HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Calling it a terror attac...

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:42 PM

Calling it a terror attack as opposed to a hate crime.

Calling it a terror attack allows a unified politicians' response. Rubio has been interviewed repeatedly, as of course has Gov Scott. If it were called a hate crime, what would rethugs' reaction be? It would show many of them for what they are.

Reports are that he was not particularly religious, but he was homophobic. And had anger management issues.

Terror attack definition: the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature.

On edit: this seems to be primarily a hate crime, but it's politically significant to call it terrorism.





98 replies, 3346 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 98 replies Author Time Post
Reply Calling it a terror attack as opposed to a hate crime. (Original post)
JudyM Jun 2016 OP
Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #1
JudyM Jun 2016 #4
oberliner Jun 2016 #10
JudyM Jun 2016 #42
oberliner Jun 2016 #43
Lizzie Poppet Jun 2016 #28
6chars Jun 2016 #31
tecelote Jun 2016 #2
David__77 Jun 2016 #80
patsimp Jun 2016 #83
JudyM Jun 2016 #93
patsimp Jun 2016 #95
ellenrr Jun 2016 #3
Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #7
deathrind Jun 2016 #27
patsimp Jun 2016 #84
FDR_Liberal Jun 2016 #5
oberliner Jun 2016 #11
FDR_Liberal Jun 2016 #16
oberliner Jun 2016 #23
FDR_Liberal Jun 2016 #36
oberliner Jun 2016 #41
FDR_Liberal Jun 2016 #47
oberliner Jun 2016 #48
FDR_Liberal Jun 2016 #55
oberliner Jun 2016 #60
King_David Jun 2016 #77
6chars Jun 2016 #38
jberryhill Jun 2016 #78
King_David Jun 2016 #85
jberryhill Jun 2016 #98
JudyM Jun 2016 #33
yeoman6987 Jun 2016 #97
PeaceNikki Jun 2016 #6
JudyM Jun 2016 #8
PeaceNikki Jun 2016 #9
JudyM Jun 2016 #35
PeaceNikki Jun 2016 #39
JudyM Jun 2016 #44
PeaceNikki Jun 2016 #65
JudyM Jun 2016 #70
oberliner Jun 2016 #12
JudyM Jun 2016 #22
oberliner Jun 2016 #24
JudyM Jun 2016 #58
oberliner Jun 2016 #62
Bluenorthwest Jun 2016 #51
Texasgal Jun 2016 #13
JudyM Jun 2016 #19
Texasgal Jun 2016 #25
alarimer Jun 2016 #14
Miles Archer Jun 2016 #34
malaise Jun 2016 #15
MadBadger Jun 2016 #21
mcar Jun 2016 #17
JudyM Jun 2016 #26
PeaceNikki Jun 2016 #32
JudyM Jun 2016 #40
6chars Jun 2016 #50
kysrsoze Jun 2016 #18
TheFrenchRazor Jun 2016 #73
MadBadger Jun 2016 #20
JudyM Jun 2016 #30
Cayenne Jun 2016 #29
Marrah_G Jun 2016 #37
deathrind Jun 2016 #45
JudyM Jun 2016 #46
Rex Jun 2016 #49
JudyM Jun 2016 #52
Rex Jun 2016 #53
6chars Jun 2016 #57
JudyM Jun 2016 #59
6chars Jun 2016 #69
JudyM Jun 2016 #74
annavictorious Jun 2016 #54
still_one Jun 2016 #56
braddy Jun 2016 #61
ileus Jun 2016 #79
Odin2005 Jun 2016 #63
justiceischeap Jun 2016 #64
Rex Jun 2016 #66
justiceischeap Jun 2016 #67
JudyM Jun 2016 #75
justiceischeap Jun 2016 #88
JudyM Jun 2016 #91
JudyM Jun 2016 #71
hay rick Jun 2016 #68
JudyM Jun 2016 #72
David__77 Jun 2016 #82
JudyM Jun 2016 #87
David__77 Jun 2016 #90
JudyM Jun 2016 #92
David__77 Jun 2016 #81
JudyM Jun 2016 #89
Act_of_Reparation Jun 2016 #76
w4rma Jun 2016 #86
JudyM Jun 2016 #94
yeoman6987 Jun 2016 #96

Response to JudyM (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:43 PM

1. Indeed

 

Actually, I think it was both

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #1)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:48 PM

4. It's about his goals... He had a rage issue and was upset at gays kissing.

Definition: the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Reply #4)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:58 PM

10. "and was upset at gays kissing."

