50 Dead, 53 Injured in Orlando Gay Club Shooting

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Terror attack on Orlando gay club

Postby Lucrece » Mon Jun 13, 2016 6:40 pm UTC

Deva wrote:Why limit it to one membership?
Same Source wrote:FBI director James Comey said he was "highly confident this killer was radicalised" and partially through the internet.

More from Comey:
- Mateen questioned in 2013 because he made "inflammatory and contradictory" statements, including claiming connections to both al-Qaeda and Hezbollah - two groups diametrically opposed to each other
- he told the FBI he had made the comments in anger because he thought colleagues were discriminatory and mocking him
- the FBI followed him and investigated further but closed the case after 10 months
- second investigation began because Mateen once attended the same mosque as a suicide bomber, and a person the FBI interviewed had once been concerned that he had been radicalised, but was no longer worried because he had been recently married and had a child.

Seems almost desperate to belong somewhere. Wonders about their day-to-day experiences.



Such competence. Marriage totally de-radicalizes people. Especially marriages in which the husband believes that a wife ought to be beat if she didn't do the laundry. But hey, too much work for the FBI to listen to the concerns of several coworkers when they can just close the case.

It's rich how many people in the US were mocking Belgium and our own security agencies just went and did the very same thing.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Terror attack on Orlando gay club

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 13, 2016 6:49 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:Everything I'm saying has been mentioned before - he's claiming he's doing it for them and supporting their cause, but there's no proof that he's actually part of the group in any measurable way. They're claiming him because of course they would, but even that claim is not in the way they consistently claim such attacks and seems odd. The target he chose is inconsistent with previous targets chosen by the organization. Basically the only connection is him telling the police "I like what they do" and ISIS saying back "Yeah he's cool".


He claims he is. They claim he is. He's murdering people they want murdered. What else matters?

As far as targets goes, they have totally murdered the shit out of clubs before. Like, not even long ago. And they execute gay people on the regular. How on earth is the conjunction of those things inconsistent with their actions and ideology?

Dauric wrote:IS is claiming his actions as theirs, but the question is are they just claiming those actions after-the-fact because of the apparently record setting body count, or did they actually have a hand in training, funding, or equipping this incident?


If someone shares ideology, they don't really need a lot of training, funding or equipment to kill defenseless people. That's kind of why terrorism is a thing.

And nobody requires training, funding, or equipment to accept an identification as a member of any other group, generally speaking. Sharing ideology, and mutual identification is sufficient. I see no reason for special pleading because people are upset over calling Islamic violence what it is. The phrase "Christian abortion bomber" would attract not one whit of notice, I suspect.

DaBigCheez wrote:I realize I'm a bit behind the times on this one, but I strongly object to the first part of this statement. As anyone living in the US for the decade following 9/11 could attest, people are not very good at distinguishing between "this specific subgroup of $group did a Bad Thing" and "all members of $group are dangerous and want to do a Bad Thing".


Perhaps. That is no reason to refuse to label things accurately. Nobody here is calling for a backlash against the Islamic faith as a whole. People are decrying the specific group he wished to support, and also observing that this group is indeed a form of radical Islam. That's...pretty open and shut as far as facts go.

And I have absolutely no compunctions about demonizing mass murder, or the ideology the drives it.

And yeah, when we're talking about homophobia as the cause for murder, that IS a widespread issue with Islam. It's not one or two people on the extremes. It's a problem throughout the faith. Sure, they may not all go murdery, but it's a problem all the same.

Deva wrote:Seems almost desperate to belong somewhere. Wonders about their day-to-day experiences.


It's a pretty common trend to look at perpetrators of these shootings and see a very troubled life.

Personally, "has wife and child" seems like insufficient evidence of sanity to me, but hey...

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8291
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Terror attack on Orlando gay club

Postby Zohar » Mon Jun 13, 2016 6:51 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:If his own utterances aren't proof than I'm not certain that there can be any at all.

Except, again, he didn't say he learned how to do this or got the idea from IS. He found they had common interests, but we have no idea how he would have acted in a world without IS. So yeah, we don't have proof. But if we don't have proof then you can't really make that claim, can you?

And let's be honest with ourselves - even before any sort of flimsy connection was made between him and IS, accusations started flying around that it's because he's Muslim, and it's an Islamist attack. Whether or not the connection would have been made, public perception (among those inclined towards thinking this way) would have remained the same.

Lucrece: You say all Muslim-majority countries ban homosexuality, I show you that's incorrect. I never said there's great tolerance among the entire Muslim world towards LGBT people. You claim Abrahamic religions inherently spawn homophobia, I show you that's incorrect. Again - I never said all religious people are tolerant, but being religious does not have to go hand-in-hand with being homophobic.

You now say rejection of homosexuality comes built-in in religious texts, and you say you don't care about the people who "bend over backwards" to interpret the texts differently. Let's see what the old testament has to say about homosexuality, shall we?
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." - How would a man lie with a man as with a woman? Except for transgender people, men do not have vaginas, excluding transgender identities (which were not particularly well-known at the time of writing). Any further interpretation you give this saying, such as it referring to anal sex too or extending the prohibition to love and romantic relationships, is strictly your own, modern interpretation.
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." - Same thing.
David, perhaps the most heroic and celebrated king of the Hebrews, is quoted in the bible as saying "I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women", and David suffers no punishment for this, or criticism. Sounds like outright approval of love between men!
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Terror attack on Orlando gay club

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Jun 13, 2016 6:54 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:
Deva wrote:Why limit it to one membership?
Same Source wrote:FBI director James Comey said he was "highly confident this killer was radicalised" and partially through the internet.

More from Comey:
- Mateen questioned in 2013 because he made "inflammatory and contradictory" statements, including claiming connections to both al-Qaeda and Hezbollah - two groups diametrically opposed to each other
- he told the FBI he had made the comments in anger because he thought colleagues were discriminatory and mocking him
- the FBI followed him and investigated further but closed the case after 10 months
- second investigation began because Mateen once attended the same mosque as a suicide bomber, and a person the FBI interviewed had once been concerned that he had been radicalised, but was no longer worried because he had been recently married and had a child.

Seems almost desperate to belong somewhere. Wonders about their day-to-day experiences.



Such competence. Marriage totally de-radicalizes people. Especially marriages in which the husband believes that a wife ought to be beat if she didn't do the laundry. But hey, too much work for the FBI to listen to the concerns of several coworkers when they can just close the case.

