Mass shooting in Orlando Nightclub

Bannasidhe · 17-06-2016 02:20PM

stoplooklisten wrote: »

No, that's not the logic at all

You showed a christian hate preacher, I'm showing that the average Muslim at this conference agrees with the christian hate preacher.

Did you fail to read this?
I even quoted it in my post - you know, the post you are taking issue with.

made_up wrote: »

speak for yourself

ive yet to hear any christian preacher call for the execution of gays , let alone anything further

No one mentioned Muslims.
It was whether or not Christians preached homophobic hate.
And look - yes they did.

stoplooklisten · 17-06-2016 02:25PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Did you fail to read this?
I even quoted it in my post - you know, the post you are taking issue with.

No one mentioned Muslims.
It was whether or not Christians preached homophobic hate.
And look - yes they did.

I did read it, yes they did and it's widely condemned. it's a disgrace what that man is saying. He should be held accountable.

In that case, We'll just gloss over the issue that the average muslim attending this conference agrees with what we are rightly condemning the the christian hate preacher for.

Bannasidhe · 17-06-2016 02:27PM

stoplooklisten wrote: »

I did read it, yes they did and it's widely condemned. it's a disgrace what that man is saying. He should be held accountable.

In that case, We'll just gloss over the issue that the average muslim attending this conference agrees with what we are rightly condemning the the christian hate preacher for.

Here is a mad idea.

Why don't we condemn the both equally?

What if we went even further and held all religious extremists accountable regardless of their religion?

It's so crazy it just might work.

stoplooklisten · 17-06-2016 02:32PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Here is a mad idea.

Why don't we condemn the both equally?

What if we went even further and held all religious extremists accountable regardless of their religion?

It's so crazy it just might work.

Yes we should. but I think you are missing the point. One crowd go to great length to explain they are not extremists and the idea of the poll is to show what normal everyday people think, the other is a hate preacher.

Bannasidhe · 17-06-2016 02:40PM

stoplooklisten wrote: »

Yes we should. but I think you are missing the point. One crowd go to great length to explain they are not extremists and the idea of the poll is to show what normal everyday people think, the other is a hate preacher.

No.

In this instance you are missing the point.

There are members of one crowd who claim their crowd has no hate preachers while condemning the other crowd's hate preachers.
If any one says 'hang on - your crowd does have hate preachers - see here is video evidence of them vocally hating in front of an approving congregation' then it 'oh - you are on the other crowds side!'.

No. I'm not.
I am just aware that extremists onboth sides want me dead.

However, I also know that the majority on both sides do not.

aloyisious · 17-06-2016 02:45PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Here is a mad idea.

Why don't we condemn the both equally?

What if we went even further and held all religious extremists accountable regardless of their religion?

It's so crazy it just might work.

Ah, go on, go on. There's [in the U.S.] just this big roadblock to how hate could be done away with. The preachers just love it.
Image result for the 1st amendment to the u.s. constitution
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibiting ...

12Phase · 17-06-2016 02:54PM

If calling for the death of anyone or any group, you really should be answering charges in court.

I'm getting fed up with these psychos hiding behind respect for religion. Inciting hate against and particularly calling for death or serious harm to anyone *is* a criminal offence in most countries and should be prosecuted. Islamic or Christians or whatever they claim to be, it's just unacceptable in a civilised society to do that. There has been way too much tiptoeing around his issue for years. We're supposed to be broadly secular societies be built around human rights, mutual respect and so on. You don't just get to opt out of that.

It's the same nonsense that resulted in institution abuses here going unprosecuted and uninvestigated - the religious were untouchable. I mean we literally had nuns operating what amounted to religious prisons and a parallel judicial system ...

You can't just turn a blind eye to calls to attack, persecute or kill. It's dangerous, it undermines the civil legal system and the rule of law and its just plain wrong.

Apogee · 17-06-2016 03:46PM

stoplooklisten wrote: »

Yes, this is a disgrace. It has been widely condemned by everyone. These extremists should be called out for what they are.

Thank God it wasn't the catholics :rolleyes:

swissinfo wrote:

Vitus Huonder, the controversial Catholic bishop of Chur in eastern Switzerland, has once again attracted criticism for quoting homophobic Bible passages and denouncing non-traditional family models. At the “Joy in Faith” forum in the German city of Fulda, he quoted a passage from the Bible which said homosexuals should be punished by death.

In his 50-minute address on Friday, titled “Marriage – a gift, sacrament and order”, Huonder quoted various passages backing up his views. He also slammed gender theory, divorce, sex education and gay marriage. Regarding homosexuality, the 73-year-old bishop quoted two verses from the book of Leviticus, including Leviticus 20:13: “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

In response to applause, he continued: “Both of these passages alone suffice to clarify unambiguously the church’s position on homosexuality”.

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/homophobia_catholic-bishop-in--death-to-gays--storm/41582320

He's the guy on the right:
https://www.luzernerzeitung.ch/storage/scl/importe/onlineartikel/nachrichten/schweiz/abo/695773_m1w560v46265_00130635__1.jpg

Lyaiera · 17-06-2016 03:56PM

aloyisious wrote: »

Ah, go on, go on. There's [in the U.S.] just this big roadblock to how hate could be done away with. The preachers just love it.
Image result for the 1st amendment to the u.s. constitution
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibiting ...

The American Supreme Court, the arbiters of what the constitution means have said repeatedly that there are no absolutes. They have ruled free speech is not an absolute and have listed examples where the constitution does not protect certain speech. The most famous is the fire in a crowded theatre ruling, they also list incitement to violence and various forms of sedition. From what I've read most civil liberty lawyers agree that calling for the execution of someone for who they are, in a hostile situation, could very easily be seen to be inciting violence and tackled with current laws. They also agree there is no political or prosecutorial will to do so.

The Supreme Court have also ruled that freedom of religion also guarantees the freedom from having others religion imposed on you.

stoplooklisten · 17-06-2016 04:07PM

Apogee wrote: »

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/homophobia_catholic-bishop-in--death-to-gays--storm/41582320

He's the guy on the right:
https://www.luzernerzeitung.ch/storage/scl/importe/onlineartikel/nachrichten/schweiz/abo/695773_m1w560v46265_00130635__1.jpg

The Swiss LGTB association Pink Cross reacted immediately, calling Bishop Huonder, according to La Croix on August 10, an “agitator” and a “delinquent” and demanding “a public apology
http://www.thelocal.ch/20150813/bishop-apologizes-for-anti-gay-speech

Huonder apologized “to everyone who felt injured by my speech, in particular those of homosexual persuasion”, reported Swiss news agency ATS on Thursday.

The 73-year-old said it was a “mistake” to write his speech purely “on a theological and academic level”.

Bishop apologizes for anti-gay speech

In a three-page letter sent to 800 of his colleagues, including priests and employees, on Wednesday night, Huonder apologized “to everyone who felt injured by my speech, in particular those of homosexual persuasion”, reported Swiss news agency ATS on Thursday.

http://www.thelocal.ch/20150813/bishop-apologizes-for-anti-gay-speech

This guy is not the pope and has been widely condemned. The pope has quite different views and he speaks for the church more than this bishop "widely known for controversial views.".Ever heard of the New testament>

Difference being this guy is flagged and noted having controversial views, they others, people can;t even bring themselves to identify the difference between radical clerics and normal peoples beliefs. My video showed normal people.

Manic Moran · 17-06-2016 04:34PM

wes wrote: »

aloyisious wrote: »

Looks at last line in link, think's of preent Canadian Ambassador Kevin Vickers in his previous role as Sergeant-at-Arms in Canadian Parliament.

Again the venue in this attack had an armed security guard, and there were still 49 deaths.

There is a caveat. The armed security guard was obviously so, and was the first person engaged before the shooter went into the club, which is then when the murders started. With the exception of Garland, all those other 'firearm present' shootings were stopped by individuals who identified themselves as armed only after the shooter was already happily engaged and thus did not know about the firearm until it was aimed at them.

We've armed security in our office. The guy's at the front desk. We have agreed that there is a tactical flaw in the plan, but can't think of where else to put him in the floor plan. :-/

Bannasidhe · 17-06-2016 04:48PM

stoplooklisten wrote: »

This guy is not the pope and has been widely condemned. The pope has quite different views and he speaks for the church more than this bishop "widely known for controversial views.".Ever heard of the New testament>

The two previous popes however...held similar views they just expressed them slightly more diplomatically.

How did John Paul and the Cardinal Ratzinger describe same-sex marriage? ... oh yes...

“Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behavior, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity,”

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

They announced that where same-sex marriage is legal Catholic politicians must oppose such laws - meaning they were telling Catholics to ignore civil laws of their governments and obey the diktats of a foreign state.

In fact -

“Homosexual acts ‘close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.’”

When Ratzinger became pope he didn't change his tune -

The homosexual inclination is however 'objectively disordered' and homosexual practices are 'sins gravely contrary to chastity'.

where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws

Now, correct me if I am wrong but it is my understanding that according to the Roman Catholic Church there is a thing called Papal infallibility which means the pope is never wrong when it comes to matters of doctrine. Surely their views on homosexuality would fall into that broad category...

If Francis says differently to John-Paul and Benedict does that means someone (or someones) got it wrong? That doctrine is not divinely inspired and is in fact the interpretation of who ever has the top job?

But does Francis actually say differently or has he just got a nicer manner and a good line in humble spin?

when Pope Francis was still Archbishop Jorge Bergoglio. At the time, he was a man who fought against progress when it came to LGBT issues and had definitively lost, presiding over an institution that was becoming increasingly irrelevant. Bergoglio had described Argentina’s 2010 same-sex marriage law, Latin America’s first, as the work of the devil.

When Bergoglio became Pope he seemed to change his tune

While not changing doctrine, the pope made his famous declaration: “Who am I to judge?” in reference to gay clergy. He has spoken of including the children of gay families and the divorced in communion

But - and this is the important part - he did not change the doctrine.

It's the same tune, just set to a more pleasant sounding arrangement - or at least that is what those on the ground in Rome believe.

Sergio Lo Giudice, an openly gay senator of the Democratic party, thinks the rhetoric is merely image. “There has been no opening on the doctrinal, so homosexuality remains for the Catholic church a sin as well as a moral disorder.”

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/13/pope-francis-lgbt-issues-rights

Essentially it seems that Francis' opinion is that Homosexuality is a moral disorder but who is he to judge.

Snickers Man · 17-06-2016 06:10PM

Sometimes verse expresses things better than prose.

Another day another crazy loner with a gun
Another mad Jihadi’s done what cannot be undone.
The Congress person semi automatically declares:
“To the victims of this tragedy we send our thoughts and prayers”

If guns are regulated well we’re on a slippery slope
To common sense and public safety, reason, peace and hope.
But rest assured we have the issue square in our cross hairs
And to the victims of this tragedy we send our thoughts and prayers.

“Aim high!” we say. “Shoot Straight!” we cry. “Go for the kill!” we shout.
We’ve got the enemy in our sights we say “Let’s take him out!”
We vomit violent rhetoric like drunken legionnaires.
But the victims of this tragedy are in all our thoughts and prayers.

Let’s work for open carry
So Curly, Moe and Larry
Can act like Dirty Harry
Now let us pray for peace.

And throw another AK47 on the cart
For hunting deer, of course, or just shopping at Wall Mart
We answer to a higher truth called “what the market bears”
And to the victims of this tragedy we send our thoughts and prayers.

“The tree of liberty is watered with a tyrant’s blood”
So said Thomas Jefferson or was it Elmer Fudd?
For bloody insurrection a true patriot prepares.
And to the victims of this tragedy we send our thoughts and prayers.

So take comfort—I mean cover—it’s a problem we can’t fix.
There’s nothing certain in this life but guns and lunatics.
Our words say that we’re sorry but our actions say “Who cares?”
And to the victims of this tragedy
And every subsequent tragedy
We send only our thoughts and prayers.

It's actually a song. If you're interested you can see it performed by its author Roy Zimmerman here.

stuar · 17-06-2016 06:22PM

Orlando attack, ISIS propaganda video

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9d7_1466179069

RobertKK · 17-06-2016 06:46PM

stuar wrote: »

Orlando attack, ISIS propaganda video

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9d7_1466179069

They claim Omar Mateen as one of their own.
Then they encourage more attacks on Europe and America. claiming they have ISIS fighters everywhere.
Whether they do or don't life must go on.

Apogee · 17-06-2016 08:30PM

stoplooklisten wrote: »

.Ever heard of the New testament>

You mean this New Testament?

Romans 1:27 to 1:32 wrote:

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

stoplooklisten wrote: »

The 73-year-old said it was a “mistake” to write his speech purely “on a theological and academic level”.

Bishop apologizes for anti-gay speech

In a three-page letter sent to 800 of his colleagues, including priests and employees, on Wednesday night, Huonder apologized “to everyone who felt injured by my speech, in particular those of homosexual persuasion”, reported Swiss news agency ATS on Thursday.

Imagine that! He backtracked when he realised he was potentially facing criminal charges.

swissinfo wrote:

For its part, Pink Cross on Thursday said Huonder’s interview didn’t change anything regarding the organisation’s criminal complaint, saying his latest comments were simply a “lie to cover himself” in an attempt to reduce public pressure.

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/homophobia-in-the-church_catholic-bishop-justifies--death-to-gays--comments/41601446

wakka12 · 17-06-2016 08:48PM

RobertKK wrote: »

They claim Omar Mateen as one of their own.
Then they encourage more attacks on Europe and America. claiming they have ISIS fighters everywhere.
Whether they do or don't life must go on.

I reckon they didnt have a clue who Mateen was before the attack. They'll claim responsibility for anything horrific for publicity

stefanovich · 17-06-2016 09:23PM

stuar wrote: »

Orlando attack, ISIS propaganda video

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9d7_1466179069

C*nts.

wakka12 wrote: »

I reckon they didnt have a clue who Mateen was before the attack. They'll claim responsibility for anything horrific for publicity

It's sheer propaganda.

20Cent · 17-06-2016 09:39PM

wakka12 wrote: »

I reckon they didnt have a clue who Mateen was before the attack. They'll claim responsibility for anything horrific for publicity

I think this is more likely. There is a thing called leaderless resistance where information, propaganda, instructions etc are put out there by a group with a particular cause. They then hope others will take action for them. There isn't necessarily a direct link or even communication between them. Makes them much harder to defend against and stop.

cowboyBuilder · 17-06-2016 11:29PM

https://twitter.com/markbarwald/status/743626446938087424

JupiterKid · 18-06-2016 12:10AM

Over on Stormfront most poster are delighted at the massacre as they consider LGBT people to be vile perverts who molest children. This makes my blood boil!:mad:

They really are vile, pathetic excuses for human beings. White trash.

Sonics2k · 18-06-2016 12:15AM

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

https://twitter.com/markbarwald/status/743626446938087424

As has been mentioned, why not visit a lot of the Right Wing American sites were they are basically praising this guy for murdering those people? I'll absolutely agree there is a large amount of Muslims happy to see this happen, but there has also been a large amount of Christians saying the same.

Or how about this gem http://www.foxla.com/news/local-news/159911336-story

aloyisious · 18-06-2016 12:56AM

Sonics2k wrote: »

As has been mentioned, why not visit a lot of the Right Wing American sites were they are basically praising this guy for murdering those people? I'll absolutely agree there is a large amount of Muslims happy to see this happen, but there has also been a large amount of Christians saying the same.

Or how about this gem http://www.foxla.com/news/local-news/159911336-story

Despite his name, this preacher is slamming Latinos? Then again he's from out of state, in California. I hope he get's a lot of mail from other Californian citizens, and not from Anita Bryant either.

nacho libre · 18-06-2016 01:11AM

JupiterKid wrote: »

Over on Stormfront most poster are delighted at the massacre as they consider LGBT people to be vile perverts who molest children. This makes my blood boil!:mad:

They really are vile, pathetic excuses for human beings. White trash.

i would love if some of these brats had to have a life saving operation/surgery, and it could only be carried out by a dark skinned person or a homosexual. i assume they would choose death in that scenario

Jimmy Garlic · 18-06-2016 01:43AM

JupiterKid wrote: »

Over on Stormfront most poster are delighted at the massacre as they consider LGBT people to be vile perverts who molest children. This makes my blood boil!:mad:

They really are vile, pathetic excuses for human beings. White trash.

All sorts of weirdos on the internet. What possesses you to go onto stormfront to take their pulse? Surely the general opinion held by the kind of people that post on stormfront isn't a mystery.....

aloyisious · 19-06-2016 10:38PM

This interview with the U.S Attorney General Loretta Lynch cover's the shooting and gun control moves in the U.S. Senate which, if agreed, will allow the Federal Govt a temporary 72 hour block on a terror watch-listed person buying guns. The [mum] in Lynch mum headline is slang for keeping quiet on some issues.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjpnL-NhLXNAhUILcAKHf8_AvgQqQIIHDAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fpolitics%2F2016%2F06%2F19%2Flynch-mum-on-suspects-possible-arrests-in-orlando-club-massacre.html&usg=AFQjCNHHBpzDjzpNB0rQbh86b7OUtIEWdw

This story of a Chicago carpenter making memorial crosses for the 49, plus his journey to Orlando read's like something else.

http://www.wesh.com/news/chicago-carpenter-makes-49-crosses-for-pulse-victims/40127634

RobertKK · 20-06-2016 05:06PM

The Westboro Baptist church members were protesting at the funerals. A group from the Orlando Shakespeare theater turned up dressed as angels so the bereaved didn't have to see them as they attended the funeral mass for one of the victims.
Another time a group turned up and sang Amazing Grace to block out the protests.

People who protest at any funeral are just sick, to be murdered and to have protesters at your funeral...it is all just unforgivable what these people do again and again and again and will continue to do again.

aloyisious · 20-06-2016 05:45PM

I read that the WBC were given a four person licence to attend the funerals. I can understand that there's a right to protest but wonder if there's some sort of legal device that can be used, like a public order reason "we believe that as your presence will lead to major civil disorder at the funerals, you are not allowed attend at or come within a mile of the funerals area".

The hate being expressed by preachers in the US is sick, a Texan pastor praying that the survivors will die, and an assistant state attorney ranting about Orlando, resulting in him being suspended from office.

stoplooklisten · 20-06-2016 06:03PM

They are releasing the 911 calls with all references to islam censored out

Manic Moran · 20-06-2016 07:54PM

aloyisious wrote: »

I read that the WBC were given a four person licence to attend the funerals. I can understand that there's a right to protest but wonder if there's some sort of legal device that can be used, like a public order reason "we believe that as your presence will lead to major civil disorder at the funerals, you are not allowed attend at or come within a mile of the funerals area".

Synder v Phelps pretty much limits that sort of thing.

"“in public debate [we] must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous, speech in order to provide adequate ‘breathing space’ to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment"

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf

Since WBC were protesting around the corner from the funeral, not -at- the funeral, they were not considered to be liable for tort.

However, the court did observe that Maryland could well impost -some- restrictions on the matter (but didn't address the question in detail as it wasn't a matter at hand), but they do have to be narrowly tailored. "a mile" isn't going to pass muster.

Mass shooting in Orlando Nightclub

Comments