 

This could very easily turn out to be BS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #10)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:24 PM

42. His father suggested that's what his motivation was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Reply #42)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:26 PM

43. Perhaps his father is lying?

 

Again, I assert that it is way too early to make these sorts of pronouncements.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #1)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:16 PM

28. Agree: a bit of both.

 

I can't imagine it makes much difference to the families of the dead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #28)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:19 PM

31. A lot of both

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:46 PM

2. Yes. By defining what group he is from will demonize that group.

He was a nut.

No reason to attack another country.

Every reason to support gun control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Reply #2)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 01:08 PM

80. He was a Muslim. There's no need to "demonize."

He was a Muslim who supported Islamic State.

There is a real, existing organization called Islamic State that wants to annihilate homosexuals.

As a gay man, this is of particular concern to me. I support the complete destruction of Islamic State and like Islamist organizations and the deportation/prohibition of entry of non-citizens who support the death penalty for homosexuality. I support the comprehensive attack against the ideology underlying these organizations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Reply #2)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 01:14 PM

83. it might stop future deaths if we understood and dealth with the motivation

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patsimp (Reply #83)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 01:46 PM

93. Right, and promote education about it and a more peaceful society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Reply #93)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 02:01 PM

95. Hopefully.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:48 PM

3. what did they call the attack on the abortion provider? nt

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellenrr (Reply #3)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:51 PM

7. Should have been called what it was

 

Domestic terrorism

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #7)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:15 PM

27. Agree 100% nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellenrr (Reply #3)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 01:15 PM

84. when was the last attack on the abortion providers?

how many were killed? Was there a foreign power calling them to war?

And, yes, those Christian radicals should be in jail too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:49 PM

5. Yeah

 

I think it was a hate crime and he just used Islam to justify it. He wanted gay people to die so he looked at religion and thought ok, ill use this to convince myself im not a bad guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FDR_Liberal (Reply #5)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:58 PM

11. Why did he want gay people to die?

 

What gave him the idea that anything was wrong with gay people?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #11)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:06 PM

16. I have no idea

 

Maybe a family member of his touched him at a young age, maybe his friend was raped by a man or something i dont know, and for anyone to assume they know is kind of crazy. All we have to go off of is what happened and what we know for sure.

We know he targeted gay people. We know he had mental issues. We know he didnt like seeing men kissing. We know he said he aligned with isis. Ive also heard reports, not sure if its true, that he actually wasnt that religious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FDR_Liberal (Reply #16)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:09 PM

23. Maybe he followed an ideology that preached homophobia?

 

It's weird how you posit a lot of maybe's in your first paragraph, but in your second paragraph you write: "We know he didnt like seeing men kissing." I'm wondering how it is you can assert with confidence that "we know" that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #23)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:20 PM

36. Yeah youre right

 

I dont know anything, you know everything. It has to be the fault of Islam and Islam alone.

I said all those maybes because your asking me answer a question that no one currently knows the answer to. Im not one to assume fact, i can tell you like to but im good on that.

You have you're agenda to blame it on Islam and muslims, its real clear dude, ill let ya be hoss. Keep preaching hate in an attempt to create peace, that should work....smh

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FDR_Liberal (Reply #36)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:23 PM

41. Huh?

 

I think you misunderstand entirely my post.

All I was saying is that we don't really know anything about this person or why he did what he did. Let's not jump to any conclusions based on incomplete information.

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that this attack should be blamed on Islam and Muslims.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #41)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:30 PM

47. Nothing like dog whistles

 

"We dont really know anything about this person"...yet the post prior you make an assumption that it couldve been his ideology that caused him to do it. I say its a hate crime and have facts to back it up and you say, "no, you cant make assumptions, foul!"

I dont know what conclusion i jumped to... he targeted a gay bar, thats clear as day. Gay people tend to go to gay bars. Targeting a person based on their sexual orientation is a hate crime. Gay is a sexual orientation btw.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FDR_Liberal (Reply #47)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:33 PM

48. Dog whistles?

 

Pretty sure you and I are the only ones reading this exchange, so I am not sure what metaphorical dogs you think are being whistled to.

I presented a maybe, as you presented several maybes. You proposed a few ideas as to why you think this person may have committed this horrible crime. It is also maybe possible that he followed an ideology that preached homophobia.

People are not generally born hating homosexuals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #48)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:42 PM

55. Ughh

 

I hate having to explain to you different things. First you make an unfounded assumption that know one else is reading this, you have no way of knowing that notnto mention its irrelevant. When i say dog whistle, i mean youre trying to make a point with out saying the words exactly. Example. Obama got the urban vote (translation... obama only got black people to vote for him cause hes black).
When you talk ideology, its clear as day that you really are trying to say its Islam.

The tiniest % of muslims are radicalized.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FDR_Liberal (Reply #55)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:48 PM

60. OK

 

I don't wish to aggravate. I am just suggesting that he might've been taught homophobia from some influential figure in his life, such as a family member, a teacher, a religious figure, etc. Many of the horrible crimes committed against homosexuals over the years have been motivated by firebrand religious types preaching hate, so it is certainly possible that such teachings played a role. It's also entirely possibly that he was just an unhinged lunatic and heard voices or something along those lines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FDR_Liberal (Reply #36)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 01:05 PM

77. Well in this case it was a Gay hating Islamic radical vermin scum

That's fact.

Do you think there should be any tolerance or a pass to any culture or religion preaching violence against LGBTQ? - I think their should be Zero Tolerance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #23)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:21 PM

38. some background here

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #23)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 01:05 PM

78. There are many such ideologies - the common thread is hating gay people

 



Should we be going after the hate, or the "ideology":

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.668796

6 Stabbed at Jerusalem Gay Pride Parade by ultra-Orthodox Jewish Assailant

As a non-participant in various "ideologies", please tell me the utility of knowing which of many species of gay-hating "ideology" may or may not have been involved.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #78)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 01:15 PM

85. And that kind of hate is not tolerated in Israeli or Jewish culture

Homophobia should not be given a pass to any culture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to King_David (Reply #85)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 05:38 PM

98. So? That person clearly subscribed to an ideology in which hate is fine

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FDR_Liberal (Reply #5)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:19 PM

33. Exactly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FDR_Liberal (Reply #5)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 02:07 PM

97. Well he wanted Disney but too many security challenges

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:49 PM

6. They are not mutually exclusive. It seems like both.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #6)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:55 PM

8. ISIS "culture" condones hatred and violence against LGBT but but he wasn't religious.

It seems he was claiming cover of ISIS to justify his homophobic violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Reply #8)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:57 PM

9. I believe his hatred of LGBT was rooted in extremist beliefs.

Practicing or not, he was raised as an extremist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #9)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:20 PM

35. The reports on CNN are that he was *not* raised in a religious home.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Reply #35)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:22 PM

39. One does not have to be 'religious' to be an extremist.

You keep saying religious, I didn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #39)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:26 PM

44. Ok, extremist, then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Reply #44)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:53 PM

65. CNN is reporting he regularly attended mosque 3-4 times per week.

And as recently was two days ago. So he was also religious, I'd argue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #65)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 11:55 PM

70. Yes, this is coming out now. First reports were the opposite, which is what my post was directed

toward.

At this point it looks like religion-fueled aggression against gays. Still not looking like a jihad-type act, more of a personal hate crime fueled, as noted, by religion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Reply #8)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:59 PM

12. How do you know that he wasn't religious?

 

What are you basing that on?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #12)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:09 PM

22. Reports that his lifestyle was not religious... "Chasing women," etc., that his family isn't

religious, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Reply #22)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:10 PM

24. And you are confident about the veracity of these "reports" ?

 

Seems a little early in the investigation process to know what's what.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #24)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:45 PM

58. Obvsly only based on what has been reported. Just how I'm putting it together. The loaded

nature of the terrorism moniker seems premature, if appropriate at all. We may learn differently, but at this point calling it terrorism detracts from the horror of this hate crime, which makes it more palatable for conservatives to speak out against, and more unifying for the media.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Reply #58)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:50 PM

62. Understood

 

It just seems that people tend to pick and choose which reports to emphasize and which ones to de-emphasize. I don't mean to direct that at you in particular, more a general observation of what I am reading in social media from various corners. My only assertion is that it is very possible that things that are being reported now may not turn out to be accurate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Reply #22)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:39 PM

51. Because the religious are never hypocrites who do as they wish while judging others for doing the

 

same, right? Extremists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:00 PM

13. Isn't terrorism in itself

a hate crime?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Texasgal (Reply #13)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:07 PM

19. Definition of hate crime:

FBI definition: a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.”