It's rich how many people in the US were mocking Belgium and our own security agencies just went and did the very same thing.


Mateen didn't commit a crime, ever, before yesterday.

The Belgium attackers were directly fucking linked to ISIS, trained in Syria, possibly fighting there for an extended period of time. Now don't get me wrong, the security apparatus of Europe is a clusterfuck due to a lack of cooperation. Belgium Intelligence didn't even know if the attackers were in their country or not, due to the porous borders between Europe.

In this case: the FBI knew exactly where Mateen was. They knew here was reading online material published by ISIS. But here's where things change: its 100% legal to read ISIS stuff. There's no crime in that. So the FBI let him go.

Without any criminal or terrorist connections, cases should be dropped.

In any case, marriage and close connections with family are an indicator against radicalization. Note that Mateen's wife left him after she was beaten on a regular basis.. Isolation from close family is a strong indicator of radicalization. (but similarly, it isn't a crime. So I dunno what the FBI is expected to do in such a case).
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Terror attack on Orlando gay club

Postby Lazar » Mon Jun 13, 2016 7:05 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:You now say rejection of homosexuality comes built-in in religious texts, and you say you don't care about the people who "bend over backwards" to interpret the texts differently. Let's see what the old testament has to say about homosexuality, shall we?
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." - How would a man lie with a man as with a woman? Except for transgender people, men do not have vaginas, excluding transgender identities (which were not particularly well-known at the time of writing). Any further interpretation you give this saying, such as it referring to anal sex too or extending the prohibition to love and romantic relationships, is strictly your own, modern interpretation.
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." - Same thing.

You're seriously claiming that that line in Leviticus meant… nothing at all? That the Torah proscribes the death penalty for an offense which is ontologically impossible? There are centuries of scholarship and oral law in universal agreement that this is a prohibition on penetrative sex, and to pretend otherwise is absurd. And homosexual relations are forbidden at even greater length in the Quran, a point on which the hadiths and all major schools are in agreement.

David, perhaps the most heroic and celebrated king of the Hebrews, is quoted in the bible as saying "I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women", and David suffers no punishment for this, or criticism. Sounds like outright approval of love between men!

And to claim that all love between males is necessarily romantic is your own, modern interpretation.
Last edited by Lazar on Mon Jun 13, 2016 7:18 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
Exit the vampires' castle.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Terror attack on Orlando gay club

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 13, 2016 7:07 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:
morriswalters wrote:If his own utterances aren't proof than I'm not certain that there can be any at all.

Except, again, he didn't say he learned how to do this or got the idea from IS. He found they had common interests, but we have no idea how he would have acted in a world without IS. So yeah, we don't have proof. But if we don't have proof then you can't really make that claim, can you?


Learned how to do this? Please. This is not a skill that requires perfection. Schoolchildren have proven themselves capable of doing this exact same thing without training.

You're requiring something that doesn't normally exist in these cases. It's a pointlessly high bar of proof.

And let's be honest with ourselves - even before any sort of flimsy connection was made between him and IS, accusations started flying around that it's because he's Muslim, and it's an Islamist attack. Whether or not the connection would have been made, public perception (among those inclined towards thinking this way) would have remained the same.


Yes. People totally speculate pre-emptively. People, IN THIS THREAD, have said they did so for "right wing white people", and apparently, I'm the only person who had a problem with that.

Why is it only a problem when someone's priors actually favor the demographically more-likely option? That's..statistically valid, even. Islamists have an outsize role in terror attacks in the US.

So please, do not pretend that you are offended by people pre-judging. Because you weren't except for when they assumed THIS thing.

Lucrece: You say all Muslim-majority countries ban homosexuality, I show you that's incorrect. I never said there's great tolerance among the entire Muslim world towards LGBT people. You claim Abrahamic religions inherently spawn homophobia, I show you that's incorrect. Again - I never said all religious people are tolerant, but being religious does not have to go hand-in-hand with being homophobic.


Abrahamic religions have been responsible for spreading a shitload of homophobia, yes.

You now say rejection of homosexuality comes built-in in religious texts, and you say you don't care about the people who "bend over backwards" to interpret the texts differently. Let's see what the old testament has to say about homosexuality, shall we?
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." - How would a man lie with a man as with a woman? Except for transgender people, men do not have vaginas, excluding transgender identities (which were not particularly well-known at the time of writing). Any further interpretation you give this saying, such as it referring to anal sex too or extending the prohibition to love and romantic relationships, is strictly your own, modern interpretation.


You're saying that this was a law forbidding an impossible thing, not, yknow, a law prohibiting gay sex. Ignoring the historical uses of the law. Riiiiight.

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." - Same thing.
David, perhaps the most heroic and celebrated king of the Hebrews, is quoted in the bible as saying "I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women", and David suffers no punishment for this, or criticism. Sounds like outright approval of love between men!


They were quite alright with men having strong friendships, etc. Just, not so big on actual marriages and sex. Playing euphemism dodgeball doesn't avoid this fact, nor does it excuse the historical, yknow, putting people to death.

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Terror attack on Orlando gay club

Postby Whizbang » Mon Jun 13, 2016 7:13 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:Let's see what the old testament has to say about homosexuality, shall we?


Links:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_ ... ality.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm

User avatar
Echo244
Posts: 511
Joined: Wed May 20, 2015 9:49 am UTC
Location: Ping! Ping! Ping! Ping!

Re: Terror attack on Orlando gay club

Postby Echo244 » Mon Jun 13, 2016 7:14 pm UTC

Gotta say, I'm with Zohar. This guy was a homophobe, looking to add... meaning and significance to his hate. If he's claimed links to Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah in the past before ISIS then I'm sorry but he's not inspired by ISIS. He was just trying to rationalise his hatred, link himself to some bigger group of hate and fear, and... add meaning to what he was doing.

Anyway. Can't speak as an American, but as a member of the gay community I'm awfully wary of people trying to pin this on something we can fight or bomb. This was just one guy.
Unstoppable force of nature. That means she/her/hers.
Has committed an act of treason.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Terror attack on Orlando gay club

Postby morriswalters » Mon Jun 13, 2016 7:21 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:
morriswalters wrote:If his own utterances aren't proof than I'm not certain that there can be any at all.

