Mass Shooting in Orlando become's USA's worst.

[Fragony]

He's a self-hating bigot who was apparently a closet gay man with a profile in a gay dating app. Yet, he's still an "islamic terrorist" to you because he says so, even though his own father refutes that.

If every troubled shithead that comes from a Muslim family does something, and enables you to attribute the whole thing to your Islam boogeyman fantasy than I can't stop your obsession with strangling Islam rather than finding a proper solution.

Good luck, keep on fighting the good fight!

At least he isn't the only one who's in denial.

Gay sites/bars are a recruiting place for IS by the way, to show your worth.

[AE Bravo]

Check your closet for IS too.

[Pannonian]

The point is that pretty much any nutcake can get a gun, go into a public area, and have about ten minutes to absolutely go nuts before the first wave of police arrive. They can proclaim allegiance to Mickey Mouse, the bodies will still be there.

Post statistics.

9/11 was the biggest ever terrorist attack in the US, with a body count of 2000+.
7/7 was the biggest ever terrorist attack in the UK, with 50+ dead.
The Madrid train bombing in 2004 was the biggest ever terrorist attack in Spain with 100+ dead.
I don't know of any comparable size terrorist attack in France, but the 2015 Paris attack produced 100+ dead.

Are those stats wrong? Did I miss any bigger attacks than those listed?

[Greyblades]

I don't know of any comparable size terrorist attack in France.

Insert robespierre joke here.

[Fragony]

Check your closet for IS too.

sigh, beating up a gay is an initiating requirement, that's why they are on gay sites and in gay bars

[AE Bravo]

sigh, beating up a gay is an initiating requirement, that's why they are on gay sites and in gay bars

You don't think it's a possibility that he was one himself and tried to overcompensate? Maybe he hated himself and IS thoughts were making him feel better about himself. He probably hated the clubgoers for living truthfully unlike him, who's too scared to come out the closet.

[Fragony]

You don't think it's a possibility that he was one himself and tried to overcompensate? Maybe he hated himself and IS thoughts were making him feel better about himself. He probably hated the clubgoers for living truthfully unlike him, who's too scared to come out the closet.

If I had a dad like him I would be as well, check his youtube channel. No, it just is what it is. I fully understand that most muslims would never harm anyone, and I am not asking from muslims to reject things like this because that's unfair, but there IS a problem with islam in the west. And everywhere where it is really.

[Husar]

yeah I really like this, love pointing fingers. 50 innocent dead people don't bother me if it suits my anti-muslim agenda

I fully understand that most muslims would never harm anyone, and I am not asking from muslims to reject things like this because that's unfair, but there IS a problem with islam in the west.

Why? What? Trying to confuse me again?

9/11 was the biggest ever terrorist attack in the US, with a body count of 2000+.
7/7 was the biggest ever terrorist attack in the UK, with 50+ dead.
The Madrid train bombing in 2004 was the biggest ever terrorist attack in Spain with 100+ dead.
I don't know of any comparable size terrorist attack in France, but the 2015 Paris attack produced 100+ dead.

Are those stats wrong? Did I miss any bigger attacks than those listed?

You forgot about the black death, the Holocaust, the bombing of London, the firebombing of Dresden and others, the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (ok, Japan isn't the West), the 30 years war and the Spanish flu.
I'd say bacteria and virii are the biggest threat to western countries. If you think negotiating with ISIS is impossible, try to negotiate with them!

And just as a technical question, why does the single largest terrorist seemingly determine what is the biggest/a bigger threat to Western countries? What is the scientific argument to take this as a valid measure?
So what if the biggest terrorist attack killed 100 people in 1 attack in a timespan of 10 years and deranged people killed 200 people in 40 attacks over the same timespan?
And what exactly does deranged mean? Could someone who joins a terrorist organization to cut off heads and be a murdering superhero not be called a deranged man? Does religious association override psychological conditions? Are terrorist organizations the only organizations on earth with perfectly sane members?
And why does the rise of terrorist organizations coincide with the rise of veganism?

[Fragony]

First quote was sarcasm Hussie

[InsaneApache]

Crazy thread.

[Pannonian]

Why? What? Trying to confuse me again?

You forgot about the black death, the Holocaust, the bombing of London, the firebombing of Dresden and others, the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (ok, Japan isn't the West), the 30 years war and the Spanish flu.
I'd say bacteria and virii are the biggest threat to western countries. If you think negotiating with ISIS is impossible, try to negotiate with them!

And just as a technical question, why does the single largest terrorist seemingly determine what is the biggest/a bigger threat to Western countries? What is the scientific argument to take this as a valid measure?
So what if the biggest terrorist attack killed 100 people in 1 attack in a timespan of 10 years and deranged people killed 200 people in 40 attacks over the same timespan?
And what exactly does deranged mean? Could someone who joins a terrorist organization to cut off heads and be a murdering superhero not be called a deranged man? Does religious association override psychological conditions? Are terrorist organizations the only organizations on earth with perfectly sane members?
And why does the rise of terrorist organizations coincide with the rise of veganism?

