36
   

Terror at Orlando Nightclub, 20 Feared Dead.

 
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Jun, 2016 06:23 pm
@snood,
snood wrote:
Wow, fight 'em over there, so we don't have to fight 'em over here. Why didn't anyone else think of that?

They did, but does it seem to you that our methods have been effective? Isn't this something the West should be thinking about?
revelette2
 
  3  
Reply Sun 12 Jun, 2016 06:34 pm
@Brandon9000,
We have troops everywhere over "there." We are spread from one end of the ME to the other. It is not easy to fight when IS doesn't really have a country and no real central organization in one place. Their leaders tell their followers to attack when and where the opportunity presents itself. It is cheap and relatively easy. We should be able to keep them from getting guns if they are suspected terrorist though.

Fears grow about rising US troop levels in Middle East

RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Sun 12 Jun, 2016 09:22 pm
@snood,
Quote:
I mean, seriously - what's someone got to do to be refused the right to buy an assault rifle?


Take a shot at a N R A big shot. Might change the whole dynamic.
0 Replies
 
miowmiow
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2016 03:47 am
@Region Philbis,
condolence
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2016 04:28 am
Heard from people who know the parents of the shooter, that this club has several bouncers on the door, and there's still no CCTV footage of the massacre. Cameras everywhere in this venue.

Not to mention cameras in every person's hands these days.

Where's the footage? Anyone seen any?
snood
 
  3  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2016 05:14 am
@Builder,
Builder wrote:

Heard from people who know the parents of the shooter, that this club has several bouncers on the door, and there's still no CCTV footage of the massacre. Cameras everywhere in this venue.

Not to mention cameras in every person's hands these days.

Where's the footage? Anyone seen any?


If it's true there were fixed cameras in the building, don't know why footage from those club cameras isn't surfacing. But as for no footage from handheld personal cellphone cameras - that might be attributed to the sudden, swift intense terror with which people were seized. I heard interviews where people that were there were immediately face down in the floor and trying to inch their way to an exit.

The closest I could find to on the spot video was this, from outside immediately afterwards...

djjd62
 
  7  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2016 05:52 am
@snood,
i doubt they'll release any footage until all the victims have been identified, which they haven't as far as i know, i'm sure the police have seen any footage relevant to the case, they seem to have got the gunman, so there's no need to show footage to help identify a suspect or warn the public

as for me, i have no desire to see the footage

if anyone is suggesting some false flag or conspiracy in no footage, they're delusional
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  6  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2016 07:31 am
@Builder,
They haven't even removed all the bodies yet and you want the video footage? Could you be any more macabre?

National news has been showing several vidoes taken from inside the club and posted to social media before the shooting started. I don't think people were taking much time to update their Facebook status after the shooting started.
revelette2
 
  3  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2016 07:43 am
Orlando gunman known to FBI shows difficulty of 'lone wolf' cases

Quote:
The mass slaughter at an LGBT nightclub in Orlando was performed by a man known for years to federal law enforcement but whose connections to terrorism were found to be insubstantial, highlighting a vexing problem for counter-terrorism investigators and privacy advocates.

US officials, former FBI agents and counter-terrorism experts say the FBI retains significant data on people it interviews even after it determines they do not pose a security threat, and caution that spreading that information beyond the bureau carries with it a “profound” risk to privacy rights.

US officials have for years warned that so-called “lone wolf” terrorists, unconnected to established and monitored extremist groups, are notoriously difficult to identify in advance of an attack. But in the case of Orlando shooter Omar Mateen, the apparent lone wolf was a known quantity to the FBI.

FBI counter-terrorism officials “pursue all possible leads and once that’s been exhausted, it’s closed”, said Erroll Southers, a former FBI counterintelligence and terrorism agent.

“If there’s nowhere else to go, there’s nowhere else to go, and it appears in Mr Mateen’s case, there was nowhere else to go and they closed it. That was the appropriate action.”

Acrimony over the shooting, which left 50 dead and 53 wounded, is likely to spark new debate about whether someone interviewed by the FBI but not considered a threat ought to be able to board an airplane or purchase a gun, or should fall under continued surveillance.

US officials, particularly from the FBI, called the Orlando massacre an “act of terror” but emphasized that an investigation was just beginning and did not issue definitive statements about Mateen’s motive. His father told NBC News that he was incensed after seeing two men kiss and that his slaughter was not religiously motivated. But, reportedly, Mateen called 911 ahead of the attack and declared fealty to Islamic State.