Except, again, he didn't say he learned how to do this or got the idea from IS. He found they had common interests, but we have no idea how he would have acted in a world without IS. So yeah, we don't have proof. But if we don't have proof then you can't really make that claim, can you?
I was responding to your statement.
If there was proof that he even got inspired by them, that might be a more useful and interesting connection
And as proof goes it would stand up in court as a deathbed confession. And where I come from if it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, then I am going to say it's a duck.

The difference to me is that I don't see murder of Gays as an overarching goal of the American Muslim Community. The 9/11 attacks were difficult and obvious, from the ISIS point of view I would assume that this is a zero cost win as compared to 9/11. They claim responsibility, or someone does, and to all intents and purposes they are. If ISIS didn't exist then he might have ranted about offenses against God, and it still wouldn't be goal of the American Muslim Community anymore than it is for Conservative Christians. And it's working. Trump is talking it up and the paranoia is getting ratcheted up.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Terror attack on Orlando gay club

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Jun 13, 2016 7:29 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:The difference to me is that I don't see murder of Gays as an overarching goal of the American Muslim Community. The 9/11 attacks were difficult and obvious, from the ISIS point of view I would assume that this is a zero cost win as compared to 9/11. They claim responsibility, or someone does, and to all intents and purposes they are. If ISIS didn't exist then he might have ranted about offenses against God, and it still wouldn't be goal of the American Muslim Community anymore than it is for Conservative Christians. And it's working. Trump is talking it up and the paranoia is getting ratcheted up.


9/11 was a coordinated attack by Al Qaeda. ISIS didn't exist back then. But the fliers were trained by Al Qaeda. They were then coordinated and financed by Al Qaeda. The level of involvement in 9/11 was far, far higher than this Orlando shooting. We traced the organizers to Afghanistan and then attacked them in their homeland... so that they wouldn't be able to attack us here ever again.

ISIS didn't exist on September 11, 2001. Syria was still stable(ish), Iraq was still stable(ish).

I'm very confused what you're trying to say here...

In any case, the mission to destroy Al Qaeda is basically successful. The Taliban (allied partners to Al Qaeda) do not control Afghanistan anymore. Al Qaeda continues to be bombed by drones today and are barely able to organize attacks in Afghanistan, let alone in the US. Similarly, the ISIS campaign seems to be working in that ISIS recruits are being killed faster than new recruits join the cause. ISIS has lost several cities in the past few months.

The best that ISIS can hope for is to "inspire" attacks elsewhere. But ISIS does NOT have Al Qaeda's (of 2001) financing arm. Al Qaeda was able to transfer money and pay their soldiers while they were in America... and had a command structure to coordinate an attack on two cities at the same time with a team of almost 20+ people. ISIS has no such capability, and even in Paris / Brussels, the attack style remains low-hanging fruit by targeting vulnerable soft-targets and using simple small-weapons.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Mon Jun 13, 2016 7:37 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Terror attack on Orlando gay club

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Mon Jun 13, 2016 7:33 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:Probably not, because homophobia is the result of a philosophy whose very texts condemn it, even if modern religious practitioners are bending themselves backwards to lawyer their way through the very words in their ancient text they claim to follow. [...] And? We demonize the views of white supremacists every day, why shouldn't we demonize the view of religions whose platforms as delineated by their texts profess detestable materials? White supremacist, or favoring the supremacy of heterosexuals, it makes little difference. It's nice and all that a handful of practitioners in your western secular nation adapt their beliefs to not clash with the host culture, but I'm concerned with how a religion is practiced over most of the world, not some isolated offshoots.

If you acknowledge that there are non-homophobic branches of Islam, then it seems to me you've given up a necessary precondition for saying that Islam is a per se cause of homophobia, or for condemning Islam itself as opposed to just condemning the homophobia. Arguments about whether the "one true Islam" is homophobic seems like a red herring (and especially nonsensical since you presumably don't think there's any actual divine sanction to make some branch of Islam the "true" one).
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Terror attack on Orlando gay club

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 13, 2016 7:36 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:The difference to me is that I don't see murder of Gays as an overarching goal of the American Muslim Community.


It's not. Nobody's really saying it is. Murder of abortion doctors isn't an overarching goal of the American Christian Community, either, though.

However, spreading hatred has side effects. Sure, the individuals who turn to murder are always extremists, and probably not very well balanced folks. But, why THAT path, and not another? The man who claims Isis allegiance(and is in turn accepted by them) is doing so *because* they advance a regime of intolerance through murder.

Maybe he just really, really wanted acceptance or something, who knows? But had he pursued acceptance by joining a model train club or something, we wouldn't be talking about this. Organized hatred is still a problem, and yeah, we totally should fight it. Not necessarily by bombing or whatever in all circumstances, obviously, but groups like this attract unbalanced people, and provide some degree of acceptance for anti-social, violent actions. It's their nature.

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:If you acknowledge that there are non-homophobic branches of Islam, then it seems to me you've given up a necessary precondition for saying that Islam is a per se cause of homophobia, or for condemning Islam itself as opposed to just condemning the homophobia. Arguments about whether the "one true Islam" is homophobic seems like a red herring (and especially nonsensical since you presumably don't think there's any actual divine sanction to make some branch of Islam the "true" one).


Nonsense. There are cigarette smokers that have never gotten lung cancer, but it's definitely a cause of lung cancer.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Terror attack on Orlando gay club

Postby Lazar » Mon Jun 13, 2016 7:37 pm UTC

There is no branch of Islam (defined as a madhhab or a religious union of any significant size or influence) which does not condemn homosexuality. The few LGBT-friendly mosques that do exist are extremely marginal and don't make much effort to justify themselves through the traditional scriptural route – because it would be impossible. Now the same could have been said of Christianity and Judaism until recently, but the difference is that varying degrees of scriptural laxity have been accepted by the mainstreams of those faiths. In their traditional forms they're all unambiguously homophobic.
Last edited by Lazar on Mon Jun 13, 2016 7:43 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
Exit the vampires' castle.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Terror attack on Orlando gay club

Postby morriswalters » Mon Jun 13, 2016 7:41 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:9/11 was a coordinated attack by Al Qaeda. ISIS didn't exist back then. But the fliers were trained by Al Qaeda. They were then coordinated and financed by Al Qaeda. The level of involvement in 9/11 was far, far higher than this Orlando shooting.
ISIS or Al Qaeda are all the same when viewed through a long enough lens. However I'll let this piece speak for me, from the Washington Post.
In one of three calls with 911 dispatchers after the attack was underway, Mateen declared his allegiance to Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi — while also claiming solidarity with the Boston Marathon bombers and a Floridian who committed a suicide bombing in Syria for Jabhat al-Nusra, an al-Qaeda affiliate and Islamic State rival, according to James B. Comey, the FBI director, in a briefing with reporters Monday.