And deliberately missing my definition, which is peace time, which is what westerners are used to, and in living memory, which I stretched to mean post WW1. Even WW2 veterans count peace as the default state of being in the west, which is all that the vast majority of us have ever known.

I'm reminded of Orwell's comment about a certain tendency of the left to identify itself with Communism, resulting in whitewashing (redwashing?) anything the USSR does whilst portraying anything the liberal democracies do as in the wrong. The USSR is dead, but that tendency is still there, but their ideological ally of choice is now the anti-Christian-Jewish religious fundies. For the most part, this means allying with Islamism.

[Gilrandir]

The USSR is dead

I wouldn't be so sure while Putin is still alive.

[Beskar]

I'm reminded of Orwell's comment about a certain tendency of the left to identify itself with Communism, resulting in whitewashing (redwashing?) anything the USSR does whilst portraying anything the liberal democracies do as in the wrong. The USSR is dead, but that tendency is still there, but their ideological ally of choice is now the anti-Christian-Jewish religious fundies. For the most part, this means allying with Islamism.

Whenever Fragony or someone brings this up, I have to admit, it sounds like crazy-talk. Then again, there are probably a subset of strange individuals where this applies.

[Pannonian]

Whenever Fragony or someone brings this up, I have to admit, it sounds like crazy-talk. Then again, there are probably a subset of strange individuals where this applies.

The people at the top of the Labour party, for one. Orwell noted that these sections of the British Left saw the imperialists as the enemy, and therefore anyone who was the enemy of the imperialists was their friend and ally. Meaning they identified themselves with the Communists. Orwell, as we know, was a socialist and therefore of the Left, but he saw the error, which is obvious to us in hindsight, in allying with the Communists. Hence Animal Farm. He was no fan of imperial Britain either, certainly not after his experiences in Burma, but he also know enough to know that there were worse things in the world.

Our liberal democracy is not perfect by any means, but there are much worse things in the world. Unfortunately, parts of the British Left, nowadays in charge of the Labour party, see the world in the way that Orwell decried, except with Islamists in the place of Communists. If they oppose the imperialists then they must be friends. And I suppose, judging from Husar's posts, that there are equivalents in other countries too.

[Fragony]

shut up and kiss me

[CrossLOPER]

OK, even I didn't expect this one.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36527946

And what exactly does deranged mean? Could someone who joins a terrorist organization to cut off heads and be a murdering superhero not be called a deranged man? Does religious association override psychological conditions? Are terrorist organizations the only organizations on earth with perfectly sane members?
And why does the rise of terrorist organizations coincide with the rise of veganism?

Two things: 1) IS is extremely violent, and attracts violent people. 2) Believing in an omnipotant all-creator who guides all creation and sets strict moral standards under threat of eternal agony can make you do strange things.

And deliberately missing my definition, which is peace time, which is what westerners are used to, and in living memory, which I stretched to mean post WW1. Even WW2 veterans count peace as the default state of being in the west, which is all that the vast majority of us have ever known.

OK. Why only the West?

[Pannonian]

OK. Why only the West?

I live in the UK. I've been around areas that are generally considered the west, and from my experience and what I've read, the experience is similar, as per a generally law-abiding liberal democracy. With little variations on the same theme, the west's societies generally breed people who are respectful of human life and tolerant of social differences. That's the liberal part. The democratic part instils a willingness to accept that one may not necessarily be right. Combined, they produce people who are generally unwilling to kill, and even when they do so as part of a faction, they observe certain limitations on what they do. That is what peace has done to western society. I like it that way.

Why do I only talk about the west? Because that is where my experience stretches. I don't want to speak for other societies and countries. As has been pointed out many times since Iraq, intervention can be painted as imperialism. Therefore we shouldn't intervene, but should let other countries sort things out for themselves. We shouldn't speak for them, and they shouldn't speak for us.

[Lizardo]

Looks like a couple of people on here also want some sharia law by the back door. Allahuhaha

[Husar]

And deliberately missing my definition, which is peace time, which is what westerners are used to, and in living memory, which I stretched to mean post WW1. Even WW2 veterans count peace as the default state of being in the west, which is all that the vast majority of us have ever known.

I'm reminded of Orwell's comment about a certain tendency of the left to identify itself with Communism, resulting in whitewashing (redwashing?) anything the USSR does whilst portraying anything the liberal democracies do as in the wrong. The USSR is dead, but that tendency is still there, but their ideological ally of choice is now the anti-Christian-Jewish religious fundies. For the most part, this means allying with Islamism.

Actually not deliberate. I would also not say I was whitewashing anything, merely arguing against your point that terrorism is somehow the worst thing that happens to us. And somehow in the course of that I forgot that you made the scope of your argument so narrow that it fits.
I will apologize for overlooking that but not for thinking that terrorism is exaggerated as a threat compared to lots of other threats.

I actually kind of like living in the free world and using terrorism to curb that freedom more and more is not something I like. I could make some strange theory about how only a deluded rightist could think that means I hate myself or our culture but I think that is offensive and does not really further the discussion in any way...

[Pannonian]

Actually not deliberate. I would also not say I was whitewashing anything, merely arguing against your point that terrorism is somehow the worst thing that happens to us. And somehow in the course of that I forgot that you made the scope of your argument so narrow that it fits.
I will apologize for overlooking that but not for thinking that terrorism is exaggerated as a threat compared to lots of other threats.

I actually kind of like living in the free world and using terrorism to curb that freedom more and more is not something I like. I could make some strange theory about how only a deluded rightist could think that means I hate myself or our culture but I think that is offensive and does not really further the discussion in any way...

It's actually a renowned leftist who's shown me that our society isn't as bad as it's often made out to be. History has shown him to be very, very observant indeed of the human condition, with his observations drawn from experiences in a number of countries and social environments.

"The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to the taking of life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists whose real though unadmitted motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States. Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defence of the western countries."

[Fragony]

Growing up without a care in the world isn't very good for you, being morally superior is such a luxory-problem, bored rich kids

[CrossLOPER]

Growing up without a care in the world isn't very good for you, being morally superior is such a luxory-problem, bored rich kids

Against whom was this grammatical masterpiece aimed?

[Greyblades]

At a guess: Spoiled children of rich families who want to be MLK but cant find an oppressor to fight against and thus make them up.

[Pannonian]

At a guess: Spoiled children of rich families who want to be MLK but cant find an oppressor to fight against and thus make them up.

As Orwell argued, there's lots of scope for improving our society that doesn't neglect our best traditions in favour of wideranging faction-based politics. But it involves lots of working with people on the ground, with sweat and compromises every day, and no dramatic signal turning points to point to as a marker of one's achievements. Imagine Spielberg's Lincoln, but instead of the passing of the 13th amendment, what you see is the daily grind of deciding who gets funding and who misses out, while you do your damned best to see that what funding you can get for someone's mini project is efficiently used. Even the supposed good guys are an oppressor to someone to whom they've denied funding, yet how do you satisfy everyone? Those who dedicate their lives to doing their best for the underprivileged are my heroes, even if I don't agree with every decision they make.

[Tuuvi]

I'm reminded of Orwell's comment about a certain tendency of the left to identify itself with Communism, resulting in whitewashing (redwashing?) anything the USSR does whilst portraying anything the liberal democracies do as in the wrong. The USSR is dead, but that tendency is still there, but their ideological ally of choice is now the anti-Christian-Jewish religious fundies. For the most part, this means allying with Islamism.

Leftists actually have a word for these people, they call them tankies.

[Greyblades]

As Orwell argued, there's lots of scope for improving our society that doesn't neglect our best traditions in favour of wideranging faction-based politics. But it involves lots of working with people on the ground, with sweat and compromises every day, and no dramatic signal turning points to point to as a marker of one's achievements. Imagine Spielberg's Lincoln, but instead of the passing of the 13th amendment, what you see is the daily grind of deciding who gets funding and who misses out, while you do your damned best to see that what funding you can get for someone's mini project is efficiently used. Even the supposed good guys are an oppressor to someone to whom they've denied funding, yet how do you satisfy everyone? Those who dedicate their lives to doing their best for the underprivileged are my heroes, even if I don't agree with every decision they make.

...I dont think you and fragony are talking about the same people.

[Fragony]

He's a self-hating bigot who was apparently a closet gay man with a profile in a gay dating app. Yet, he's still an "islamic terrorist" to you because he says so, even though his own father refutes that.

If every troubled shithead that comes from a Muslim family does something, and enables you to attribute the whole thing to your Islam boogeyman fantasy than I can't stop your obsession with strangling Islam rather than finding a proper solution.

Good luck, keep on fighting the good fight!

In hindsight now that more is clear, you were probably right

[Gilrandir]

Believing in an omnipotant all-creator who guides all creation and sets strict moral standards under threat of eternal agony can make you do strange things.

The opposite is also true: believing that there is no ultimate punishment from an omnipotent all-creator for whatever you might do can make you do strange things. Conclusion: if you are prone to do strange things you will do them and it doesn't matter how you justify them.

[CrossLOPER]

The opposite is also true: believing that there is no ultimate punishment from an omnipotent all-creator for whatever you might do can make you do strange things. Conclusion: if you are prone to do strange things you will do them and it doesn't matter how you justify them.

Well, there is this: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...t-the-shooter/

I wonder, what they would be doing if they were not so pious?

[Slyspy]

The people at the top of the Labour party, for one. Orwell noted that these sections of the British Left saw the imperialists as the enemy, and therefore anyone who was the enemy of the imperialists was their friend and ally.

You would have to be blind if you fail to see that this worked the other way as well. It is one of the reasons why Republican Spain was hung out to dry by those self-same liberal democracies.