orlando can't catch a break. I'll be at WDW in 2 weeks w/ my 9 year old nephew.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/16/us/alligator-child-florida-orlando-disney.html?_r=0

[caze]

Your argument about representing the faith is one that is absurdly reductionist. And we've had this discussion before-the majority of Muslim leaders are the people describing the acts of ISIL and the lone wolf attacks as not being representative of Islam.

 

I'm not talking about ISIS, al-qaeda say ISIS doesn't represent their version of Islam either, it means nothing. This attack (or at least the choice of venue) was primarily motivated by homophobia by the looks of things (possibly exacerbated by the conflicts created by his own homosexuality - if that turns out to be true), and you can't really argue that homophobia isn't the default position in mainstream Islam, it's not just in the fringes. He was also obviously motivated by the militant islamist ideology to some degree as well, how deeply integrated he was into that world isn't really known at this point though other than he had made statements in support of them in the past and looked up islamist stuff online a lot over the last few years.

 

 

 

Not me or other outsiders.

 

They are the outsiders in that example though, ISIS are the only ones who can speak for their form of Islam, there is nothing un-Islamic about them, they just disagree with mainstream interpretation of the texts, their version is still based on the texts though, it's still a valid reading of them in as much as any reading of them is valid (all readings of religious text are nonsense IMHO), and from the outside we can categorise which ones are more damaging to the outside world, but we can't say which ones are or are not 'authentic'.

 

 

 

And you fixed nothing, religion itself is not about power and control, while the use of organized religion for political gain is.

 

No, it goes far beyond political control, it's about controlling morality, social norms, sexuality, etc. This takes place not through political means, but through social conditioning enforced via schools, religious groups, familial structures, etc. Of course that just gets worse with Islamism (or any Theocracy), where all that becomes the force of law.

[caze]

*considers the views and proposed policies concerning the republican candidate for president of the united states of america*

 

*completely agrees that there is a silencing of critical commentary about islam*

 

I wouldn't call anything Trump says 'critical commentary', 'bigoted rambling' would be a better phrase.

[Rpeg]

Orlando can't catch a break. I'll be at WDW in 2 weeks w/ my 9 year old nephew.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/16/us/alligator-child-florida-orlando-disney.html?_r=0

 

Horrific and tragic, but having grown up in Florida, all the locals know not to go near water, especially at night, and especially with small dogs or children. It's not hyperbolic to explain that every body of water in Florida has gators in it. The things are not aggressive but feed at dusk and eat small prey.

 

It makes sense in touristy areas to have alligator warning signs posted near water, of which I've seen plenty myself.