Comey, who refused to use Mateen’s name, said there were strong indications that “the killer” was inspired by foreign terrorist organizations, even if he didn’t always understand the distinctions between different groups.

Baghdadi is seen as a sullen figure who lacks the charisma of Osama bin Laden or al-Qaeda’s flair for the dramatic. He has endorsed a more prosaic brand of terrorism that emphasizes hitting vulnerable targets and exploiting Western weaknesses.

As a result, counterterrorism experts believe that the Islamic State may only be in the early stages of demonstrating its ability to incite a kind of violence that doesn’t require penetrating the post-Sept. 11, 2001, defenses of the United States.

“Baghdadi understands that if he calls for terror it will come,” said Bruce Reidel, a former CIA analyst who is now a terrorism expert at the Brookings Institution. Baghdadi “doesn’t need any direct human connection or even a web connection. His message is so pervasive in the media and so simple it is certain to inspire the angry. Add the easy availability of military style weapons and we have a challenge that won’t die with Baghdadi.”

The threat is even greater in Europe, where security services must contend not only with lone-wolf actors but hundreds of experienced fighters who returned from Syria with trainings and contacts like those who carried out the multi-stage attacks in Paris and Brussels.

For several years, U.S. officials have quietly expressed relief that the nation’s greater distance from the Middle East and the massive spending on counterterrorism measures over the past 15 years serve as major barriers to plots like Paris or Brussels.

Orlando, however, exposed the limits of that protection.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6564
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Terror attack on Orlando gay club

Postby sardia » Mon Jun 13, 2016 7:46 pm UTC

Tyndmyr, you're saying the degree of closeness doesn't matter in regards to terrorism? Operationally it should matter a lot.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Terror attack on Orlando gay club

Postby Lucrece » Mon Jun 13, 2016 7:48 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:
morriswalters wrote:If his own utterances aren't proof than I'm not certain that there can be any at all.

Except, again, he didn't say he learned how to do this or got the idea from IS. He found they had common interests, but we have no idea how he would have acted in a world without IS. So yeah, we don't have proof. But if we don't have proof then you can't really make that claim, can you?

And let's be honest with ourselves - even before any sort of flimsy connection was made between him and IS, accusations started flying around that it's because he's Muslim, and it's an Islamist attack. Whether or not the connection would have been made, public perception (among those inclined towards thinking this way) would have remained the same.

Lucrece: You say all Muslim-majority countries ban homosexuality, I show you that's incorrect. I never said there's great tolerance among the entire Muslim world towards LGBT people. You claim Abrahamic religions inherently spawn homophobia, I show you that's incorrect. Again - I never said all religious people are tolerant, but being religious does not have to go hand-in-hand with being homophobic.

You now say rejection of homosexuality comes built-in in religious texts, and you say you don't care about the people who "bend over backwards" to interpret the texts differently. Let's see what the old testament has to say about homosexuality, shall we?
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." - How would a man lie with a man as with a woman? Except for transgender people, men do not have vaginas, excluding transgender identities (which were not particularly well-known at the time of writing). Any further interpretation you give this saying, such as it referring to anal sex too or extending the prohibition to love and romantic relationships, is strictly your own, modern interpretation.
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." - Same thing.
David, perhaps the most heroic and celebrated king of the Hebrews, is quoted in the bible as saying "I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women", and David suffers no punishment for this, or criticism. Sounds like outright approval of love between men!



To me, it seems like stretching "thou shalt not lie as men as with women" into being an inconsequential clause because men don't have vaginas to be mere sophistry. Why write a prohibitive clause to begin with mentioning the lying with men if what you meant is that lying with men is fine because there's no possible circumstance in which you might lay as with women. The clause would be a pointless addition if it's unenforceable.

It's pretty clear to me they meant penetrative sex, which is why some Haredi LGBT even make the allowance that they will have sex, just not anal sex to not infringe upon the passage.

Similar with David, the mere mention of "brother" signals to me a more platonic love between friends than a sexual one.

It's always seemed like a desperate effort to find belonging in a religion where there's no acceptance just to fit in with the community you were raised in and keep your community identifiers (that is, religious membership as a point of commonality), by altering the mandates of a text instead of abandoning and rejecting said texts outright.

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
Lucrece wrote:Probably not, because homophobia is the result of a philosophy whose very texts condemn it, even if modern religious practitioners are bending themselves backwards to lawyer their way through the very words in their ancient text they claim to follow. [...] And? We demonize the views of white supremacists every day, why shouldn't we demonize the view of religions whose platforms as delineated by their texts profess detestable materials? White supremacist, or favoring the supremacy of heterosexuals, it makes little difference. It's nice and all that a handful of practitioners in your western secular nation adapt their beliefs to not clash with the host culture, but I'm concerned with how a religion is practiced over most of the world, not some isolated offshoots.

If you acknowledge that there are non-homophobic branches of Islam, then it seems to me you've given up a necessary precondition for saying that Islam is a per se cause of homophobia, or for condemning Islam itself as opposed to just condemning the homophobia. Arguments about whether the "one true Islam" is homophobic seems like a red herring (and especially nonsensical since you presumably don't think there's any actual divine sanction to make some branch of Islam the "true" one).



Only in the presence of an overriding cultural force. Non-homophobic Islam is mostly restricted to secular societies where you cannot practice homophobia without the threat of marginalization. And even in these secular countries the accepting branches are vastly minority branches.

You allow a majority of people, say those that run a country and vote to decide its decisions, to run the country according to their religious text, and in turn you get what most of the Middle East is for gay people. There's hardly a secular Muslim majority country equivalent to what we have in the west.

It's like saying white supremacist propaganda can't be the cause of racial oppression just because the members who hold those beliefs are curtailed in their capacity to exert power by a broader secular force. Their collection of beliefs don't stop being a major fountain for discrimination where they can run unfettered and make up the majority demographic.
Last edited by Lucrece on Mon Jun 13, 2016 7:56 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8291
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Terror attack on Orlando gay club

Postby Zohar » Mon Jun 13, 2016 7:53 pm UTC

Lazar wrote:You're seriously claiming that that line in Leviticus meant… nothing at all? That the Torah proscribes the death penalty for an offense which is ontologically impossible? There are centuries of scholarship and oral law in universal agreement that this is a prohibition on penetrative sex, and to pretend otherwise is absurd. And homosexual relations are forbidden at even greater length in the Quran, a point on which the hadiths and all major schools are in agreement.

