Mass-casualty shooting at Orlando nightclub

[Thanato]

4 hours ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

Well, he was on the FBI threat radar at some point.

That should raise some serious questions as to why should he be able to legally buy an assault rifle then.

He didnt buy an assault rifle, unless he had that special license issued by the ATF. he had a semi-automatic rifle.

6 hours ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

''A source briefed on matter told The Post that Mateen utilized ISIS-like tactics, automatic weapons, and an explosive vest, though it was inoperable.''

Source: http://nypost.com/2016/06/12/suspected-gunman-in-florida-gay-club-mass-shooting-idd/

The gun he used is engineered for carnage. No wonder the uniformed police officer hired by the club didn't stand a chance.

The rifle he used is engineered to Fire .223 Caliber bullets in a semi-automatic fashion. Just like every other rifle that is designed to fire .223 caliber bullets in a semi-automatic fashion. The police killed him when executed their breech.

[aztek]

4 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

And which of the two have you, as an American citizen, have control over?

Are you really that slow, or you just trying hard to look like one?

citizens do not have control over anything. 

 

[Lilly]

2 hours ago, Leonardo said:

How is relaying what has been reported by official sources as it was written "parsing and twisting facts"?

Well, I was posting various links and suggesting you turn on CNN and FOX (both left and right media) that demonstrated that this was indeed a Radical Extremist Jihadist terror attack...and you were still hesitant to accept it.

Good thing you didn't take up my offer to bet on it.

[Why not]

If anyone in that Bar would have been carrying a legally concealed weapon, and knew how to use it properly, the outcome could have been much different.

[Habitat]

11 minutes ago, Why not said:

If anyone in that Bar would have been carrying a legally concealed weapon, and knew how to use it properly, the outcome could have been much different.

The "good guy with the gun" never seems to show up at these incidents.

[Lilly]

7 minutes ago, Why not said:

If anyone in that Bar would have been carrying a legally concealed weapon, and knew how to use it properly, the outcome could have been much different.

I'm not so sure...the superior fire power of an AR 15 is pretty intense. Even the sound of such a weapon can cause temporary deafness. Basically, the shooter had an overwhelming advantage. What would have really helped would have been not locking the other exits (which seems like a violation of fire laws). I wonder if the nightclub will be sited for that?

[Leonardo]

39 minutes ago, Lilly said:

Well, I was posting various links and suggesting you turn on CNN and FOX (both left and right media) that demonstrated that this was indeed a Radical Extremist Jihadist terror attack...and you were still hesitant to accept it.

Good thing you didn't take up my offer to bet on it.

I listened to CNN for about an hour because it had been reported here that they and FOX were saying the gunman had shouted "Allah Akbar" while shooting. There was no such report during the time I watched the broadcast, which spanned over a dozen separate reports of the incident and about the gunman.

In some of those reports, the CNN reporters did mention there were allegations that this was connected with Islamic terrorism via Daesh, but none of the reports stated this had been confirmed.

It is not that I am "hesitant to accept it" (i.e. automatically assume that all that was being alleged is "true"), Lilly, it is that I am hesitant to jump on a reactionary bandwagon when the facts pertinent to the assumption are still unclear. Colour me cautious if you will, but it is my opinion that it is better to be cautious and make certain of what you speak about, than to rely on reports regarding unsubstantiated allegations.

But your response here has got me curious as to how it is relevant to what I said when you quoted me?

I had been attacked as "parsing the truth" when I posted verbatim a report that had been made on an official news source. I did not claim that report was "the truth", at most I suggested that it showed there was still some lack of clarity as to the involvement of "Islamic terrorism" (specifically, Daesh) in the shootings. Why does that offend you?

Or is it simply that because I represent a different opinion than your own, you have to be angry with me and attack me?

Edited June 13, 2016 by Leonardo

[Ashotep]

12 hours ago, Leonardo said:

The BBC are reporting this...

