KnightExemplar wrote:IMO, its not an ISIS attack unless the dude actually has connections with it.
The guy said he did it for ISIS, the FBI confirms he had ISIS connections, and ISIS themselves have claimed the attack. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck ...
Does it matter if he had an official ISIS membership card? If ISIS would be denying involvement it would be a different matter. But they aren't. And inspiring people to commit terrorist attacks in their name is pretty much the ISIS modus operandi in the west. So what's the difference? The consequences of the attack are the same either way.
Zohar wrote:Lucrece wrote:I don't get why some progressives are so attached to protecting the image of religion, especially when they perceive a particular religion to be populated by racial minorities.
Because it demonizes people who follow those religions.
Just those who commit acts of terror, or support such acts. And those people can use a bit of demonizing.
I'm with Lucrece on this one. Refusing to name these attacks for what they are is insulting to gays and patronizing to moderate muslims.
Fractal_Tangent wrote:Both sides of the debate came to the conclusion that what made this particular shooting so deadly was the expiration of the law against the sale of assault weapons and that something should have been done about that (though no wider pro- or anti- gun message was present).
I'm always of favour of stricter gun controls. But stricter gun regulation won't stop everything. It won't do much against well planned attacks by very determined groups or individuals. Those will find a way to obtain guns illegally if necessary. It does help a lot against more spontaneous attacks. Most crimes aren't planned very far in advance, and not having easy access to a gun will thus help a lot. And suicide is another very good reason for stricter gun controls.
This attack however I think is not a good example. It seems to be of the "well planned attacks by a very determined groups or individuals" variety.