No, I'm not. I'm saying the claim "The texts describe this in this exact manner and no amount of bending backwards to reinterpret this will change that" is false. The text doesn't claim that. The only way the text reads this way is, as you say, through scholarly interpretation.

You and Tyndmyr talk about the "historical use of the law" as if that's something that's inherently in the text. No, it's not, it's an interpretation. Is it likely interpretation? Perhaps. But I know for a fact there are streams in Judaism that support the reading that I described.

Tyndmyr wrote:They were quite alright with men having strong friendships, etc. Just, not so big on actual marriages and sex. Playing euphemism dodgeball doesn't avoid this fact, nor does it excuse the historical, yknow, putting people to death.

Marriage? Where is the prohibition against marriage? Where is the prohibition against relationships? Even the more strict interpretations consider it primarily the prohibition of a sexual act. And I can show you examples (once I get home) of marriage ceremonies between men conducted centuries ago, on a regular basis, by mainstream religious leaders.

So please, do not pretend that you are offended by people pre-judging. Because you weren't except for when they assumed THIS thing.

Yeah, I didn't react to the one person who said they thought for a minute and then changed their opinion (or at least didn't continue insisting upon it). So what? Yes, I'm bothered when people randomly accuse religions. It's a thing I care about, I don't see that as hypocritical.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Terror attack on Orlando gay club

Postby Lazar » Mon Jun 13, 2016 7:54 pm UTC

Mishneh Torah, Issurei Biah, Chapter 1, Halakhah 4: "The following transgressions are punishable by stoning: one who has relations with his mother, with his father's wife, his son's wife; she is called his daughter-in-law, one who sodomizes a male, a male who has relations with an animal, and a woman who has relations with an animal."

No, I'm not. I'm saying the claim "The texts describe this in this exact manner and no amount of bending backwards to reinterpret this will change that" is false. The text doesn't claim that. The only way the text reads this way is, as you say, through scholarly interpretation.

No, they don't describe the "exact manner" because they use an easily and universally understood idiom, about which everyone has been in universal agreement for thousands of years. Again, to imagine that this was a prohibition not on penetrative sex between men, but on some ontologically impossible substitution of men and women, is utterly absurd.

You and Tyndmyr talk about the "historical use of the law" as if that's something that's inherently in the text. No, it's not, it's an interpretation. Is it likely interpretation? Perhaps. But I know for a fact there are streams in Judaism that support the reading that I described.

The Oral Torah is an an inherent part of Judaism, excepting the Karaites. And it's of little consequence here whether a few modern dissident interpretations have been offered. I'm sure I could find some branch of Judaism arguing that the prohibition on mixing meat and dairy is based on a misinterpretation (and indeed there'd be a much stronger argument from original intent in that case), but that doesn't change the fact that the avoidance of that mixture is an essential and indelible part of Jewish religion and culture.
Last edited by Lazar on Mon Jun 13, 2016 8:00 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8291
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Terror attack on Orlando gay club

Postby Zohar » Mon Jun 13, 2016 7:57 pm UTC

You do know Mishne Torah is an interpretative text, right? It literally means "Secondary to the Torah". It is exactly the type of interpretation you all say isn't relevant.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

WaterToFire
Posts: 213
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:09 pm UTC

Re: Terror attack on Orlando gay club

Postby WaterToFire » Mon Jun 13, 2016 8:00 pm UTC

It seems that the man has been unstable, violent, and homophobic, to some extent, for years. Do you think that the existence of ISIS "tipped him over the edge" and made him decide to kill a bunch of people? It seems that they didn't provide him with training, materials, or hatred -- he managed to acquire each of those on his own. So, did they inspire him to do it?

It seems like the core issue of the shooter's involvement with ISIS boils down to this:

If ISIS was not around, would he still have shot up that club using a different justification (would he have invoked Al Qaeda?) Or would he have remained bigoted but largely law-abiding (like most bigots)?

Of course we can't know for certain. But that seems to be the issue.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Terror attack on Orlando gay club

Postby Lazar » Mon Jun 13, 2016 8:04 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:You do know Mishne Torah is an interpretative text, right? It literally means "Secondary to the Torah". It is exactly the type of interpretation you all say isn't relevant.

(See my edit above.) You do know it was compiled in the 12th century, it most certainly did not originate this interpretation, and no one has disputed this interpretation until very recently? I'm offering it to dispute your claim that the idea of an anal sex prohibition is "strictly your own, modern interpretation" (which is utter nonsense – it's precisely the opposite), and to provide just one example of the historically universal agreement on this point. You're arguing as if the abandonment of kashrut by some Reform Jews invalidates its existence as an essential part of Jewish practice.

And you're severely mistaken in implying that the oral law is not a core element of Judaism, just as the hadiths are in Islam.
Last edited by Lazar on Mon Jun 13, 2016 8:12 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
Kalium_Puceon
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 12:44 pm UTC
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Contact:

Re: Terror attack on Orlando gay club

Postby Kalium_Puceon » Mon Jun 13, 2016 8:09 pm UTC

I'm seeing the "It's impossible to stop a lone wolf" argument here a couple times and I want to pose a counterpoint. Do you know who hasn't had any mass shootings in ages? Australia. Two decades ago they had a massive shooting, really big deal. They imposed strict gun laws, banning heavy weapons and putting strong control on smaller firearms. Guess what, they haven't had a single mass shooting since. Sure, if you get attacked by a well organised, foreign force that can bring its own weapons, having those gun laws won't stop them, but it will stop every impulsive madman who buys a gun and shoots a bunch of people.

So yeah, while you can't stop your lone wolf killers, you can make their job a hell of a lot harder. And frankly I think that's a pretty good move to make.
"You never get over the desire to do stupid things. You simply have to overrule your stupid urges with an acquired sense of fear."

-Dr. Richard Weisiger

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Terror attack on Orlando gay club

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Mon Jun 13, 2016 8:11 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Nonsense. There are cigarette smokers that have never gotten lung cancer, but it's definitely a cause of lung cancer.

We call smoking a cause of cancer because smoking in itself has a propensity to cause cancer, and tobacco in itself contains substances with a propensity to cause cancer, even if cancer doesn't materialize in a particular instance. But Islam, as a religion, doesn't have much that it's inherent to it. It is a historical and social entity, and as such is able to take on lots of different forms, including forms that don't condemn homosexuality, while remaining Islam.