 

 

This was quoted at 11:42 pm GMT.

I'm not saying the guy did not swear allegiance to Daesh, but it may be a bit more complicated than just saying "it was Islamic terrorism".

I would agree with that, Islam teaches hatred of gays and that they should be killed so this doesn't come from ISIS but Islam itself.

[Thanato]

11 minutes ago, Ashotep said:

I would agree with that, Islam teaches hatred of gays and that they should be killed so this doesn't come from ISIS but Islam itself.

This is also similar to what many Christians believe as well... Sooo 

[Ashotep]

Just now, Thanato said:

This is also similar to what many Christians believe as well... Sooo 

Sooo...Christians may not like gays but they aren't throwing them off buildings. 

Caught on Video=> “Gays Must Die” Says Islamic Speaker at Orlando Mosque

 

[aztek]

51 minutes ago, Habitat said:

The "good guy with the gun" never seems to show up at these incidents.

of course not, they always happen in gun free zones.

 

 

[aztek]

11 minutes ago, Thanato said:

This is also similar to what many Christians believe as well... Sooo 

no they do not,  not accepting as normal, and killing over it are 2 different things.  

[Gromdor]

1 hour ago, Why not said:

If anyone in that Bar would have been carrying a legally concealed weapon, and knew how to use it properly, the outcome could have been much different.

I know it is a bit early for the timeline, but didn't it all start with him having a shootout with police (guys legally carrying weapons) before he ran into the packed nightclub?

[questionmark]

in related news:

Quote

Missed opportunies: How FBI repeatedly dismissed concerns over Florida gunman Omar Mateen who had links to US's first suicide bomber in Syria

Omar Mateen, the gunman who killed and wounded more than 100 people at a nightclub in Florida, had been in contact with America’s first suicide bomber in Syria.

The 29-year-old American citizen whose parents had immigrated from Afghanistan, had been in regular communication with Moner Mohammed Abu Salha, a fellow Floridian who was a member of al-Qaeda-linked Jabhat al-Nusra.

In early 2014, Mateen was put under surveillance for possible ties with Abu Salha, the son of a Palestinian father and American mother who left his home state to join jihadists in Syria. 

Read more on The Telegraph

That is how well the system works, beats his wife, voices threats, has a friend who blew himself up in Syria and he walks into a gun store to buy an AR 15 and a handgun and NO PROBLEM!

 

Edited June 13, 2016 by questionmark

[aztek]

it was a security guard, only 1 guard returned fire, when police came into the bar they killed him,

[Gromdor]

Hmm, speaking of security guard.  Evidentially the shooter was a security guard for G4S which is the worlds largest security firm.  They guard a lot of high value targets and installations.  If this fellow hadn't been single mindedly hating on the gays, he could have potentially sabotaged/attacked something more vital to the infrastructure. 

[Lilly]

41 minutes ago, Leonardo said:

 

Or is it simply that because I represent a different opinion than your own, you have to be angry with me and attack me?

With all due respect...your opinion was incorrect. I pointed out (with various links) and suggested you watch the breaking media coverage demonstrating that the shooter was indeed influenced by Radical Extremist Islam . One's opinion is only as good as one's evidence. Oh, and telling someone that they're incorrect (then demonstrating exactly why they are incorrect) is not an "attack" by any standards.

How about just saying something like, "Ok, you guys were right, this one was a Radical Extremist Islamic based attack" and be done with it.

[questionmark]

3 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Hmm, speaking of security guard.  Evidentially the shooter was a security guard for G4S which is the worlds largest security firm.  They guard a lot of high value targets and installations.  If this fellow hadn't been single mindedly hating on the gays, he could have potentially sabotaged/attacked something more vital to the infrastructure. 

Well, yes, he was guarding a military installation. And that begs the question: If he had actually coordinated it with the IS, would he have attacked his own installation or his favorite "rant victims"?

[Stubbly_Dooright]

14 hours ago, pallidin said:

Say, does anyone know as to how well the surviving victims are recovering? I haven't heard, as yet, any additional fatalities.

Of course you asked this last night or so. I woke up, having my local media sites identifying one victim as a 37 woman who had the job there as security.  The rest of the article mentioned the family of her now heading down. Another mentioned a father here, of one of the performers, feeling relieved his son is alright. In fact, his son had gotten off work hours previously and went home. He then called right away to say his was alright. 

As of right now, it seems only half of the list of the victims are being identified. 

[Lilly]

12 minutes ago, questionmark said:

Well, yes, he was guarding a military installation. And that begs the question: If he had actually coordinated it with the IS, would he have attacked his own installation or his favorite "rant victims"?

The problem with attacking the military installation was that he probably wouldn't have been able to rack up a large body count. He also seemed to be inept in the bomb making department (couldn't blow anything up). And of course, he wouldn't have been able to slaughter a group of people he also hated (homosexuals). So, he gets a horrific 'two for one' deal out of slaughtering large numbers of Infidels who are gay. It's so utterly depraved.

[GlitterRose]

1 hour ago, Habitat said:

The "good guy with the gun" never seems to show up at these incidents.

Oh yeah...it would be great if all the drunks were carrying guns. Can you imagine what that would be like? It'd be like the wild west. There wouldn't be any barroom brawls anymore...people would just shoot each other. 

[questionmark]

Just now, Lilly said:

The problem with attacking the military installation was that he probably wouldn't have been able to rack up a large body count. He also seemed to be inept in the bomb making department (couldn't blow anything up). And of course, he wouldn't have been able to slaughter a group of people he also hated (homosexuals). So, he gets a horrific 'two for one' deal out of slaughtering large numbers of Infidels who are gay. It's so utterly depraved.

What? Military and morning roll call? I can't imagine any better targets if you want a big body count. And most of them will be unarmed standing on a big open field.

[darkmoonlady]

The shooter was p***ed off at seeing two men kissing, that he may have self radicalized and wanted to connect the act to ISIS is not the point. He committed the worst mass shooting and he targeted gays because HE hated gays. It is a hate crime, and whatever else it is doesn't bring people back from the dead. So arguing the finer points of a mass shooting is a sad useless waste of time. 

[+susieice]

45 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

I know it is a bit early for the timeline, but didn't it all start with him having a shootout with police (guys legally carrying weapons) before he ran into the packed nightclub?

No. He shot at the club security guard when he went to enter the club.

[Leonardo]

27 minutes ago, Lilly said:

With all due respect...your opinion was incorrect. I pointed out (with various links) and suggested you watch the breaking media coverage demonstrating that the shooter was indeed influenced by Radical Extremist Islam . One's opinion is only as good as one's evidence. Oh, and telling someone that they're incorrect (then demonstrating exactly why they are incorrect) is not an "attack" by any standards.

How about just saying something like, "Ok, you guys were right, this one was a Radical Extremist Islamic based attack" and be done with it.

Because it still is not clear if that was indeed the motivation.

I know how rumour and allegation snowballs in the aftermath of such an incident. One source reports the perp was interviewed by the FBI for alleged links to extremist ideologies, another source reports an unconfirmed story the guy was shouting "Allah Akbar" as he was shooting. Suddenly, other news sources are taking those earlier reports and reporting it was "Islamic terrorism" without any further information that was the case.

Then we read the guy made a 911 call just before he started committing those murders, and it was reported he pledged allegiance to Daesh, but I read in another news report that the authorities did not acknowledge he "pledged allegiance to Daesh", only that he indeed made a 911 call.

So, who to believe?

You can, of course, choose to believe any of the unclear and often unsubstantiated reports floating around - that is your prerogative - but you do not have the right to tell me what I should choose to believe, because to me the situation as to why the atrocity was committed is still uncertain.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Leonardo