Not because of being American...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Reply #19)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:13 PM

25. So, are these not things that terrorism

goes after?

Terrorism is HATE!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:01 PM

14. It was both.

It was also a hate crime on two levels (at least). It was Latino night at the club and many in the crowd were Latino. Maybe that was entirely coincidental, but perhaps not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alarimer (Reply #14)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:20 PM

34. Agree 100%.

This one's not going to be easily defined. It had elements of both.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:03 PM

15. What I know is that so far every dead person is Hispanic

and it was a gay night club.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Reply #15)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:08 PM

21. I assume the former is because it was Latin Night

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:06 PM

17. President Obama and HRC have called it both

And they are correct. KT was an act of terrorism and of hate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mcar (Reply #17)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:15 PM

26. It is clearly a hate crime. That should be the lead.

He has no affiliation with a foreign terrorist organization, according to CNN. Reports are that he wasn't religious. It looks much more like he justified the abominable hate crime by conveniently claiming the mantle of religion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Reply #26)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:19 PM

32. He's been on FBI watch list for being an ISIS sympathizer for several years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #32)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:22 PM

40. That could as well be about hatred and violence. Reports are that he was not a practicing Muslim.

He was hate-filled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Reply #26)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:35 PM

50. occam's razor

He pledges allegiance to a religous group that advocates what he did and calls for people like him to do what he did. Everyone else in the whole world, whatever their feelings, did not do what he did and what that religious group advocates. What are the odds of that?

He probably believes the religion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:07 PM

18. Hate crimes are terrorist attacks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kysrsoze (Reply #18)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 04:26 AM

73. that's exactly what they are. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:07 PM

20. If he pledged allegiance to ISIS, how can you say he's not particularly religious?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadBadger (Reply #20)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:18 PM

30. All the other data points/evidence they have on him. If you were going to go out and kill

a bunch of LGBTs because you were offended by their kissing wouldn't you claim it was because of your religion?

That is what happens all the time with violence by the "Right"... That is how they justify oppressive laws, as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:17 PM

29. The language police will weigh in soon

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:21 PM

37. Sadly, it is both

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:28 PM

45. IMO there really is no difference.

One follows the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deathrind (Reply #45)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:29 PM

46. We should call homophobic violence: homophobic violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:35 PM

49. Well the gunman meant to cause terror and it was a hate crime.

 

So I think it is terrorism and a hate crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #49)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:40 PM

52. The definition is a planned attack to achieve ideological, religious, etc goals, not just

to cause terror.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Reply #52)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:42 PM

53. Isn't that exactly what the gunman did? Planned attack. Check. Achieve ideological goal

 

(kill gay people). Check. Sounds just like a terrorist. Question, is all terrorism political?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Reply #52)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:43 PM

57. ISIS does have some goals it uses terror like this for.

I don't understand the need to prove that this is not terrorism. It's not like we need to worry about hurting the terrorists' feelings, or this particular killer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 6chars (Reply #57)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:47 PM

59. It downplays the horror of homophobia. And is more convenient for conservatives and the MSM.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Reply #59)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 11:35 PM

69. Ah

I do think that this was homophobia of the radical Islamic variety. But I agree that homophobia is hugely what happened. It was disgusting to read comments on news sites from gay haters of the more common american type, which show just how pervasive gay hate is. I am calling it that not homophobia because that is too gentle an euphemism. I hope all Americans will be shocked into realizing how horrible these attidues are and that the Muslim world is too. Too many lessons here, in this intersectionality of evil.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 6chars (Reply #69)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 12:57 PM

74. Yes, the big discussion is about finding his terrorist roots, as opposed to his homophobic roots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:42 PM

54. Would the definition be important in determinig who gets to lead the investigatio?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:43 PM

56. It is both

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:50 PM

61. It was a Muslim terror attack and for the group ISIS, what is confusing about that?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to braddy (Reply #61)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 01:06 PM

79. Most don't see ISIS as an enemy and Christians are the real enemy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:28 PM

63. It's both a terrorist attack and a hate crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:34 PM

64. JudyM, calling it only a terror attack kinda erases the group of people that were terrorized

This was a very specific terror attack on the LGBTQ community, which also makes it a hate crime. It's terrific for the GOP to frame this solely as a terror attack, because they don't have to think or talk about their culpability in the whole massacre. Fomenting an environment, whether by words or deeds, that it's okay to hate or actively legislate against the LGBTQ community.