My argument isn't that there are some Muslims who aren't homophobic, and therefore Islam doesn't cause homophobia. Rather, my argument is that it's a conceptual confusion to treat a religion as a monolith or ascribe causal powers to it.

Lucrece wrote:Only in the presence of an overriding cultural force.

As I've already said, it's incoherent (for a non-Muslim, anyway) to think that there's some "real deal Islam" that could be "overridden" by something.

Lucrece wrote:Non-homophobic Islam is mostly restricted to secular societies where you cannot practice homophobia without the threat of marginalization.

Come on, this is blatant armchair sociology.

Lazar wrote:The few LGBT-friendly mosques that do exist are extremely marginal and don't make much effort to justify themselves through the traditional scriptural route – because it would be impossible.

That there are Muslims who de-emphasize the role of scripture as a decisive moral authority is evidence for my position: it shows that the inference from "The scriptures say p" to "Any Muslim is as such committed to p" is unsound.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Terror attack on Orlando gay club

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Jun 13, 2016 8:17 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:9/11 was a coordinated attack by Al Qaeda. ISIS didn't exist back then. But the fliers were trained by Al Qaeda. They were then coordinated and financed by Al Qaeda. The level of involvement in 9/11 was far, far higher than this Orlando shooting.
ISIS or Al Qaeda are all the same when viewed through a long enough lens. However I'll let this piece speak for me, from the Washington Post.


We can't stop people from looking at Facebook accounts of jackholes and getting "inspired" to attack soft targets.

First, it'd be against our core values as a country. We don't punish thought-crimes. Its a fundamental belief that while we wish to prevent attacks before they occur, the general structure of our police system is to instead catch criminals after they've created harm. A thief is punished after stealing: not before. Not while he's "thinking" about stealing, only after he's committed the act.

This belief has been stressed pretty hard recently, especially as the FBI's tactics have been argued as "entrapment" and "making up attacks". I swear that some of these examples come up in the Police Thread on this very forum. People are extremely critical of the security mechanisms we've granted the FBI already.

Second, even if we would start punishing "thought crimes" for being "inspired" by ISIS... how the hell does that get implemented? I can't think of anything but a dystopian big-brother system that could even come close to actually implementing that idea.

--------------------

We can't stop the "inspiration" of other groups connecting with a homegrown lone wolf terrorist. Its basically impossible. The gun law discussion makes some sense (after all: the killer in this attack purchased all of his guns legally) and I think warrants some discussion.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8291
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Terror attack on Orlando gay club

Postby Zohar » Mon Jun 13, 2016 8:30 pm UTC

Lazar wrote:
Zohar wrote:You do know Mishne Torah is an interpretative text, right? It literally means "Secondary to the Torah". It is exactly the type of interpretation you all say isn't relevant.

(See my edit above.) You do know it was compiled in the 12th century, it most certainly did not originate this interpretation, and no one has disputed this interpretation until very recently? I'm offering it to dispute your claim that the idea of an anal sex prohibition is "strictly your own, modern interpretation" (which is utter nonsense – it's precisely the opposite), and to provide just one example of the historically universal agreement on this point. You're arguing as if the abandonment of kashrut by some Reform Jews invalidates its existence as an essential part of Jewish practice.

And you're severely mistaken in implying that the oral law is not a core element of Judaism, just as the hadiths are in Islam.

The claim was regarding the original texts. The Mishne and oral law are not in the original texts. And saying that the idiom is universally understood when it's been translated multiple times throughout thousands of years is kind of ridiculous. The whole conception of Jewish people having demonic horns comes from a misinterpretation done when translating the Hebrew word for sun rays. Language changes in time. While I can read the bible today in the original Hebrew, I definitely lose a lot of the nuances of it. Regardless, the claim was that homophobia is part of the original text. The Torah is the original text. The Mishne was written about 1700 years after the book of Leviticus was written. It is, for all intents and purposes, a modern text.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Terror attack on Orlando gay club

Postby Lazar » Mon Jun 13, 2016 8:32 pm UTC

Regardless, the claim was that homophobia is part of the original text.

And it is part of the original text. It prohibits homosexual relations using an easily and universally understood idiom, and the proof of this is that the only alternative thesis you can offer is the ridiculous sophism that the line literally means nothing at all. You are the one who's bending over backwards to defend homophobic ideologies.
Last edited by Lazar on Mon Jun 13, 2016 8:34 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26546
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Terror attack on Orlando gay club

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jun 13, 2016 8:34 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:You allow a majority of people, say those that run a country and vote to decide its decisions, to run the country according to their religious text, and in turn you get what most of the Middle East is for gay people. There's hardly a secular Muslim majority country equivalent to what we have in the west.
If homophobia is so inherent to Islam then why did the Ottomans decriminalize homosexual behavior a century before most of Europe and the Americas?

I think you're also continuing to make the "history is monotonic" error I mentioned upthread.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8291
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Terror attack on Orlando gay club

Postby Zohar » Mon Jun 13, 2016 8:35 pm UTC

OK, I feel I've said all I have to say about this.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26546
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Terror attack on Orlando gay club

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jun 13, 2016 8:57 pm UTC

Lazar wrote:
Regardless, the claim was that homophobia is part of the original text.

And it is part of the original text. It prohibits homosexual relations using an easily and universally understood idiom, and the proof of this is that the only alternative thesis you can offer is the ridiculous sophism that the line literally means nothing at all. You are the one who's bending over backwards to defend homophobic ideologies.
That isn't the only alternative thesis that exists, though, even if it was the only one Zohar mentioned.

Another possibility I've seen brought up frequently is that lying with a man "as with" a woman refers to the subservient role a woman was expected to take in sexual activities, not to the specific act of penetration, and that Leviticus 18:22 was thus a prohibition against treating the "passive" partner as if he were inferior or subservient.

One I have only seen here suggests that it's a bad translation resulting from a grammatical error in the original, and that the verse only prohibits lying with a man in the bed of a woman. I don't know enough about Hebrew to evaluate the argument, but it does seem to be the case that the word that gets translated to "as with" in most English versions of Leviticus gets translated to "bed" back in Genesis.

But the thing is, I suspect you likewise don't know very much about how Hebrew idioms were understood at the time the Torah was written, and are merely asserting as fact that "as with women" was universally understood to refer to the act of penetration.

Edit: Lazar, I'm pretty certain that you are not a Jewish scholar or a rabbi, and so your taking a position on the original meaning of a passage in the Torah that is counter to that of some people who are scholars and rabbis, and presenting it as obviously objectively correct, strikes me as more than a bit arrogant.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10273
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Terror attack on Orlando gay club

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Jun 13, 2016 9:01 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Lucrece wrote:You allow a majority of people, say those that run a country and vote to decide its decisions, to run the country according to their religious text, and in turn you get what most of the Middle East is for gay people. There's hardly a secular Muslim majority country equivalent to what we have in the west.
If homophobia is so inherent to Islam then why did the Ottomans decriminalize homosexual behavior a century before most of Europe and the Americas?

I think you're also continuing to make the "history is monotonic" error I mentioned upthread.


Because the Ottomans were mostly secular to the point they didn't give a damn about being the guardians of the Hejaz, and at the end were ultranationalist rather than ultrareligious? To the point that the other Muslims despised ottoman rule and joined the British/French in WWI to overthrow the Ottomans?

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Terror attack on Orlando gay club

Postby morriswalters » Mon Jun 13, 2016 9:08 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:We can't stop people from looking at Facebook accounts of jackholes and getting "inspired" to attack soft targets.
I've never said otherwise. I simply said that just because an individual didn't leave footprints to ISIS doesn't make an attack any less a result of Islamic terrorism than had the shooter went to the Middle East.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26546
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Terror attack on Orlando gay club

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jun 13, 2016 9:15 pm UTC

U.S. officials: No evidence of direct Islamic State link to Orlando shooting wrote:The FBI official cautioned, however, that proving the suspected link to radical Islamism required further investigation.

Three U.S. officials familiar with the investigation into the massacre said that no evidence had yet been found showing a direct link with Islamic State or any other militant group.

There is “no evidence yet that this was directed or connected to ISIS. So far as we know at this time, his first direct contact was a pledge of bayat (loyalty) he made during the massacre," said a U.S. counter-terrorism official, referring to a 911 call the suspect made on Sunday. The official spoke on condition of anonymity.

A U.S. intelligence official said it was not unexpected that Islamic State would claim responsibility given that the group has been suffering serious losses of fighters and territory in Iraq and Syria.

"The fact that a website connected to Daesh applauded it doesn't mean anything," said the U.S. intelligence official, using an Arabic language acronym for Islamic State. "They are losing on their home turf, and it's not surprising if they're looking for some kind of twisted victory."
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Terror attack on Orlando gay club

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Jun 13, 2016 9:17 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:We can't stop people from looking at Facebook accounts of jackholes and getting "inspired" to attack soft targets.
I've never said otherwise. I simply said that just because an individual didn't leave footprints to ISIS doesn't make an attack any less a result of Islamic terrorism than had the shooter went to the Middle East.


If that's the only point you wish to say, then I can agree with that. This was clearly an terror attack perpetrated by a Muslim and a hate crime. And despite the conservative news saying otherwise, I heard Obama directly say "Inspired by ISIS". There's no conspiracy to hide the Muslim connections of this guy that I'm aware of. Even Washington Post is putting his faith on headlines. There's no issue here.

Anyway, my distinction becomes important when we start talking about policy. From a policy perspective, stopping the Orlando attack will have more similarities with stopping the Charleston attack or Virginia Tech shooting, rather than stopping 9/11.

Further, no matter how much Trump wants to close the border, that doesn't change the fact that the Boston Marathon Bomber, San Bernadino Shooter, AND the Orlando shooter were American-born citizens and not immigrants. American citizens with full rights. Just like the Charleston attacker.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Terror attack on Orlando gay club

Postby Belial » Mon Jun 13, 2016 9:27 pm UTC

Even the "inspired by" is tenuous. In a country with as many mass shootings as the US, saying that this one wouldn't have happened without some kind of inspiration from a foreign group is some pretty hardcore denial. In a culture with as much homophobia as ours, saying that this guy must have gotten his from somewhere else is reaching. Chances are, if ISIS had never existed, he just would've said something different.

But I mean, hey, anything so that people who were trying to oppress these victims as of saturday can claim on monday that they didn't cause this, right?
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Terror attack on Orlando gay club

Postby leady » Mon Jun 13, 2016 9:32 pm UTC

There should be 50 mass shootings between every Islamic inspired one in the US if it was random

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Terror attack on Orlando gay club

Postby Belial » Mon Jun 13, 2016 9:36 pm UTC

leady wrote:There should be 50 mass shootings between every Islamic inspired one in the US if it was random


There have been 133 in the US this year so far. How many are you asserting were inspired by islam?
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26546
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Terror attack on Orlando gay club

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jun 13, 2016 9:37 pm UTC

leady wrote:There should be 50 mass shootings between every Islamic inspired one in the US if it was random

So Muslims turn out to be disproportionately averse to carrying out mass shootings, is what you're saying?

Image
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Terror attack on Orlando gay club

Postby leady » Mon Jun 13, 2016 9:43 pm UTC

I'm not sure how to respond to that level of denial.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26546
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Terror attack on Orlando gay club

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jun 13, 2016 9:51 pm UTC

leady wrote:I'm not sure how to respond to that level of denial.
What level of denial? If you're counting mass shootings differently, say so. If you're counting "inspired by Islam" to account for more than just "carried out by a Muslim", say so.

What specifically do you think we are denying?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Terror attack on Orlando gay club

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 13, 2016 9:57 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Tyndmyr, you're saying the degree of closeness doesn't matter in regards to terrorism? Operationally it should matter a lot.


We are essentially discussing a matter of identity. Who one eats dinner with every weekend might matter for many things, but traditionally, it is not required to identify as a member of a group. Talking about operational necessity instead of identity is sort of changing the parameters of the question.

KnightExemplar wrote:If that's the only point you wish to say, then I can agree with that. This was clearly an terror attack perpetrated by a Muslim and a hate crime. And despite the conservative news saying otherwise, I heard Obama directly say "Inspired by ISIS". There's no conspiracy to hide the Muslim connections of this guy that I'm aware of. Even Washington Post is putting his faith on headlines. There's no issue here.


It became, an issue, I believe, because of the changing of the thread title.

Not a conspiracy, though. Don't think anyone's really pushing that.