Ron Hopper, the FBI special agent on scene in Orlando, told reporters on Sunday afternoon that the bureau had on three occasions in 2013 and 2014 interviewed Mateen. In 2013, Mateen was suspected of making “inflammatory comments” to co-workers at the security firm GS4 that employed him since 2007, and called in to talk with the FBI twice. For a time, he was placed under surveillance. Yet the investigation was closed after agents were unable to verify any suspicious ties.

The following year, the FBI interviewed Mateen concerning a connection with a Florida man who travelled to Syria and became a suicide bomber for al-Qaida’s local affiliate. But it concluded that Mateen’s ties to Moner Abu-Salha were “minimal” and did not represent a substantive link, Hopper said.

According to FBI veterans, the bureau is permitted to keep sheafs of data on people it interviews even after it discounts them as a security or public-safety risk. Formal rules, including the federal Privacy Act, bar the bureau from widely disseminating that data to partner agencies or private firms, although experts caution that recent FBI partnerships have opaque or unclear rules about shareable information.

“The implications for an individual’s privacy are profound if that type of information is shared,” said Michael German, a former FBI investigator now with New York University’s Brennan Center. “If a cloud of suspicion surrounds an individual, you can never prove you’re not a terrorist.”

Civil libertarians have expressed concern that the FBI’s “assessments”, as described in a declassified 2009 bureau document, provide the bureau with extensive data on people for whom it lacks sufficient factual predication to open an investigation, let alone to seek indictment. The document permits such assessments to include employment information, phone and email accounts, passport data, social security numbers and “any other unique identifying numbers relevant to database checks, such as alien registration number, driver’s license, etc”.

The document encourages bureau field offices to “close PIs [preliminary investigations] that, based on the Baseline Collection and intelligence developed, do not warrant the commitment of further investigative resources”. But it does not mandate the purging of data from those preliminary investigations.

A spokesman for the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center, which maintains the bureau’s watchlists, would not say if Mateen was on a bureau watchlist or had been removed from one.

“The Terrorist Screening Center does not publicly confirm nor deny whether any individual may be included in the US Government’s Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB) or a subset list,” spokesman Dave Joly said in an email.

“Disclosure of an individual’s inclusion or non-inclusion in the TSDB or on the No Fly List would significantly impair the government’s ability to investigate and counteract terrorism, and protect transportation security.”

Former bureau officials said that keeping even preliminary inquiries open past the point where they established substantive connections to security threats risked overtaxing law enforcement resources and missing genuine threats in the shuffle.

Experts in homegrown terrorism said that a prerequisite for finding domestic lone-wolf extremists before they commit acts of terrorism is robust trust between local communities and the government – something lacking in US Muslim communities that see themselves treated as undifferentiated threats, through FBI and police infiltration of mosques, surveillance and compelled informants.

“You can’t do these programs without some level of trust beforehand,” said Seamus Hughes, who studies homegrown extremism at George Washington University.

Southers, who will brief TSA and state department officials this week on homegrown extremism, said the FBI’s investigative rules provided sufficient flexibility to reopen investigations when additional evidence warranted it. He said he could only think of one prior case where the bureau came to close investigations on people who subsequently committed acts of terrorism: the Tsarnaev brothers, the architects of the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing.

“What this illustrates is the difficulty in trying to identify people who would do things like Mr Mateen did today,” Southers said. “There is no profile.”
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2016 09:06 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

They haven't even removed all the bodies yet and you want the video footage? Could you be any more macabre?

National news has been showing several vidoes taken from inside the club and posted to social media before the shooting started. I don't think people were taking much time to update their Facebook status after the shooting started.

Yeah, just for the record I don't want to see any graphic footage either. I can't imagine any good reason anyone would.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  4  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2016 10:44 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:
Seriously, a disproportionate fraction of the terrorist attacks I see on the news, seem to involve Islamic fundamentalism - Paris, Belgium, several here in America. It seems like a problem. Why doesn't America and the West come up with a more effective plan for defeating them where they live, so that we won't have to deal with their efforts so often where we live? It looks like we're not winning.


Similarly one could say that a disproportionate number of serial killings are perpetrated by single white males, why don't we defeat them where they live?

Well because they represent a tiny fraction of the demographic so it's not like identifying them as the stereotypical suspect does much to help prevent it, you are still looking for needles in haystacks, and because crime and violence is always hard to prevent.

In a tidy, perfect world security would be about deterrence, but in the real world there is little to nothing to stop anyone from killing many people other than their desire for self-preservation and it is largely our ability to catch and punish people that keeps us safe.