Thankfully, both President Obama and Hillary Clinton have acknowledged who this actually happened to. So has MSNBC, but many other media outlets are ignoring a very large aspect of the story--that this was the largest hate crime against a minority community in recent history-- and it's important to report that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to justiceischeap (Reply #64)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:57 PM

66. Wonderful reply!

 

I don't think the OP gets it. To think there is only ONE kind of terrorism is to be uninformed imo.

There is narco-terrorism, issue oriented terrorism(of which this crime fall under imo), pathological terrorism, state terrorism...I am leaving off some, but there are more types as well.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #66)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 09:10 PM

67. It's true, the OP doesn't seem to grok there are all types of terrorism

and what happened in Orlando, it was a very specific type of terrorism (domestic) and a hate crime. When one specifically targets a specific class of people in the US, that automatically makes it a Federal hate crime. All the boxes have been ticked on this attack. Mostly though, I think people are just comfortable not talking about the LGBTQ community because if we mention the victims of this crime, we have to pray for gay people, that's problematic for the entire GOP and for a lot of people in this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to justiceischeap (Reply #67)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 01:02 PM

75. Plus all the discussion in the press is about finding his terrorist roots. Nothing about the roots

of his homophobia, planted by his father and likely nourished by radical Islam. Why isn't there more discussion in the press about homophobia, more "investigative journalism" about it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Reply #75)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 01:31 PM

88. Because the only people that really care about the issue

are the ones effected by it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to justiceischeap (Reply #88)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 01:42 PM

91. Yes, most people do not care about the LGBT community, even if they feel we should have rights,

societal institutional thinking, mostly promoted by holier than thou-ness of religion, makes people feel it's ok to marginalized and even attack LGBTs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to justiceischeap (Reply #64)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 11:57 PM

71. Yes, completely agree. You said it well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 09:25 PM

68. The media and the political establishment are looking for terrorism.

All information that fits that narrative will be amplified. Here's a story that doesn't fit so well: http://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/news/omar-mateen-a-trail-of-dead-ends-and-contradiction/nrfL6/?3434&ecmp=newspaper_email##

From the article

Both Mateen’s father and a former colleague suggested one other motivation.

“I never heard him refer to anybody who was black or gay as anything else but n——-s and queers,” said Daniel Gilroy, who worked with Mateen as a security guard for G4S, the world’s largest security company.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hay rick (Reply #68)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 12:04 AM

72. Yes, it doesn't fit and also amplification of the terrorist narrative. But he was foremost a bigot.

Thank you for that link, hay rick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Reply #72)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 01:12 PM

82. Foremost a bigot and not foremost what?

Archie Bunker was a good example of a bigot. I think an awful lot of people are bigots without killing dozens of people with gunfire.

I do not understand this person as "foremost a bigot." I understand him now as foremost a killer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David__77 (Reply #82)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 01:31 PM

87. As between Islamic terrorist and bigot. That was the context. He is certainly also a killer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Reply #87)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 01:42 PM

90. Thank you. I understand.

I don't think I would counter-pose those two concepts. That might be valid from a tactical/PR standpoint, I suppose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David__77 (Reply #90)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 01:44 PM

92. IMO it's in fact a *critically important* distinction, for reasons expounded above by others as well

as me. Read if you care to...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hay rick (Reply #68)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 01:10 PM

81. Looking for terrorism?

I understand that "terrorism" is a word that people made up, just like any other word. That said, if this incident is not terrorism, then I cannot imagine that anything is terrorism. Was 9/11 a hate crime?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David__77 (Reply #81)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 01:34 PM

89. Please read the rest of the thread for development of the idea, it's more layered than what's in

this small branch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Original post)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 01:03 PM

76. There's no reason it can't be both.

Hate crimes are by their very definition terrorism. Through use of violence, the perpetrators seek to terrify the targets of their hatred into subservience, docility, or invisibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Original post)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 01:25 PM

86. There is no difference between a hate crime and a terror attack.

 

Both are attacks meant to scare people into acting differently than they would have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to w4rma (Reply #86)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 01:48 PM

94. It is more subtle. Explained in other DUers' comments above.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Original post)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 02:04 PM

96. President called it a terror attack. Good enough for me. I trust him to know

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread