[Closed] Orlando shootings, 20 shot

Junkyard

Listen to this interview

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2015/s4327230.htm

HUSSAIN NADIM: In violent extremism. That's important. The reason why I distinguish between positive and negative radicalisation is very important because when we talk about violent extremism, that's where we often slip into the radicalisation element where we somehow (inaudible) a lot of concepts, which tends to trigger the community into a defensive mode. And which is why we see a lot of Muslims who might not be radical enough, but they start feeling the us versus - against the other divide and which drives a lot of Muslims towards radicalisation. But radicalisation, really when we speak about in the context of today world, is more about how the Muslims are looking at the world itself. There are certain ideological underpinnings that a lot of Muslims go through during their childhood, especially when their parents teach them certain things when they're living in the Western world which kind of secludes them from the rest of the society. And once that thing starts happening and I've been an advocate of this idea that radicalisation has really nothing to do with religion. I mean, there has been a study by (inaudible) University in London which completely details that radicalisation has not much to do with religion. It doesn't have much to do either with poverty or social status. A lot of people tend to believe, specifically in the Muslim community, that it's social status that drives radicalisation. Well that's not true at all. Radicalisation is really about the identity crisis and how that triggers a lot of these kids into questioning why they are here, what they want to do.

HUSSAIN NADIM: And it's very hard for them to fit in. I mean, look at what the basic problem with the Muslim community over here is. The parents want to teach their children to stay away from certain evils of what they see as the Western society - stay away from alcohol, stay away from dating. That's not what they see as a Muslim culture. So they - in order to attempt to that, the Muslim parents convert - teach these kids very ultra-conservative ideology of Islam. Now, when they grow up and they go to the universities or schools, that's where they see their ideology and their teachings coming head-on with the Australian culture. And then they question their parents, that they were taught about this certain thing, but this is not how it is. And then they look for answers and the way they find their answers is not through parents. They look for the answers on social media and that social media has a monopoly of the religious radicals as well.

I get that the constitution is important to Americans. It seems to be practically a religious artefact to some Americans.

I think this is interesting considering some of the things that were said in the fasting thread about colonialism.

HUSSAIN NADIM: The current project that I'm doing is specifically on this subject, on understanding the Muslim world view and that is at the centre of understanding radicalisation. There are certain themes that Muslims have grown up, in fact my own self, we were grown up believing certain things. One of the themes was that there would be a clash of civilisation eventually. There will be a resurgence of Islam, partly because of the entire colonisation period, Muslims have been mobilised by communities, there will come have a time when we will have our glory back. So that idea has kind of, like, travelled down to today where Muslims are looking at resurgence of Islam in a sort of global khilafah. The second idea is that Muslims generally feel that Islam is under attack. Now that has something which has very, very strong, not religiously, but politically and socially, that has a very strong value that somehow we are being under attack and the events globally might not be related to religion, but they are proving them to be right. I mean, 9/11 happened. After that there was Afghanistan. A lost Muslims said that that makes sense because 9/11 happened. But then when the US went into Iraq and then when Iran was being threatened, then Syria and all these places - I mean, look at - ask Muslims over here in Australia: who is sponsoring ISIS? And the answer you will get is that it's the US. Now that's something very disturbing because that's not really true. But the Muslims are looking at this problem as something which is driven by the US foreign policy and hence they are looking at this as a very political way which they want to counter.

The Jews and the Americans where responsible for 9-11, so goes the media in the Middle East. It was a pre-planned attack so as to justify invading Afghanistan and Iraq. The Jews, Americans and British blew up the Russian passenger plane over the Siani etc etc

All sides of the political spectrum believe in the Constitution, its quite simply the singlemost important document and forms the basis of the whole nation.

It strikes me that Tom's C&P explanation of Islam and Jamba's explanation of the Constitution aren't all that (sorry) radically different.

Both are firm, ingrained belief systems passed down from generation to generation almost like groupthink. This Is The Way It Is, and the modern world challenging that is obviously going to met with massive resistance.

Cougar, the thing is, what that chap and what I have been saying - isn't anything new at all.

I know at least one book that discussed exactly the same topic - and that was written in 1952, yet his ideas have been forgotten.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Eric_Hoffer

The Jews and the Americans where responsible for 9-11, so goes the media in the Middle East

Although it would seem that a ****stani terrorism expert is corroborating Jambys point to an extent.

http://fusion.net/story/313063/orlando-terror-attack-muslim-lgbt/

At a speech in Orlando, this scholar stated this at an Islamic convention centre “Death is the sentence. There’s nothing to be embarrassed about this. Death is the sentence.” and then stated after the attack “I am totally against the barbaric act of violence that has happened. In no way at all can such a killing be justified Islamically.”. Justifying himself as being civilised because they only kill gay people when they actually bum each other on their homesoil. Meanwhile, the Islamic centre released a statement of support for the victims.

I need to laugh at the two-faced cheek of that but I feel sick.

At the risk of getting in touch with my inner JHJ,

Did the shooter have an accomplice?

(You can skip the first 25s or so of preamble...)

Apparently a video of the shooters father has come to light wherein he declares himself the provisional leader of Afghanistan and goes on a rant about god punishing homosexuals.

At the risk of getting in touch with my inner JHJ,

Did the shooter have an accomplice?

Meh. Bullshit. I'd be more inclined to believe it if it wasn't from a conspiracy nut.

I'd be more inclined to believe it if it wasn't from a conspiracy nut.

but who else is going to root out these inconsistencies and cover-ups ?

FFS, can the EU campaign (both sides) stoop any lower??!!!! Two wrongs don't make a right but I'd really like to slap whoever thought this was a good idea......

[img] [/img]

FFS, can the EU campaign (both sides) stoop any lower??!!!! Two wrongs don't make a right but I'd really like to slap whoever thought this was a good idea......

Thank God there are no British jihadis and that there haven't been any islamic terrorist attacks in the UK

Notter that is not the official Leave campaign or even the UKIP one.

Junky isn't it something like 30% of the people in the Middle East and North Africa believe that to be true (certainly Blair said so although I appreciate he's not your number 1 source 😉 )

The father apparently said that people shouldn't punish gay people only God.

"Would there be Christian groups jumping to claim responsibility for James Howell's actions?"
Regrettably yes.
"Would there be large swathes of Christians who would feel that what he did was justified? Where would these people be? Africa maybe?"
regrettably The USA
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2016/06/christian-pastor-calls-orlando-massacre-good-news/

Thank God there are no British jihadis and that there haven't been any islamic terrorist attacks in the UK

Yes thanks, I'm aware of those having been in London on the day one of those attacks took place. My point, just in case you hadn't picked it up, was that using a reference to this shooting, 48 hours after it happened, as part of a campaign for Brexit is distasteful. By all means give it a thumbs up if you want!

Thanks for the clarification on the publisher Jamby.

certainly Blair said so although I appreciate he's not your number 1 source

I am sure we will find bonkers christian views in Africa without any real difficulty its largely about ill educated folk rather than about muslims not accepting it.

@Nottsr just so its clear I think that poster is highly distasteful

One report I read earlier said the shooter was using high capacity magazines, holding approximately 100 rounds, and which are legal in Florida! I though 40, the ones I'd found through Google, were pretty excessive, but 100, that shows real intention and commitment to causing as much havoc as possible, and one bloke being interviewed earlier specifically mentioned the fact that the shooting just did. not. stop; people hoping for a lull, in order to try to make a break, didn't get one.
The guy had really thought this through, he probably did more damage as one man than instances where there's been a group rampaging around shopping centres, etc.
Desperately, desperately sad for everyone involved, their families, the EMT's, police, etc. 🙁

franksinatra - Member

But try to find exactly where the constitution says that...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I'll wade in gently...

I am pro gun ownership. I own guns. I shoot small furry animals and, for the most part, eat them. At most, I could loose off a couple and bag a brace.

However....
Ownership of assault rifles is batshit mental outside of a military, police or security services situation. There is no possible justification or reason for any civilised country to allow their citizens to own such things. None. To compound this with the legal ownership by civilians of high-capacity magazines to feed said assault rifles is, well, I don't know what it is, but it's nothing that deserves a place in humanity.

I spend a lot of time in the States, and often in Montana with friends/colleagues who hunt often. They hunt with hunting rifles, not assault rifles. They then eat their kill, providing divine food. They also abhor the culture in which permits such stupid weapons in the hands of (And I paraphrase) "gun poseurs and criminals".

For what little it's worth, my thoughts go out to all who've suffered here, both the dead and those left to deal with the aftermath.

Flashy - I'm a non-shooting, non-gun owner, but I agree with you completely. Quite a few friends were keen shooters and felt demonised by the reactions to Hungerford and Dunblane, despite having no interest or desire to use assault weapons.

[I]Ownership of assault rifles is batshit mental outside of a military, police or security services situation. [/I]

I'd go further than that, there is no need outside the MILITARY to have and need an assault rifle.

Trump's reaction 😯

When they say "Orlando style atrocity" are you sure they don't mean EuroDisney?

There are 1,300,000 AR-15's in the US. You are never going to round all those. As mental as assault rifles are that horse has well a truely bolted. They are relatively easily available in Europe too particularly from the Balkans.

This coverage is pretty sobering, no doubting the automatic firepower

[url= http://news.sky.com/story/1710976/video-of-gunfire-from-inside-nightclub-massacre ]SKY News[/url]

I'd go further than that, there is no need outside the MILITARY to have and need an assault rifle.

Define an 'assault rifle'

i think anything with semi/automatic fire is obviously not going to be used for sport or hunting

so its for killing people? and doesnt really have a place in civilised society

be very tough to get all those guns back, but that doesnt mean it couldnt be done

I assume somebody with a small penis is busy flicking through wikigun right now kimbers.

i think anything with semi/automatic fire is obviously not going to be used for sport or hunting

so its for killing people? and doesnt really have a place in civilised society

Really? Semi auto hunting rifles are common on the Continent, especially for Boar shooting

(eg, 2:42-2:45, 3 seconds between shots)

There you go.

Define an 'assault rifle'

We don't allow them here thankfully but as I said that horse has already bolted in the US and indeed in mainland Europe.

Is 36 hits on a 40cm target @ 200M in a minute with a bolt action rifle - an assault weapon then?

45 rounds a minute definitely counts ninfan

I believe the record for an SMLE bolt action is 38 aimed rounds in a minute, at 300 yards

Knock off 280 yards and I reckon the other seven rounds won't count too much 😉

(edit, Tom - IIRC that was a Swedish or Norwegian competition? IIRC it was done with a Gustav, so you had to break eye relief between shots too - pretty stunning!)

heres an interesting one - 25-27 minutes in, bolt action matching semi auto shot for shot

Don't get me wrong, I don't like assault weapons but at the end of the day, if you're a good shooter, it's easy to knock up a 20-30 round mag and loose off shots at a rate that is not much lower than a semi-auto rifle.

Restricting semi-auto centrefires in the states will save a few lives, but not enough. Handguns will never be banned as the Americans unfortunately have such an issue with illegal firearms and such rough areas that there is a case of having them for defensive purposes - so they will never get banned let alone rounded up.

The only way that country is going to change is if they all start treating each other better or a day to day basis and improve mental health provision in schools and local communities.

If they ban AR-15's, the weapon of choice will be a pump action shotgun (or a scout rifle, like a carbine lee-enfield) and a handgun as a backup. Which will kill just as many people.

The only way that country is going to change is if they all start treating each other better or a day to day basis and improve mental health provision in schools and local communities.

agreed - we're back to that thing about treating the symptom rather than the problem.

Having said all that, their licensing regime is batshit mental. They should toughen up licensing - but that might take a small army in of itself to police.

If shotguns and handguns are just as effective and deadly as a fully automatic assault rifle i wonder why our armed forces bother with the fully automatic weapons?

wobbliscott

If shotguns and handguns are just as effective and deadly as a fully automatic assault rifle i wonder why our armed forces bother with the fully automatic weapons?

And yet nearly every military and police force uses shotguns for "urban" scenarios. But it's totally moot. With 400 million guns in circulation even if they banned gun sales tomorrow or restricted it to hunting rifles there'd still be mass shootings.

And yet nearly every military and police force uses shotguns for "urban" scenarios. But it's totally moot. With 400 million guns in circulation even if they banned gun sales tomorrow or restricted it to hunting rifles there'd still be mass shootings.

They could just do what the rest of the world did, ban the sale, ban the ownership and hold amnesties and buy backs. Then enforce the law. But hey that would violate their right to overthrow thier government wouldn't it.

Best let people get hold of weapons that can kill with great speed and efficincy that have no real place in a modern civilized world.

The fire power hanging around some parts of the US would make bit's of the middle east look a bit calm.

On the shooter himself, it sounds like he was a complete dreamer, a Walter Mitty type who was claiming links to al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, IS and probably any number of groups who are opposed to one another. On that note you can probably discount directly linked terrorism.

Nobeer - whilst I appreciate what you mean it's a sad fact that police do need heavy firepower in certain circumstances, I for one feel better that nuclear fuel has a few G36's between storage and the wider world.

If shotguns and handguns are just as effective and deadly as a fully automatic assault rifle i wonder why our armed forces bother with the fully automatic weapons?

When was anyone in the US last shot with a legally owned full auto?

mikewsmith

Yep doing nothing seems like the best solution...

I didn't say that. Obviously getting rid of guns is the thing to do but they are culturally married to guns in a way that other countries just aren't and the country is awash with them.

They could just do what the rest of the world did, ban the sale, ban the ownership and hold amnesties and buy backs. Then enforce the law.

Congratulations you just solved the problem.

But hey that would violate their right to overthrow thier government wouldn't it.

Yes it would. Ah well, problem's still there. You're talking about a country that may well be about to elect Trump, and where a huge number of people were vehemently opposed to any kind of national health care. I mean, one of the leading Republican candidates was Ted Cruz for christ sake.