If someone is willing to forfeit their life to kill other people there is little society can do to stop them. Our security and our lives has always depended on there not being that many of these madmen.
edgarblythe
 
  3  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2016 10:58 am
There are about 3 million assault rifles already in the hands of the public. Don't know why they were stupid enough to allow this, but I blame it on stupid government officials.

People who are going berserk about Muslims don't seem to connect how many "regular Americans" are shooting up people in theaters, schools and churches, not to mention bombing OK City federal building.
edgarblythe
 
  3  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2016 11:16 am
http://brainsandeggs.blogspot.com/

It was the worst act of terrorism on American soil since Sept. 11, 2001, and the deadliest attack on a gay target in the nation’s history, though officials said it was not clear whether some victims had been accidentally shot by law enforcement officers.

It's a hate crime against gays. No, wait: it's radical Islamist terrorism -- and that means it's Obama's fault; after all, he sort of predicted it less than two weeks ago, AND Ted Cruz and Donald Trump both said so. They're probably not altogether wrong about that, either; is this sick enough for you yet? I just hope the president doesn't say "that's not who we are", because it's precisely who we are.

“Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism,” (Drumpf) wrote. “I don’t want congrats, I want toughness & vigilance. We must be smart!”

'Smart' is just not going to be possible for you and your ilk, Don. Ever. What's your Plan B?

I'm still #FuckTheNRA, personally.

The vast majority of guns used in 16 recent mass shootings, including two guns believed to be used in the Orlando attack, were bought legally and with a federal background check. At least eight gunmen had criminal histories or documented mental health problems that did not prevent them from obtaining their weapons.

Go ahead take a look, then filter it through the reality of the same old politicos posting the same meaningless #ThoughtsandPrayers on their social media accounts while they deposit another check from Wayne LaPierre. Keep in mind that, like Dan Patrick, some people believe their thoughts and prayers were answered when more than a hundred Latinos/as, many of them LGBT, were struck down by bullets early yesterday morning.




As an atheist, my question is: why do you want to worship such a god as that?

Want to read more Tweets like that one above? Here you go.

Not bothered enough yet?

Some Hillbots thought it would be primo to take a shot at Bernie Sanders over his gun policy. And some Sandernistas fired right back with a full clip at Hillary:

“This is the deadliest mass shooting in the history of the United States and it reminds us once more that weapons of war have no place on our streets.”
But those “weapons of war” have been used on the streets of Iraq and in midnight raids on the civilian population in the war there that Hillary so ardently backed.
Does she even grasp what she is saying? She is saying that it is an atrocity to use such weapons on Americans – but not on the brown people, civilians in their homes, in Iraq and throughout the greater Middle East and North Africa in U.S. wars of aggression and the occupation. To be horrified by the use of those weapons on Americans but not on Arabs qualifies as racism of the basest sort.

Not ugly enough for you yet? Want more?

Sorry but I can't take any more. Here's some Onion-style satire, this is my stop.

ORLANDO, FLORIDA (The Nil Admirari) - Today, a number of Americans and corporate news outlets were not intentionally being sarcastic when they described the latest mass shooting in the United States as "unbelievable" and "shocking."

"This is unbelievable. This kind of thing never happens in the United States," said Mandy Hammer, who awoke this morning from a coma she had been in for over fifty years.

The corporate media in the United States routinely used the word "shocking" to characterize yet another mass shooting in America, which boasted a historic body count.

Maxwell Keene, a Harvard University English professor, told TNA he was unaware of changes to the English language that would make either word appropriate to use.

A press release by the National Rifle Association informed Americans more guns would fix the epidemic of gun violence in America.

Congress confirmed any meaningful gun control remained hopelessly out of reach.​
Posted by PDiddie at Monday, June 13, 2016 1 comment: Links to this post
0 Replies
 
Angelgz2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2016 11:46 am
@Robert Gentel,
"In a tidy, perfect world security would be about deterrence, but in the real world there is little to nothing to stop anyone from killing many people other than their desire for self-preservation and it is largely our ability to catch and punish people that keeps us safe."

It's funny that I am hearing this because I had another post stating this nation's criminal justice law needs a good revamp in order to do this "punishing" correctly, instead of letting the mad go free. "DETERRENCE" is the key word here. As far is the US is concerned there isn't enough deterrence. I brought up a few cases in which this nation's justice system of "assume innocent until proven guilty" fails completely. Yet a bunch of people vote me down because they can't come up with a good argument against improving this nation's legal system just because what I proposed "assume guilty until proven innocent" *MAY*, by some very slim chance, convict someone and may also falsely sentence someone to death.

Mistakes happen and there's no way around that. You can let the terrorist and the murders go back to the street to prevent the small probability of wrongfully accusing someone. Yet, another question some hypocrites seem to never be able to answer is who's fault is it if that guy YOU deem innocent or "cured" goes on and kill 10 more people? Are YOU going to say "my hearts and feelings go with the victims again?" There's a scale to balance and we can only prevent a mistake from happening as much as we could.
Robert Gentel
 
  3  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2016 12:25 pm
@Angelgz2,
Angelgz2 wrote:
I brought up a few cases in which this nation's justice system of "assume innocent until proven guilty" fails completely. Yet a bunch of people vote me down because they can't come up with a good argument against improving this nation's legal system just because what I proposed "assume guilty until proven innocent" *MAY*, by some very slim chance, convict someone and may also falsely sentence someone to death.


Changing the burden of proof would not result in a "slim" chance of error. I haven't seen your post but it sounds like a wrongheaded proposal.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2016 12:38 pm
@Angelgz2,
"Assume guilty until proven innocent" is not only wrong headed it is a recipe for totalitarianism. By asking the not guilty to prove a negative you are allowing the government to arrest anyone they wish and confine them forever.

Here is an example. Prove you didn't conspire with the shooter in Orlando. Since you are assumed guilty with the accusation, as the prosecutor I don't have to provide any evidence you were ever in contact with them. You have to prove you never made contact by phone, email, smoke signals or telepathy or we will simply assume you are guilty. You will never be able to prove no contact when the prosecution can simply declare you guilty and you have to prove otherwise.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2016 02:24 pm
Considering that gays can openly enlist in the military branches today, being homophobic is tantamount to being unAmerican. If that is a truism, then those demographics that consider the LGBT community anathema should then be getting some sort of counseling? In otherwords, being American today might require a mindset that allows society to function in the diversity of American modernity?
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2016 03:26 pm
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:

CalamityJane wrote:

Hello, this is no act of terror - this is blatant discrimination and violence against gays. It's no coincidence that a gay club was chosen, it was a deliberate callous act against one group of people.

50 people dead, 54 wounded - the NRA can be proud of themselves!
After all it's people who kill people, not guns, right? I could vomit about all this ignorance!!


i just wonder if there are dots to be connected with the attack in France, or for that matter the attack in Tel Aviv. Meaning, the common denominators were soft targets of young non-Muslim people living a NON-Shiria lifestyle. There's an old American saying, "If it quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it might just be a duck."

P.S.: All the perps were Muslims. All the victims were "infidels."


I haven't read anywhere that the Tel Aviv terrorists were Islamists. Palestinian indignation against the Zionists' oppression is the motivating factor behind the recent attacks in Israel.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2016 03:26 pm
@snood,
snood wrote:

Quote:
There is nothing at all inherently American in the motivation and actions of this murderer or the others.


I guess a certain segment of the population has a baked-in dissonance about the connection between millions of guns, thousands of gun deaths, and the American gun culture.

The motivations and actions? No, maybe not. But the collecting and fetishizing of guns and the proliferation of military-style assault rifles and the insistence on constantly escalating the level of armament available to civilians is as American as apple pie.


Well you can express your displeasure for what you consider the American gun fetish, but to the extent such a thing exists, it doesn't follow that it is responsible for any of the mass shootings we have endured. Certainly not this one.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2016 03:34 pm
@Debra Law,
Debra Law wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Blaming ourselves and/or our nation for an attack like this is irrational and self-defeating.


I disagree. Stoking fear and hate is unacceptable, and yet that is an ongoing thing in this country. What is so different about this mass shooter targeting people because he hates them compared to others targeting those same people under the guise of religious liberty or the war against "political correctness"?
We now live in a country where "political correctness" is evil. Openly spewing hate is now embraced as American as apple pie and baseball.


Do you stoke fear and hate? I don't any I don't know anyone that does. In fact in my entire 62 year life I don't believe I've ever met anyone who did. I've met
a number of people who spout hate, but that's not the same as stoking it, and the folks who have done so are in a very, very small minority among the thousands of people I've met in my life.

It's utter nonsense to declare that spouting hate is an American characteristic.

Political correctness is sometimes evil, but mostly it's just stupid.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/25/2021 at 06:39:58