Zohar wrote:
Lazar wrote:You're seriously claiming that that line in Leviticus meant… nothing at all? That the Torah proscribes the death penalty for an offense which is ontologically impossible? There are centuries of scholarship and oral law in universal agreement that this is a prohibition on penetrative sex, and to pretend otherwise is absurd. And homosexual relations are forbidden at even greater length in the Quran, a point on which the hadiths and all major schools are in agreement.

No, I'm not. I'm saying the claim "The texts describe this in this exact manner and no amount of bending backwards to reinterpret this will change that" is false. The text doesn't claim that. The only way the text reads this way is, as you say, through scholarly interpretation.

You and Tyndmyr talk about the "historical use of the law" as if that's something that's inherently in the text. No, it's not, it's an interpretation. Is it likely interpretation? Perhaps. But I know for a fact there are streams in Judaism that support the reading that I described.


The religion is a thing made up of actual flesh and blood people. If they pretty much all interpret those words in a specific manner, then, that's what the religion believes.

You can try to twist words all you want, but a recent modern niche re-interpretation that makes the entire thing logically irrelevant, and prohibiting nothing is mere verbal fiction. A convenient way to justify keeping the "same" faith while changing the bits you dislike by redefining commonly understood words and phrases into nonsense.

Which, sure, go ahead and do that, but you're not entitled to pretend that your fiction defines the rest of the entire faith. And it doesn't change the actual words on paper, or the things millions of people actually did.

Zohar wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:They were quite alright with men having strong friendships, etc. Just, not so big on actual marriages and sex. Playing euphemism dodgeball doesn't avoid this fact, nor does it excuse the historical, yknow, putting people to death.

Marriage? Where is the prohibition against marriage? Where is the prohibition against relationships? Even the more strict interpretations consider it primarily the prohibition of a sexual act. And I can show you examples (once I get home) of marriage ceremonies between men conducted centuries ago, on a regular basis, by mainstream religious leaders.


Old timey marriage required consummation. That whole "one flesh" bit. And was big on marriage involving cranking out the kids.

Let's not pretend the ol' bible was all "suuure, gay people can be married, just not have sex". No such provision is made, and everything is written as if this were not an actual option. Even if this WERE the text, it'd still be pretty discriminatory, but this is a modern invention with no textual evidence for it.

WaterToFire wrote:It seems that the man has been unstable, violent, and homophobic, to some extent, for years. Do you think that the existence of ISIS "tipped him over the edge" and made him decide to kill a bunch of people? It seems that they didn't provide him with training, materials, or hatred -- he managed to acquire each of those on his own. So, did they inspire him to do it?

It seems like the core issue of the shooter's involvement with ISIS boils down to this:

If ISIS was not around, would he still have shot up that club using a different justification (would he have invoked Al Qaeda?) Or would he have remained bigoted but largely law-abiding (like most bigots)?

Of course we can't know for certain. But that seems to be the issue.


Who knows? I'm pretty sure that if the KKK folded, racists would still exist. But I'm also pretty sure that the KKK encourages racism. If someone embraces them, and they accept him back, and he does horrible racist shit, I'm ENTIRELY okay with condemnation all round. Even if he might have done it otherwise.

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Nonsense. There are cigarette smokers that have never gotten lung cancer, but it's definitely a cause of lung cancer.

We call smoking a cause of cancer because smoking in itself has a propensity to cause cancer, and tobacco in itself contains substances with a propensity to cause cancer, even if cancer doesn't materialize in a particular instance. But Islam, as a religion, doesn't have much that it's inherent to it. It is a historical and social entity, and as such is able to take on lots of different forms, including forms that don't condemn homosexuality, while remaining Islam.


Sources, please.

Note the above statement regarding lack of acceptance of homosexuality by any significant subset, as well as the fact that Islam is disproportionately associated with terrorism at the moment. The idea that historical and social entities cannot be a cause of bad things is a curious one, and I would love to see you support it in a general fashion, extending it to other historically villainous social structures.

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:My argument isn't that there are some Muslims who aren't homophobic, and therefore Islam doesn't cause homophobia. Rather, my argument is that it's a conceptual confusion to treat a religion as a monolith or ascribe causal powers to it.


Why is a religion unable to cause anything?

Is it special among power structures and beliefs? Do you believe that NO bad events(or indeed events at all) have been caused by belief in a religion?

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:As I've already said, it's incoherent (for a non-Muslim, anyway) to think that there's some "real deal Islam" that could be "overridden" by something.


None of us give a crap what is "real", theologically. That's utterly irrelevant. We're discussing the actions of people in the real world. And if a vast majority of the followers of the way of x claim it demands y, and then, they DO y, how is that not causality?

gmalivuk wrote:
Lucrece wrote:You allow a majority of people, say those that run a country and vote to decide its decisions, to run the country according to their religious text, and in turn you get what most of the Middle East is for gay people. There's hardly a secular Muslim majority country equivalent to what we have in the west.
If homophobia is so inherent to Islam then why did the Ottomans decriminalize homosexual behavior a century before most of Europe and the Americas?

I think you're also continuing to make the "history is monotonic" error I mentioned upthread.


Hah. That was a burst of nationalism that tried to break down barriers between the different faiths and establish equality for all religions(sort of). That wasn't Islam itself being accepting. It was a pragmatic political move in a desperate bid for power, not a change in orthodoxy among the faithful.

gmalivuk wrote:One I have only seen here suggests that it's a bad translation resulting from a grammatical error in the original, and that the verse only prohibits lying with a man in the bed of a woman. I don't know enough about Hebrew to evaluate the argument, but it does seem to be the case that the word that gets translated to "as with" in most English versions of Leviticus gets translated to "bed" back in Genesis.


Context dependent translation. Lying in the bed of a woman is *also* a euphemism for sex. The specific English chosen is only to properly convey the meaning.

gmalivuk wrote:
leady wrote:I'm not sure how to respond to that level of denial.
What level of denial? If you're counting mass shootings differently, say so. If you're counting "inspired by Islam" to account for more than just "carried out by a Muslim", say so.

What specifically do you think we are denying?


This topic has come up before here. Long story short, no matter how you prefer to count the numbers, it turns out Islamic killers kill more people. You can try to fudge things around by contaminating the data by lowering the bar to include random crimes, and thus, make it hard to verify each event. You can ignore that they are a pretty small minority, and thus, a majority of shootings are not Islamic in nature in absolute numbers. But if you avoid highly motivated reasoning, it's reasonably obvious that, even in the US, Islam has a violence problem.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests