Tumah
Veteran Member
Its so rare to see thoughtful terrorists these days. What a gentleman.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
50 Killed at Florida Nightclub by Muslim Man
- Thread starter Neo Deist
- Start date
gsa
Well-Known Member
I have my own problems with Rubin and I think he overstates the reach and scope of the so-called "regressive left," but many elements of the left do seem to have a problem with confronting the religious basis of homophobia unless, of course, it is white evangelicals or Catholics. Then we can talk about religion.
An attack like this one forces everyone to think about the roots of this guy's homophobia. And that might be uncomfortable for Muslims to acknowledge, but acknowledge it they must.
(Note: Even in the absence of evidence of a religious bias motivation in the North Carolina murders of three Muslim students, the same people who will rush to say "Religion of peace" and the like were ready to identify "New Atheists" as promoting Islamophobia that was responsible for those murders; when 50 gay people are murdered by someone who apparently took his religion to a dark place, we can't talk about the motivation and it is irrelevant. Go figure.)
Akivah
Well-Known Member
Actually Muslim support for terrorism is much higher than you claim. The level of support varies by country and how terrorism is defined. But a 2005 Pew Research poll found Muslim support of terrorism as high as 57% in Jordan down to 13% in Morocco.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2006/05/23/where-terrorism-finds-support-in-the-muslim-world/
He was even self-disposing!
I don't know,let them speak and see, what they would tell to victimes of massacre, and dailly victimes.
Just because someone get in bad mode or drunk ....etc ...grap machine gun and start killing people !
McBell
Unbound
Sorry for you loss.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
It goes back to the question I've asked many times here; What is the key difference between the religious person who wakes up in the morning says "Today I'm going to help people and take care of the poor," and the religious person who wakes up in the morning says "Today I'm going to kill the infidel." We can point fingers at or defend religion all we want, but until we know the whats and whys behind this difference we aren't going to be making any progress. Of course we know that most Christians and most Muslims and even most people in general are peaceful and generally non-violent, but it seems that people who have desires of violence are going to be violent and use whatever that is withing reach as an excuse. Why is that (and even with ISIS it overlooks the socio-economic factors motivating if one puts the blame entirely on religion)? In this case it becomes more important to examine this because he didn't have an upbringing in a place like Saudi Arabia, he wasn't culturally Iranian, so it does seem that we need to approach this is being more related the American culture of violence.
aint funny.
I am condolence with family victimes,whatever I believe this would not back the victimes and daily victimes of gun to alive.
McBell
Unbound
Merely answering your question as to what I would say tot he victims families.
One wonders why you think it "not funny"?
huh?
gsa
Well-Known Member
In this case he was raised by a [Taliban-supporting father](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando...ther-seddique-mateen-taliban-god-punish-gays/) who says his son was wrong to do what he did because "God will punish those involved in homosexuality." A curious view for a Taliban supporter to hold, since they made it a point to crush gay men under walls or throw them from rooftops as punishment for being "involved in homosexuality." He also explained that the sight of two men kissing was what apparently drove his son to commit mass murder.
But yes, it is a general "American culture of violence" that must explain his intense homophobia. It has nothing at all to do with his background, his religious beliefs, etc. And similarly, we can blame the "American culture of violence" on Christian murders of abortion doctors, white supremacist murders of blacks and Jews, etc.
OR, and I am just throwing this out here, we could seriously consider the role of ideology and religion in this.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I'm saying we can't just look at one factor and focus only on that. If humans were more like machines, it would work that way pretty well most of the time, but because people are more complexed than that we need to approach such issues as a sum of the whole and not just one piece of the whole. Such as, his dad apparently saying he was wrong. There was a religious basis for the hatred, we know the sight of two men kissing was apparently offensive to him, but we also know that most and normal people won't go on a shooting rampage. It needs to be approached more as a case study rather than pointing at only one aspect of his life.
Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
The Virginia Tech shooter fired off 170 rounds with a couple of handguns. If he had 300 people in one room, and was there for three hours like this guy was, he could have done it. And he was just a college student.
McBell
Unbound
What joke?When you try to make a joke by me
by your reply " sorry for your loss".
I answer your question and you gonna go all left field with it?
Ok forget about it,I am sorry.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Handguns do not have the power, in terms of the force propelling the bullet and killing power, that an AR-15 has. They can still kill, but comparing a handgun (unless it's a high powered one) to an AR-15 is like comparing a pack of firecrackers to a stick of dynamite.
Well, it would've been a hell of a lot more difficult to get it, that's for sure. Also would've been more of a chance to catch him while he was trying to access illegal weapons, as law enforcement would've been monitoring for such things. After all, stricter gun control legislation seems to work quite well in the other countries where it's enacted, so why wouldn't it work here?
Depends. You used the Virginia Tech shootings as an example. Cho used semi-automatic pistols. There's no difference between those and any other semi-automatic gun, in terms of rate of fire. The difference is the ammunition, magazine capacity and power. The weapons Cho used were obviously dangerous, but would be less inherently lethal than an AR-15, which is basically a military weapon that's just in a semi-automatic form. It fires the same ammunition as the M-16 and is much more powerful than a handgun.You can buy 100 round drum magazines for an AR-15. It can be modified to shoot shotgun shells and .50 BMGs. Obviously, an AR-15 is an optimal choice for a civilian who wants to kill a large number of people in the least amount of time. After all, that's the only reason AR-15s exist - to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time. You can't use hunting arguments, either for practical hunting or sport hunting, because an AR-15 will chew up and/or obliterate whatever you're shooting at and make it unusable for food, fur or mounting. The range or target shooting argument is ridiculous, too, because you have to wonder what the person is training for, if they're not in law enforcement or the military.
From a trauma surgeon:
"But the worst is a wound from an AR-15 or AK-47 — high-muzzle velocity weapons, which impart a tremendous amount of kinetic energy into the body. Those are much more destructive. You’re looking at a wound that, externally, is two, three, four times bigger than any handgun wound.
And that is reflective of the damage that happens on the inside. When a bullet from a high-muzzle velocity weapon hits the intestines, it’s like an explosion, whereas a low-muzzle velocity can be very similar to a knife going through the intestines; there’s bleeding, but it doesn’t destroy the whole area. A high-muzzle bullet, however, destroys whole areas of body. With a bone that’s been shot with a standard-issue caliber handgun, you’ll see a break, a hole in the bone, and maybe some displacement. But a high-muzzle weapon shatters that bone into hundreds of microscopic pieces, in a way that cannot be repaired. You need to essentially clean out the bone that has been struck and remove it from the body; it’s now a worthless tissue. You can’t believe that a bullet could do this amount of damage."
https://www.thetrace.org/2015/09/bullet-injuries-wounds-trauma-surgery/
Both of the shooters in those examples purchased their guns legally, even though Cho was known to be mentally ill.
So the difference has been made obvious to you, I hope.
Last edited:
Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
Despite this, the Virginia Tech shooting remains the second deadliest mass shooting, even though so many of those other shootings involved an AR-15, and VT did not. If Cho had one room full of 300 people, instead of moving from one classroom to another, I have no doubt that he would have caused more death than Omar.
You go ahead and believe that a handgun is just as deadly as a semi-automatic assault rifle. If you honestly believe that, despite of what I posted and despite of what the trauma surgeon who I quoted said, there's no talking sense into you. Good luck with your life.
Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
If the results were the same and the only thing that was different was that he had to put in a little more time and effort into obtaining his weapon, would that make you feel better? Would you feel less outrage if the 100 victims in Orlando were shot by a gun that was illegally obtained?