Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Mass-casualty shooting at Orlando nightclub


Still Waters

Recommended Posts

He called and said he was! What is the difference if you're in shooting people in Florida or beheading someone in Syria. If you say you are doing it in the name of ISIS, it is what it is.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bee said:

.

 

there may not have been a specific order directed at him personally --- but they have put out a general call to war for their supporters to do what they can, when they can to kill the western infidels.... ??

Quote

 

Read mo

 

 
 
sorry --- I'm having a problem with this post so it's got a double quote  and can't get rid of one ---
 
 
anyway ---
 
I wanted to add this link to further what I said earlier --
 
 

It is the first release from al-Adnani since his June declaration of the establishment of a caliphate and that Isis would be known as Islamic State.

“If you can kill a disbelieving American or European – especially the spiteful and filthy French – or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way however it may be,” said al-Adnani.

 

“Do not ask for anyone’s advice and do not seek anyone’s verdict. Kill the disbeliever whether he is civilian or military, for they have the same ruling. Both of them are disbelievers.”

 

let's see if this edit sorts it out ---- :)

 

.

Edited by bee
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, susieice said:

Apparently you can't call someone an islamic terrorist even if he calls you and tells you he is.

I will.

3 minutes ago, susieice said:

He called and said he was! What is the difference if you're in shooting people in Florida or beheading someone in Syria. If you say you are doing it in the name of ISIS, it is what it is.

Works for me.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, susieice said:

Apparently you can't call someone an islamic terrorist even if he calls you and tells you he is.

If that statement he made during that call was when he had decided to associate himself fully with Daesh, then that suggests the reason he went to the nightclub to kill all those people may have been something else, and his "conversion to fundamental Islam" was only the result of other pressures he was under.

Unless we are informed he colluded with Daesh to go to that nightclub, or they gave him it as one possible target, then we can't conclude he didn't decide to attack it simply because he was homophobic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, susieice said:

He called and said he was! What is the difference if you're in shooting people in Florida or beheading someone in Syria. If you say you are doing it in the name of ISIS, it is what it is.

You don't have to carry an ID card or letter of acceptance to claim to be ISIS member. In fact, any bank robber (in as far as he can recite the Muslim creed) can claim that he did it because he belongs to ISIS. Whether ISIS knows that or not.

And what better excuse for anybody carrying a grudge than to proclaim that they do it for Mohamed and the 40 thieves (or whatever)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, susieice said:

He called and said he was! What is the difference if you're in shooting people in Florida or beheading someone in Syria. If you say you are doing it in the name of ISIS, it is what it is.

He's just holding out hope that he can find a way to crowbar in american far right values. The oppressed and repressed homosexual who just couldn't take it anymore.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, susieice said:

He called and said he was! What is the difference if you're in shooting people in Florida or beheading someone in Syria. If you say you are doing it in the name of ISIS, it is what it is.

The Difference I am trying to say is that someone can say they are something, but receive no support from them other then a pat on the back. Then that organisation can claim responsibility.

What I am trying to get at is that this is most likely a lone wolf attack, meaning no physical support from outside. This just shows that DAESH can inspire people to do terrible things on their own with in the USA, rather then be able to plan out and attack the USA.

 

Unless some evidence shows DAESH gave him the money to buy the guns and told him who or what to target, then this is nothing but a lone wolf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, susieice said:

He called and said he was! What is the difference if you're in shooting people in Florida or beheading someone in Syria. If you say you are doing it in the name of ISIS, it is what it is.

I presume this was directed at my post above yours, susie?

According to the reports he never claimed to "be acting in the name of Daesh". He swore allegiance to that group in the call to 911 but it is not stated if he said why he was going to do what he did.

He presumably was mentally unstable, given his history of abusive behaviour, so the reasons he had for committing the act of murder could be many. Homophobia is one possibility.

Edited by Leonardo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, questionmark said:

You don't have to carry an ID card or letter of acceptance to claim to be ISIS member. In fact, any bank robber (in as far as he can recite the Muslim creed) can claim that he did it because he belongs to ISIS. Whether ISIS knows that or not.

And what better excuse for anybody carrying a grudge than to proclaim that they do it for Mohamed and the 40 thieves (or whatever)?

Since he was investigated earlier and had spoken to co-workers about extremism, what reason do I have not to believe him when he says Allah Akbar while he's shooting people.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Thanato said:

The Difference I am trying to say is that someone can say they are something, but receive no support from them other then a pat on the back. Then that organisation can claim responsibility.

What I am trying to get at is that this is most likely a lone wolf attack, meaning no physical support from outside. This just shows that DAESH can inspire people to do terrible things on their own with in the USA, rather then be able to plan out and attack the USA.

 

Unless some evidence shows DAESH gave him the money to buy the guns and told him who or what to target, then this is nothing but a lone wolf.

 

No ---- did you see the link I posted a few posts back --- there is a general call to war where supporters are told to just get on with it - and the Orlando killer has made it clear he was doing just that --

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/23/islamic-states-call-to-kill-westerners-has-terrorism-experts-divided

 

“If you can kill a disbelieving American or European – especially the spiteful and filthy French – or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way however it may be,” said al-Adnani.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, susieice said:

Since he was investigated earlier and had spoken to co-workers about extremism, what reason do I have not to believe him when he says Allah Akbar while he's shooting people.

The more important question is: If he did those things, why was he allowed to run around with a gun?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, questionmark said:

The more important question is: If he did those things, why was he allowed to run around with a gun?

I agree with that. He purchased them within the last week. Certainly because he knew what he was going to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bee said:

 

No ---- did you see the link I posted a few posts back --- there is a general call to war where supporters are told to just get on with it - and the Orlando killer has made it clear he was doing just that --

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/23/islamic-states-call-to-kill-westerners-has-terrorism-experts-divided

 

 

Yes, I am quite aware that they have called a Jihad... I believe that is like the 1 millionth call for a jihad in the last decade.

DAESH can claim they carried out this attack all they want, it makes them seem more powerful then they are. Unless they provided direct physical support this is just an Islamic nutjob lone wolf. And they are the most terrifying form of terrorism.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, freetoroam said:

Being a US citizen does not give him the right to follow a religion which he knew damn well was anti west and is not acceptable in the western world (by non muslims). This radical religion has to be banned. YES i hear some saying, "but its a free country". but a free country does not give someone the right to believe in a religion which takes away the freedom of others by murdering them in the name of their religion....not matter what religion it is. 

The free country bit does not wash, the US citizen bit does not wash either. If someone wants to be apart of the radical islamists, then they certainly should not be allowed to do it in the west! What they do in the muslim countries is not something we can have a hand in, but who is actually running the western world where they can not ban a barbaric sect which clearly hates the western world?

He could follow any religion he wants to here in the US. That's the beauty of freedom of religion.

Most Christians would say they believe in the bible and many would say that they believe homosexuality is wrong. Although the bible does advocate for killing homosexuals, most Christians would not do so. There's no reason to ban Christianity because a small percentage of Christians might commit violence. What you outlaw is the violence, and that is already against the law. 

No one is allowed to commit acts of terrorism here. That's already against the law. The problem is that although people (US citizens and others) might "be on the radar," until they do something that is actually against the law, no one can touch them. I'm sure you don't think that the government should just wholesale warehouse every US citizen who says something they don't like. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Thanato said:

Yes, I am quite aware that they have called a Jihad... I believe that is like the 1 millionth call for a jihad in the last decade.

DAESH can claim they carried out this attack all they want, it makes them seem more powerful then they are. Unless they provided direct physical support this is just an Islamic nutjob lone wolf. And they are the most terrifying form of terrorism.

.

 

well it's early days and it may come out that he had training or help from someone ---- besides the inspiration from the Global Jihad - and Islamic State -

what do you expect - that he should have marched up the street waving the Islamic State Flag shouting the usual stuff about Allah..?

.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bee said:

.

 

well it's early days and it may come out that he had training or help from someone ---- besides the inspiration from the Global Jihad - and Islamic State -

what do you expect - that he should have marched up the street waving the Islamic State Flag shouting the usual stuff about Allah..?

.

Bee you're missing the point.

We need to stop empowering DAESH. Sure they may have inspired this, but they did not carry it out. Unless evidence comes out they provided physical aid.

 

Just now, F3SS said:

Must we call them daesh? Seems to me that's their preference.

If they like it, they sure dont want it known.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/what-daesh-mean-isis-threatens-6841468

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RabidMongoose said:

ISIS have claimed responsibility.

Terrorist organizations have a penchant for claiming responsibility for attacks, whether they were actually responsible or not. If the guy actually contacted Daesh members who guided him or ordered him to do this attack, then it's a Daesh attack. If he just liked their ideology, they still bear some responsibility for spreading around that crappy ideology, but ultimately, he's a lone wolf. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, susieice said:

Since he was investigated earlier and had spoken to co-workers about extremism, what reason do I have not to believe him when he says Allah Akbar while he's shooting people.

Who is reporting that he said "Allah Akbar" while he was shooting people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, F3SS said:

Must we call them daesh? Seems to me that's their preference.

I refuse to call them IS, or ISIS or Islamic State because that implies they are a legitimate state and to my eyes they are not, but just a group of deluded murderers and criminals.

Edited by Leonardo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, F3SS said:

Must we call them daesh? Seems to me that's their preference.

People who are over there fighting them call them Daesh, because it's simply the Arabic language acronym for ISIS/ISIL. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Leonardo said:

Who is reporting that he said "Allah Akbar" while he was shooting people?

The people who survived. Are you watching the news? Probably not American, but it is being reported.

You're making excuses that I will not make for this guy.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, susieice said:

The people who survived. Are you watching the news? Probably not American, but it is being reported.

You're making excuses that I will not make for this guy.

I haven't seen anyone make excuses for him. Just because people want to actually know something, and not jump to conclusions...that doesn't mean they're making excuses. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If members of Ducks Unlimited were shooting up night clubs or government buildings from Paris to Florida to California, surely we would take their shotguns away.

Wouldn't we say-- 'Hey, you can be a member of Ducks Unlimited, but you can't own a shotgun?

But no... Muslims musn't have fingers pointed at them... that's a microagression.

 

Enough already.  Just like San Bernardino- the shooter calls 911 and states allegiance to ISIS.

And just like San Bernardino, the shooter was known to Law Enforcement, and Law Enforcement didn't act on the information they had. When are we going to error on the side of the American People? 

 

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, susieice said:

The people who survived. Are you watching the news? Probably not American, but it is being reported.

You're making excuses that I will not make for this guy.

.

 

I think some here are in denial about the problem that exists and is growing -- and the problem can't be tackled until the reality of it is faced up to --- IMO

 

.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.