Now, closer to the election, what framework will be imposed? Something was learned from the politics around San Bernardino and the primary season is over, so I suspect that Democrats will not choose to emphasize gun control (unless this turns out to have been a lone mentally ill person). The Democrats may try to use the idea of an attack on a gay club to criticize Donald Trump for creating a divisive atmosphere of hate, even though none of his alleged hate-mongering has been about gay people. As for what Trump and his proxies will say, it depends on who the murderer turns out to be.
I'm going to watch all the Sunday morning talk shows, and I will update this post as I hear various statements. The previous post is for comments about the terrible incident itself. Forgive me for being so brutal as to go immediately to the effect on presidential politics, but please keep the comments here to this topic, which I think is important because — like the San Bernardino massacre (and even more than it) — this event is a skewing point in electoral politics, and everyone speaking for the campaigns knows it. Sympathy will be expressed, along with warnings to wait to hear the facts, but the politics are underway, and I'm going to tell you about what everyone does on the TV shows this morning.
1. "State of the Union" with Jake Tapper devoted nearly the entire show to news coverage of the event. In the final 5-minute segment. Tapper displayed the tweets from Donald Trump — "Really bad shooting in Orlando. Police investigating possible terrorism. Many people dead and wounded." — and Hillary Clinton — "Woke up to hear the devastating news from FL. As we wait for more information, my thoughts are with those affected by this horrific act. -H" Tapper noted that the "H" at the end of a tweet on Hillary Clinton's account indicates that "she herself wrote that tweet." After that the guest is the Republican Congressman Peter King, who knows the name of the shooter but won't say it and knows of indications of "Islamist leanings," but the discussion was focused on the facts of the incident.
2. "Fox News Sunday" with Bret Baier went straight to politics, with Senator Jeff Sessions as the Trump proxy and Senator Amy Klobuchar as the Clinton proxy. Sessions, asked about the Orlando incident, said it "certainly looks like... Islamic extremism" and stressed the need to "openly and directly" confront the extremist element within Islam, including restricting immigration. Baier prompted him to connect the incident to guns and to Clinton's support for gun control, and Sessions slotted in his talking point about the Supreme Court and the supposed precariousness of the Second Amendment individual right to bear arms. Klobuchar emphasized waiting for more information and the importance of not seeming to accuse all Muslims (and she credited Sessions for having said the same thing). She brought up guns only when Baier asked her, and then only to blandly reference common-sense limits that wouldn't infringe the gun rights that she assured us Clinton believes in.
3. "Meet the Press" began with news and news analysis, and that analysis went heavily into the subject of guns, how much damage one person could do in a crowded place with the kind of guns this murderer had. The name is now being said, Omar Mateen, and there are repeated references to the man's father saying that his son was recently enraged when he saw 2 men kissing. I get the sense that the show would like to forefront hatred of gay people and minimize the significance of his religion, which is Muslim. The show switches over to Chuck Todd with the this set up: "Obviously, there are many elements to the story, we don't want to play the politics too much... but obviously, this will play into the presidential elections." That's not in the official show transcript (here). I guess the show got re-edited. Todd credits Trump and Clinton with being low key, but complains about the excessively political tweets of other, unnamed, politicians and homes in on gun control.
4. The "Face the Nation" time slot was straight news, no political spinning.
5. "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos had by far the most coverage of the presidential campaign, with a pre-recorded interview from Paul Ryan (that's worth discussing, but didn't cover the incident) and interviews with Trump's man Manafort and with Bernie Sanders. But there was a panel in the end — transcript —that eventually touched on the incident in the way that the second paragraph of this post anticipated. Katrina Vanden Heuvel was attacking Donald Trump for his "fear mongering and exploiting racial anxieties and bigotry" and, bringing up the Orlando incident, she said:
Donald Trump's idea of a counterterrorism program is banning all Muslims, bombing all families in the Middle East, essentially [sic] -- ISIS families, and torturing -- I think the, you know, grief and anger today. But we can't lose sight of senseless gun violence and the gun epidemic in this country. 66 people killed in Chicago in May. Hillary Clinton has a very strong gun control program. Trump, he's tethered to the NRA. I think that has to be...When I heard that I said out loud, "That does not help Hillary." Then Donna Brazile followed on with generic references to "mass shootings" (and not terrorism), and I was saying "This isn't what Hillary wants to hear." That set up Bill Kristol, who prefaced his remark with "Look, I am anti-Trump" and proceeded with what I consider absolutely apt political analysis:
[I]f this was an act of Islamic terrorism, whether a lone wolf, or perhaps a lot of lone wolves turn out to have connection abroad one way or the other.... But if he was motivated by Islamist jihadist ideology, these talking points are not going to work, it's going to -- Donald Trump, the best moment, I say this with regret, the moment that helped Trump win the nomination was the San Bernardino massacre and his calling for a ban of all Muslims, which is an insane -- bad public policy, undoable, and we shouldn't do it. Having said that, it helped him. And I think we shouldn't kid ourselves. And, frankly, if these are the Democratic talking points here, senseless gun violence, it's not senseless.It's not senseless. That's right. It's the sense of some people who have a specific ideology of hate and violence. Blaming the guns was the Democrats' instinctive move last December after the San Bernardino massacre, and it was the wrong choice politically. Hillary needs to set herself up as a resolute fighter against terrorism, and I think she will. Obviously, Trump will. It would be stupid to cede that ground to him. But real left-wingers like Katrina Vanden Heuvel — not helping Hillary — head directly to the their anti-gun safe space.
ADDED: As noted above, what showed on "Meet the Press" for me wasn't the same as the transcript. I'm reading that now. There was a panel with Tom Brokaw, Hugh Hewitt, Amy Walter, and Joy Reid. Tom Brokaw went first and said it didn't matter whether the facts end up showing that the shooting was "connected to some kind of an international group," because, for him, the problem is guns. Hewitt focused on ISIS, but Walter and Reid stuck with the gun theme. When Hewitt said, "ISIS would do this to a hundred million Americans if they could," Reid rejoined: "But so would white nationalists."
Posts
371 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 371 of 371Zach, tell it to the friends and families of the 50ish dead.
You tell it to them. Being against murder in a general sort of way does not mean that stupid policies become smart.
Look at that.."Titus" is in the house.
Trump has already been "loosing" spectacularly. On Hillary.
People who use sarcasm rightly open themselves to be taken literally, which is why sarcasm is a form of humor mostly confined to overly emotional adolescents.
" Being against murder in a general sort of way does not mean that stupid policies become smart."
Couldn't agree more.
Cons using sarcasm at Althouse 24/7 aside, let the record show Quaestor does not disagree Terry is a fuckin' idiot!
The shooter's father is one more goofy Muslim politician. from Afghanistan and involved in Pakistani politics. That's from a blog I read every day.
The shooter is a Muslim of Afghan descent married to a Muslim from Uzbekistan. The shooter's father, Mir Seddique, is a somewhat loopy Afghan who helps run an outfit called Durand Jirga which specializes in disputing the established border between Pakistan and Afghanistan--the Durand Line--and has sought to bring Pakistan before the International Criminal Court. Some reports indicate he seeks to become president of Afghanistan. He seems to be a Pashtoon nationalist of the sort I ran into all the time in Pakistan's Northwest Frontier Province. I am sure that the politics at the shooter's home must have been on the whacky side.
Yeah, we need more Muslim immigrants to bring their political and religious delusions.
Obama emphasizes the LGBT aspect and that this is another example of how easily someone can acquire weapons. Presumably that will be the lefty approach, gays were attacked, doesn't matter who did it (he didn't mention Islam, Muslims or ISIS), and guns are too easy to get (nothing about how this guy apparently had a security guard license).
He seems completely checked out. Maybe that's understandable since he's only got a few months left.
CNN's interviewing an openly gay City Commissioner who says the answer is to try and understand why the killer had so much hate and to find a way to bring people like him into the community so they don't feel like doing mass murder. She's being serious and sincere, I guess, but I did laugh out loud. To paraphrase, she may be interested in understanding Muslims terrorists but they're not interested in understanding her.
Is it any surprise that religious extremists target gay people? Is it any surprise that religious extremists target Planned Parenthood clinics? Is it any surprise? It shouldn't be.
Blogger shiloh said...
Terry, was being sarcastic as you're a fuckin' idiot!
Move over, Don Rickles.
Right miriam,
Has reverend Wright weighed in on this?
Its funny Miriam, that in my old country full of Catholic "religious extremists" by your standards, nobody kills anyone out of Christian/Catholic religious motives, however our Muslim religious minority does so constantly. And has done so for at least 500 years, if not more.
This is a typical case of American parochialism and ignorance of the world.
Now that she has his stupid endorsement, Hillary Clinton should "Sister Soulja" Obama into the 5th row. Talk about how his sad appeasement hamstrung her efforts as SoS, impacted USA policy, and how she will fix things
Puti,
Excuse me? Catholics are religious extremists by my standards? What would you know of my standards? That's news to me.
The Planned Parenthood shooter was a Christian extremist. Let's not pretend that religious extremism only comes in one flavor.
Carol said...
That was some nasty tweet that came out of realDonaldTrump's account 5:07 am....I can't believe even Trump would be that stupid. Rogue social media staff? There were a thousand RTs..
6/12/16, 10:39 AM
The one that said, "Really bad shooting in Orlando. Police investigating possible terrorism. Many people dead and wounded."?
I quoted two people in this comment. Only one of them was nasty.
When did Amanda change her nickname to Miriam?
Inga hasn't a clue about "extremists." There were a half dozen Christian extremists, some of whom weren't even Christian in terms of religious practice. There are millions of devout Muslims who want to kill gays.
There are even Muslims imams and scholars who say to kill gays, as a "compassionate act." In Florida !
"Parenthood shooter was a Christian extremist. Let's not pretend that religious extremism only comes in one flavor."
Numbers matter, Miriam.
The problem with blaming generic religious 'extremists' for violent acts is that it is question-begging. People who kill other people for religious reasons are religious extremists, people who kill other people for ecological reasons are ecological extremists, people who kill other people for political reasons are political extremists, people who kill other people for racial reasons are racial extremists.
It makes no sense, to a normal person, to say that ecological consciousness is okay, even though it produces ecological extremists, involvement in politics is okay, even though political involvement produces political extremists, and racial awareness is okay, even though racial awareness produces racial extremists, but religion is bad because it produces religious extremism.
The most beautiful sound in the world will be the muslim call to prayer echoing through the boulevards of Orlando Florida today.
The most powerful anti-abortion groups are Catholic.
Anti-abortion is official doctrine, cooperation with such activities is a mortal sin, as is political support of "choice".
Consequently Catholic institutions are under sustained, vicious attack. We are your no.1 enemies apparently.
I see Miriam is employing the always useful generic "religious extremist" card.
The heads are rolling off shoulders by the thousands across the globe and women and girls are being sexually enslaved by the thousands, so now is a good time to utterly avoid any clearly identifying characteristics of the parties performing those acts.
This is demonstrative of the "#courage" of the left, led by none other than "Sniper fire dodger extraordinaire" Hillary!
"Yes, and the concept of jihad and a propensity for terroristic mass murder are deeply ingrained in those "Christian and non-Christian Americans, aren't they, Cook? /sarc."
Who says a "propensity for terroristic mass murders (is) deeply ingrained" in Muslims, (which is the unspoken extension of your remark)?
"The heads are rolling off shoulders by the thousands across the globe...."
Really? By the thousands?
MichaelK, Senator Cruz was at a convention at which a Christian preacher advocated killing gays. Why pretend that there aren't extremist religionists across the board? It's very disingenuous if not a lie.
Calls for the death of gay people starting at about the 2:26 mark.
And he's not the only Christian and Muslim preacher or imam to be doing so. Extremism in religion is not conducive to life.
"There are millions of devout Muslims who want to kill gays."
Really? Millions?
The propensity for raiding and killing, or grossly exploiting or persecuting their non-Muslim neighbors is a characteristic of Muslim populations everywhere and at all times.
This is as very solid case. See the works of VS Naipaul to start.
"Extremism in religion is not conducive to life."
See Terry's comment above.
Cookie: "Really? Millions?"
Asks conspiracy-boy.
"..... but religion is bad because it produces religious extremism."
Who said religion is "bad" Terry? You deny that there exists extremism in religion? There are plenty of believers across the board who don't engage in religious extremism, but to deny that extremism exists in religion is sort of dumb.
Miriam: "There are plenty of believers across the board who don't engage in religious extremism, but to deny that extremism exists in religion is sort of dumb."
Mao agrees.
Miriam: "There are plenty of believers across the board who don't engage in religious extremism, but to deny that extremism exists in religion is sort of dumb."
Stalin could not have agreed more.
Miriam: "There are plenty of believers across the board who don't engage in religious extremism, but to deny that extremism exists in religion is sort of dumb."
Castro, who ordered gays lobotomized, is also completely on board with that statement.
Every person in that club would have qualified for Saudi Arabias death penalty multiple times over.
And several other countries as well, but perhaps the prosecution would be less consistent and less thorough.
Drago, I'm not sure what point you are attempting to make. I'm a Christian, I'm not an athiest, nor am I a communist.
Kristol - "which is insane"
Not insane. Stop the flow of Islam and you stop the radicals too. Until we figure this out. Common sense.
Althouse said: "Blaming the guns was the Democrats instinctive move last December after the San Bernardino massacre, and it was the wrong choice politically."
It would have worked if it was a one-off. People would have forgotten. It will not work if there are more of these.
Althouse said: "Hillary needs to set herself up as a resolute fighter against terrorism, and I think she will."
Will it be more than just rhetoric? What substantive actions will she support?
My first reaction was: that is absolutely the stupidest thing the terrorists could possibly do, particularly before a presidential election.
I’ve been thinking about this same concept. How much does national politics influence terror tactics and strategy?
I believe certain old guard Islamic terror groups do pay close attention to Western politics, al Qaeda, for instance and some of the offshoots and evolutions that comprise its nuclear family.
But ISIS seems to be the bad boy of the jihadi family, worse even than the Iranians. The Iranians are content with controlling Iraq through their puppets in Iraq, just like they did for years with Syria. But ISIS would have none of that. They would have troops in Iraq, public executions, sharia enforcement patrols and there would be no puppets - ISIS would be the government.
So along comes the impetuous youngster, ISIS, recently born in the vacuum of Obama’s foolish withdrawal from Iraq and near-abandonment of Afghanistan, messing up cozy tacit understandings, conquering territory that straddles nations, creating a true, extra-national Caliphate just at the wrong time, inspiring, guiding, encouraging and/or assisting home-grown terrorists after Muslim immigration became a hot button issue, giving advantage to the wrong candidate and wrong political side and generally screwing up the jihadi calendar of planned events.
I believe that this slaughter will raise some questions in America’s collective mind: On the subject of Islamic terrorism which candidate has a better hold on reality? Which candidate is more trustworthy when it comes to protecting Americans?
There may be many racist or anti-federal-government groups in the US, but they aren't effective. They are unorganized. They follow no common ideology. They don't have a CAIR to threaten boycotts or make excuses for them. They don't have sponsors in other countries that provide indoctrination and resources. They don't learn from their mistakes. No one in recent history has ever refused to make a pro-abortion film or an anti-racist film because they thought it would put them in physical danger or destroy their career. The Tom Clancy novel The Sum of all Fears was about Palestinians and communists engaging in nuclear terrorism. In the Ben Affleck adaptation, the villains were transformed into neo-nazis.
Miriam: "Drago, I'm not sure what point you are attempting to make."
Yeah, it's a real head-scratcher alright.
Blogger Original Mike said...
What substantive actions will she support?
Given her past history, probably an invasion of Tunisia, or maybe Bangladesh.
"but to deny that extremism exists in religion is sort of dumb."
Huh?
grackle: "So along comes the impetuous youngster, ISIS, recently born in the vacuum of Obama’s foolish withdrawal from Iraq and near-abandonment of Afghanistan, messing up cozy tacit understandings, conquering territory that straddles nations, creating a true, extra-national Caliphate just at the wrong time, inspiring, guiding, encouraging and/or assisting home-grown terrorists after Muslim immigration became a hot button issue, giving advantage to the wrong candidate and wrong political side and generally screwing up the jihadi calendar of planned events."
You've successfully captured what is readily apparent about ISIS: They are waging a 1400 year war and do not care a whit about any current/transient political conditions. Therefore they do not curtail actions out of any calculus beyond terror, medieval terror, as a weapon to be deployed to force others to capitulate.
There is no political formula any nation can employ to mollify these guys and gals. They are in it for the long run.
And the left in the west has become directly and operationally complicit thru policies that ignore this reality.
Is it any surprise that leftists bring up abortion clinics every time Islamic radicals go on killing sprees? Right on Q.
you know who else uses that excuse? Islam.
How do I know this? The Islamic center in my hood' had an open house and they used the exact word-for-word same excuse leftists do -- "but look over there - hate filled Christians are slaughtering abortion doctors."
The last abortion clinic killer incident here in the US was a lone wolf who smoked lots of pot. Certainly if this is a numbers game, radical Islam globally V. abortion clinic killers globally - DO THE FUCKING MATH. Who kills more?
"There are millions of devout Muslims who want to kill gays."
Really? Millions?
-------------------
If this article in huffingtonpost is accurate then, yes, millions. Unless the gay person repents, the Hadith demands the death penalty.
"Who says a "propensity for terroristic mass murders (is) deeply ingrained" in Muslims, (which is the unspoken extension of your remark)?"
The Quran.
ISIS has been studying Obama and has concluded there is nothing to fear from him. Nor would there be from Hillary.
They agree with the Zogby poll, run by an Arab, that Trump s no danger to them.
Twitter translations of ISIS? reactions to the massacre:
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ahmedaa1k/status/742032920441917441
Terry: "The Tom Clancy novel The Sum of all Fears was about Palestinians and communists engaging in nuclear terrorism. In the Ben Affleck adaptation, the villains were transformed into neo-nazis."
The latest Criminal Minds episodes focused on the actions of some make believe, and quite large, white supremacist group seeking to obliterate a city.
Because that happens every day.
Within weeks multiple TV shows will modify plot lines to incorporate Christian extremists in close proximity to Hillary speeches related to the subject.
And no, no one has to tell them to do that. As leftists, they will simply do what they do. In the same way that Lois Lerner never needed to be told to hold up/harass conservative groups by the hundreds.
Leftist chorus: We always point out the extremism of others when Radical Islam strikes. just to be fair.
Islam killing Christians? No way.
AprilApple: "Leftist chorus: We always point out the extremism of others when Radical Islam strikes. just to be fair."
Leftist chorus: We only point out the extremism of western, white, male, heterosexual, conservative, military, businessmen Christians throughout all of recorded history when Radical Islam strikes. just to be fair.
FIFY
"If this article in huffingtonpost is accurate then, yes, millions. Unless the gay person repents, the Hadith demands the death penalty."
Well, that's a big if, but I won't contest the matter.
More to the point, does it automatically follow that because the Hadith demands something, that all Muslims agree with it and feel these commands deeply and passionately? What makes anyone believe Muslims worldwide are any more devout, (that is to say, not much), than Christians worldwide?
The problem of Muslim extremism is serious, and the Left refuses to take it seriously for ideological reasons.
Violence is not a good fit for Christianity. It is difficult look at the NT and find instructions for killing innocent people (the violence of Christian Europe in the Middle Ages notwithstanding strict scrutiny). On the other hand, Mohammad spread his religion by violence and instructed his followers to do the same. There are attempts by moderate Muslim leaders to use exegesis to 'pacify' Islam, but the problem is the Koran. It is the word of God, transmitted through the prophet, not written by a disciple.
Islamic Terror on Christians.
"More to the point, does it automatically follow that because the Hadith demands something, that all Muslims agree with it and feel these commands deeply and passionately?"
I think your questions might be answered by reading the Wikipedia entry: LGBT in Islam
Drago - thanks. That is better.
"Cookie: 'Really? Millions?'
"Asks conspiracy-boy."
Good answer.
It's not senseless. That's right. It's the sense of some people who have a specific ideology of hate and violence.
I'd have thought that was obvious. Guess not. Perhaps Vanden Heuvel (her name means "from the hill," so I guess her allegiance to the Democrats' presumptive candidate was long fore-ordained) would presumably prefer that the nightclub was attacked using Molotov cocktails and homemade bombs instead of guns.
Blaming the guns was the Democrats' instinctive move last December after the San Bernardino massacre, and it was the wrong choice politically.
Got that right.
Hillary needs to set herself up as a resolute fighter against terrorism, and I think she will.
And would anyone believe her if she did? Hey, Meade! Would you believe Hillary if she tried to position herself as a "resolute fighter against terrorism"?
Obviously, Trump will.
Actually, ICYMI he already has.
It would be stupid to cede that ground to him.
Consider that ground already ceded.
But real left-wingers like Katrina Vanden Heuvel — not helping Hillary — head directly to the their anti-gun safe space.
I thought by now even law professors realized that gun free zones are manifestly not safe spaces.
Robert Cook wrote: Really? Millions?
The worldwide Muslim population is estimated to be 1.6 billion which means only 0.125% need hold that opinion for Michael K's claim to be literally true. Given these statistics the odds in favor of your anti-anti-Islamic bigotry are vanishingly small.
"Drago, I'm not sure what point you are attempting to make."
Don't worry, he's making no point. He's simply posting what he thinks to be clever apercus, but it's just noise...non-sequiturs.
" What makes anyone believe Muslims worldwide are any more devout, (that is to say, not much), than Christians worldwide?"
As someone who is anyone, I would say a comparison of the number public displays of devotion is what makes me believe there are more devout Muslims than Christians worldwide.
What makes you doubt that Muslims worldwide are less devout than Christians worldwide?
Cookie: "Good answer"
Few answers can satisfy conspiracy theorists.
Thus, it's usually good policy to avoid wasting ones time on whatever happens to be their latest lunacy.
Cookie: "Don't worry, he's making no point."
And I'm especially not making any points while commandeering an SR-71.
AprilApple, then there's this:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-burn-19-yazidi-women-to-death-in-mosul-for-refusing-to-have-sex-with-isis-militants-a7066956.html
Meade: "What makes you doubt that Muslims worldwide are less devout than Christians worldwide?"
His psychological need to believe he is being "courageous" in standing up to these terrible western Christians.
That need mandates the minimization of real threats so that he can elevate the non-existent "windmills" at which he tilts.
Quaestor: "If the desire to slaughter gays is strong only in 0.125% of professing Muslims then it is next to impossible to discredit Michael K's intuition by statistical methods."
Leftists need valid statistics like a fish needs a bicycle.
Robert Cook, you can find the answers to your questions on this thing called the internet.
Asking a Muslim if they believe in enforcing shariah is too generic. It's like asking Christians if they think people should follow the Ten Commandments. A better proxy for measuring Islamic extremism is how a Muslim answers the question "Should Muslim apostates be killed?" It is shocking how many Muslims, even those living in the West or who are citizens of Western nations, believe that apostasy should be punished by death. I can't find the polling data right now, but I believe the percentage of Muslims who believe in applying the death penalty for apostasy is about 20% in Europe and 10% in the US.
More to the point, does it automatically follow that because the Hadith demands something, that all Muslims agree with it and feel these commands deeply and passionately? What makes anyone believe Muslims worldwide are any more devout, (that is to say, not much), than Christians worldwide?
Attempting to convince the Stalinists among us that islam is threat by posting links is pointless.
A different alternative-reality narrative is needed and that narrative must triumph.
If the desire to slaughter gays is strong only in 0.125% of professing Muslims then it is next to impossible to discredit Michael K's intuition by statistical methods.
(post accidentally deleted)
"More to the point, does it automatically follow that because the Hadith demands something, that all Muslims agree with it and feel these commands deeply and passionately?"
Really, Cookie? All?. Even you can see the lameness in your point.
but but but Meeeea - *Abortion Clinics and Christians... Abortion Clinics and Christians!*
Miriam: " Listen to that Christian preacher in the video I linked to, how does he sound any different than some imam somewhere calling for the very same thing, but instead using the Koran an as his moral directive?"
Islamist slaughters innocents.
Some Christian somewhere says something Miriam doesn't like.
Compare and contrast.
I pointed out that religious extremism across the board is a very dangerous thing. As Cook pointed out, thank goodness that millions of Muslims and Christians don't take the Koran or the Bible literally. Religious extremists do just that. That is what makes them so dangerous, they feel they are Divinely inspired when they act out the old ancient texts in a literal fashion. Listen to that Christian preacher in the video I linked to, how does he sound any different than some imam somewhere calling for the very same thing, but instead using the Koran an as his moral directive.
I pointed out that religious extremism across the board is a very dangerous thing.
If you can separate 'religious' extremism from generic 'extremism', you can also separate 'Islamic religious extremism' from 'religious extermism.'
AprilApple, that Christian preacher is advocating for the death of innocents also. He calls for the death of gay people, are they guilty of something?
Shorter Miriam: the more the islamists butcher and enslave, the guiltier the Christians are.
Cook argues that all Muslims aren't bad. Miriam argues that religious extremism is bad.
I don't understand who they think they're arguing with.
Miriam - Don't be a typical leftist dolt. Name for us Christians who are committing violence based on the Bible - circa now.
Without specifics, your arguments are lame and tired.
btw- keep scrolling.
Shorter Miriam: the more the islamists butcher and enslave, the guiltier the Christians are.
worth bold.
Original Mike: "I don't understand who they think they're arguing with."
Leftism has nothing to do with logical consistency. Leftism concerns itself with whatever rhetorical device is needed at the moment, regardless of what might have been uttered mere moments before.
Fen's Law.
"If you can separate 'religious' extremism from generic 'extremism', you can also separate 'Islamic religious extremism' from 'religious extremism.'"
I can Terry! I have absolutely no qualms about saying "Islamic Extremism", nor do I have a problem saying "Christian Extremism". There are even cases of Judaic Extremism.
Taking the Koran (and the Hadiths, etc.) literally is the very substance, the subject and nature of Islamic law. That is Islam, all of it, unless one belongs to some heretical group.
Thats what they study at Al Azhar and every higher educational institution in Islam. There is no Islamic philosophy or ethics or theology, there is just textual analysis.
This is fundamentally different from all other world religions, disparate as they may be.
AprilApple, calm down. You're now ranting and once again getting sloppy in your thinking. Don't your knees get tired doing all that jerking?
Amanda / Miriam's introduction of Christian extremists on a thread about the latest Islamic terrorist act is a tu quoque fallacy. It's her go-to distraction as she attempts to derail discussion of the original topic.
Listen to that Christian preacher in the video I linked to, how does he sound any different than some imam somewhere calling for the very same thing, but instead using the Koran an as his moral directive.
True. Nevertheless the point you apparently are trying to make is fallacious. What you have constructed is a tu quoque evasion of the evident fact of Islamic hostility to homosexuality and the evident willingness of Muslims reared in this country under our laws and our traditions of tolerance to act in accordance with barbaric religiosity.
These days, anti-Gay Christian extremism is shown when a county clerk in Kentucky refuses to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple.
Anti-gay Islamic extremism is shown when Islamic religious courts sentence gays to death or Islamic fanatics kill gays by the dozen at a nightclub.
The core of intelligence is being able to demonstrate how things are different as well as how they are similar. This allows a person to make important distinctions between things. Without it, you find yourself believing that 'love' and 'hate' are the same thing because they both are characterized by a strong emotional response.
LOL Fabi. Great minds, eh?
Miriam I'll go first and spot you the Crusades.
Paris, Brussels, San Bernardino, Ft. Hood, Madrid, London.
Miriam - Do you have anything to say about radical Islam killing 50 people other than - "but Christians do it too"?
Didn't think so.
Your tired leftwing cliches are just that- TIRED.
Puti,
American fundamentalists take the Bible literally. That is the cornerstone of their beliefs.
"Literal Interpretation of the Bible: According to "Understanding Christian Fundamentalism," the most crucial aspect of fundamentalist Christian beliefs is that all of the words in the Bible, preferably the King James Version, are to be taken literally."
http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/fundamentalist-christians-denominations/2015/04/17/id/639249/
A quick overview of fundamentalism. There are other more in depth sources online.
AprilApple, are you so sloppy and lazy in your thinking that you completely disregard my point? Which IS, religious extremism is dangerous.
"Puti,
American fundamentalists take the Bible literally."
They believe the Bible is the word of God. But even they have to creatively reconcile contradictions, esp. between the OT and the NT (creatively in the trust sense of the word). The catechism of the Quakers consists entirely of red-letter quotes from the NT, e.g. the literal words of Christ. Nothing could be more fundamentalist, and yet the Quakers preach non-violence, inclusion, and tolerance.
No Miriam - Your point is you see extremism in all religions except radical Islam.
Can you even say "Radical Islam?" Nope.
Miriam, even if your equivocations were true, which they are not, your point would still be irrelevant and disingenuous at best. You're arguing with adults here, people who have not just fallen off a passing turnip cart.
What really derails a thread's discussion are those commenter's who become so outraged at a dissenting voice that they themselves lose track of the subject matter of the blogpost. Proceed with your singleminded obsession with Islamic extremism. Don't consider the possibility of any extremism in any other world religion. I know how your 'equilibrium' is so easily disturbed.
Fabi - Bingo.
Well, we pretty much already know what the response of Queen Cacklepants and the usual gang of State-fellators will be: More State power! Less individual liberty! Because that pretty much is their response to everything!
“The American people once had their liberties; they had them all; but apparently they could not rest o’nights until they had turned them over to a prehensile crew of professional politicians."--Albert Jay Nock
Miriam, why is it so important to you to sweep under the rug who is doing all the killing in the name of religion in today's world?
"Radical Islam" is the same as "Extremist Islam", a term which I've been freely using in several of my comments upstream. Sloppy, lazy thinking and reading April Apple, once again.
-------------
"If you can separate 'religious' extremism from generic 'extremism', you can also separate 'Islamic religious extremism' from 'religious extremism.'"
----------
"I can Terry! I have absolutely no qualms about saying "Islamic Extremism", nor do I have a problem saying "Christian Extremism". There are even cases of Judaic Extremism."
6/12/16, 3:00 PM
---------------
Dissenting voice? oh boo hoo. You deserve a mighty fine buckle off because we've all heard your standard boiler plate "but Christians do it too." thousands of times from people like you on the left. Meanwhile, 50 dead by an Islamic radical.
AprilApple, please don't hurt yourself pretending to care about 50 dead gay people. One of the only reasons some people here are 'enraged' is because it was an Islamic Extremist that perpetrated this crime. Would we be hearing the degree of concern had it been perpetrated by that Extremist Christian preacher? I would hope so, but I'm not convinced.
Keep digging, Miriam. Keep repeating your failed tired cliches'.
"Oh those pesky head-chopping Jews! Guilty!"
"Oh those horrible Presbyterians - just as bad!"
Any comment on this that doesn't involve moral gymnastics ?
Miriam - 50 dead innocents (no matter who they are) fills me with rage and anger. all while you blame the Christians. Fuck off.
LOL, April, I'm a Presbyterian
"Would we be hearing the degree of concern had it been perpetrated by that Extremist Christian preacher? I would hope so, but I'm not convinced."
Then you're an idiot. People identify the religion of Islamic extremists because you can't solve a problem when you're not honest about its source.
LOL again April. Grow up and learn to read carefully, think and read in a less sloppy manner and then you might be worthy of debating. Put some salve on those knees, I know they must hurt from all the jerking.
@April: "Miriam" has all the signs of having been raised in an evangelical setting -- Pentecostal if IIRC. That's where the anger comes from.
" I'm honest,"
Truly made me laugh out loud.
Original Mike. I'm honest, I'll bring up some uncomfortable truths. I know they don't sit well here, I don't really care. I've read SO much homophobic comments here at Althouse over the years that I do question the sincerity of the concern over the slaughter of 50 gay people.
Original Mike, I'll be even more honest, most of you here don't give a real rats ass about those 50 dead people. But continue with your faux concern and outrage. It's pretty evident to anyone who has read Althouse for any length of time to know that a great many of you people are disingenuous ass holes, who continuously bash gay people in every single one of the blog posts Althouse has ever put up concerning gay rights. Now carry on with your weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Miriam - I have read you comments. Sadly.
Shorter Miriam: "Moral relevancy applies at all times and Radical Islam has nothing to do with it."
Still waiting for you to tell us your superior leftist Presbyterian feelings on this:
Isis burns 19 Yazidi women to death in Mosul for 'refusing to have sex with fighters.
Anything to offer that doesn't bring up abortion clinics or all the other religions of the world?
Islamic radical
I am becoming increasingly uneasy with that formulation — radical Islam, fundamentalist Islam. The fact is that Muslims who do not hold with killing gays and apostates, whether they are the majority, cannot quote the Koran or the Hadith, the foundation of sharia and Islamic governance, to support their beliefs, which derive much more from Western philosophy and the Enlightenment, than from traditional Islam. Whereas ISIS, the Islamic Republic of Iran, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, Hisbollah, Hamas, the Wahhabis, and every other group we typically label as examples of Radical Islam have clear scriptural injunctions from Allah and the Prophet to do what they do to whom. Considering that these members of Islam's "silent majority" are willing to incorporate non-Islamic principles into their belief system in place of textual orthodoxy I would go so far to posit that the radicals are the Muslims we should be encouraging and that the so-called "Radical Islamists" are in fact the orthodox believers.
More to the point, does it automatically follow that because the Hadith demands something, that all Muslims agree with it and feel these commands deeply and passionately?
Privately? perhaps not. Publicly...you bet your ass...it is literally worth their life. More to the point, in every majority Muslim nation it is the position of the government.
What makes anyone believe Muslims worldwide are any more devout, (that is to say, not much), than Christians worldwide
The fact that Islam demands devotion, and daily, public displays of it. Of course the constant stream of fighters to ISIS, and the constant stream of suicide bombers around th world are pretty convincing too.
Miriam wrote: LOL, April, I'm a Presbyterian.
Presbyterian. That explains much. The most tepid of lukewarm Protestants. The PC(USA) has been busy, busy, busy equivocating itself into ethical blind alleys for 50 years. Doesn't Jesus have something to say about that which is neither hot nor cold, not that I have a dog in that fight.
All religious extremism is dangerous according to Miriam since the guy who just murdered 50 people was a religious extremist AND a preacher who said gays should be killed is also a religious extremist.
Me, I winder his those two things are equivalent, since to my knowledge no one who heard the preacher has actually killed any gay people, much less 50 all at once. To me it kinda sounds like one group is a little more dangerous than the other...but Miriam is much smarter and understands that all extremism is the same thing. Some people say mean things and some people murder 59, same thing. Smart, smart Miriam.
Terry is correct. Biblical literalism in nearly all Christian heretical sects isnt really literal. There just isnt enough material in the Bible to make a system of it and there isnt enough consistency either. Reconciling New and Old testaments is just the start. Pick and choose is what they do, and what they pick varies all over the place. We went over this when we took Christian heresies in high school.
And there is the implied ethical/theological understanding that is carried over from the fathers of the Church, unacknowleged but not, you will note, rederived de novo. This is because most of the literalists didnt have the intellectual horsepower or the guts to go there.
All religious extremism is dangerous today, says Miriam.
Christian extremism is obviously dangerous because just look at a speech a preacher gave, plus the PP shooter.
Islamic extremism is maybe a little dangerous, what with the 50 just murdered, San Bernardino, Fort Hood, 9/11...but over all it is a religion of peace and we shouldn't make this about Islam!
I wonder, Miriam, if in your own mind you can admit that recent events show that in America Islamic extremism is MORE dangerous than other religious extremism?
You are conflating, and other commenters are pointing out that your conflation is designed to conceal. It...isn't working very well.
Radical Muslims want to kill you.
Moderate Muslims want radical Muslims to kill you.
Islam of the orthodox varieties is fundamentally different in nature in its absolute dependence on textual analysis as its sole tool of understanding everything, even vis a vis Biblical literalists.
Robert Cook said...
"There are millions of devout Muslims who want to kill gays."
Really? Millions?
Probably. There are about 1.6 billion muslims; if .1% (1/1000) were into it, that'd make 1.6 million of 'em.
AprilApple "but but but Meeeea - *Abortion Clinics and Christians... Abortion Clinics and Christians!*
I know! Weird how a group offering to save a kid from being torn into parts and its limbs going to one company and its liver and brain matter to a university is considered more hate filled and violent than one that cages and burns alive 19 young women that refused to be gang raped.
" . . . I do question the sincerity of the concern over the slaughter of 50 gay people."
It's not a question if you already know the answer.
The claim is that young Omar Mateen used an AR-15 rifle, but this picture taken the next morning shows huge holes torn in the walls. I don't think .223 rounds can do that degree of damage to a cinder block wall -- you'd need a military 30 caliber round like the 7.62 NATO or the Russian 7.62x39mm round used in AK-type rifles.
I see that young Mr. Mateen was recently able to buy his rifle and handguns legally despite having been investigated twice by the FBI for ties to terrorism. Does anyone doubt that he could have acquired those guns illegally if turned down by a background check, as so many inner city gangbangers are able to do?
I guess leftists will have to choose who they love more: gays or Muslims.
And on Presbyterians and abortion, in my opinion, and that of many others, they have abdicated all moral standing by their permissive doctrine and often open advocacy of it. This is abandonment of basic Christian duty, to bring Christ and his message to all. Christ preached among sinners, but he preached against sin. The Presbyterians from what I have seen, avoid sinners and embrace sin.
They have convinced themselves that what is fashionable is good. This is utterly false.
What makes anyone believe Muslims worldwide are any more devout, (that is to say, not much), than Christians worldwide?
Their behavior ?
A refugee camp in Germany was burned down by migrants amid claims they were angry they had not received a wake-up for Ramadan breakfast, it has been reported.
The large fire ripped through the centre - home to 280 refugees - completely levelling the hall in the western German city of Dusseldorf on Tuesday.
Emergency crews treated 25 people for smoke poisoning before police started an arson investigation amid claims a mattress had been sprayed with lighter fluid then torched.
How they treat people who want to leave the religion ?
One that jumped out for me was the alarmingly high share of Muslims in some Middle Eastern and South Asian countries who say they support the death penalty for any Muslim who leaves the faith or converts to another. In fact, according to the 2013 Pew Research Center report, 88 percent of Muslims in Egypt and 62 percent of Muslims in Pakistan favor the death penalty for people who leave the Muslim religion.
Of course, American Muslims are not that primitive. Right ?
Muslim Americans align strongly with the Democratic Party and voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama in the 2008 election. On social issues, Muslim Americans are less accepting of homosexuality than is the general public, and they are slightly more conservative on gender roles.
Why Obama wants to flood the country with Muslims. In Britain, the Labour Party did the same which is why London is "Londonstan."
Trump is a Presbyterian, lol. So now how many of you will vote for this lukewarm Christian?
AprilApple said...
Miriam - 50 dead innocents (no matter who they are) fills me with rage and anger. all while you blame the Christians. Fuck off.
Easy there, pardner. By now we know that Miram has a small moral menue to select from and an even smaller set of tools with which to order.
If it's any easier think of her as a parrot that has learned to talk.
Amusing.
Even more amusing when she swears.
I am not a voter.
Trump is not exactly known for his imitation of Christ (what Augustine defined as the objective for any Christian). He is a great sinner, full of pride, lust and greed. What church he belongs to is a minor matter if one wants to run down his moral defects. On the other hand, he is the choice of the people, among bad choices.
And Im not arguing with Trump, but with you.
Just noticed that, Quaestor -- too funny!
Big Mike, I've seen little mention of the explosive vest the terrorist "may" have been wearing (or explosives he may have been carrying)--have you heard anything further on this? Could that be what caused the damage?
"Blogger Real American said...
I guess leftists will have to choose who they love more: gays or Muslims."
Like when they had to choose between Hispanic George Zimmerman and Black Treyvon Martin? They will just make Omar Mateen a gay-hating religious extremist, identical to some Christian preacher making an anti-gay rant in a Youtube video (believe it or not, this has actually been attempted).
Obama has already identified the enemy: blue collar white Americans:
And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
No mention of the danger from Islamic extremists at all! Because they vote D, I suppose.
What denomination did Richard Dear belong to? What church did he attend?
"Miriam" wrote: Trump is a Presbyterian, lol. So now how many of you will vote for this lukewarm Christian?
FYI -- I saw through that ruse. You are getting too predictable.
I don't think Amanda/Miriam is Inga, although she is just as irritatingly stupid. Inga sometimes tried to ingratiate herself with commenters here. Miriam is just another venomous and intellectually limited SJW who amusingly imagines herself to be smarter than the posters here. She strikes me as a millennial Special Snowflake, but who knows, there are plenty of old leftist fools around as well.
If the subject was not so tragic, it would have been entertaining to follow her brain farts on this thread. First: Hey, Christians don't get on your high horse, because you can be just as bad! Because Planned Parenthood! And hey, look this preacher said some pretty nasty things! That's just as bad as murdering 50 people and throwing gays off roofs and burning people in cages and flying planes into buildings and killing your daughter if she speaks to infidel boys.
When other commenters rightly and repeatedly point out Miriam's specious reasoning and back her into a corner, she falls back on virtue-signaling: "You terrible conservatives don't really care about dead gay people! Not like I do!"
As Trump would say: Sad!
"Miriam" wrote: Trump is a Presbyterian, lol. So now how many of you will vote for this lukewarm Christian?
He's a lukewarm Christian? Boy, the things you learn here. Everyone thought he was as devout as Mother Theresa until you just enlightened us.
"Like when they had to choose between Hispanic George Zimmerman and Black Treyvon Martin? They will just make Omar Mateen a gay-hating religious extremist, identical to some Christian preacher making an anti-gay rant in a Youtube video (believe it or not, this has actually been attempted)."
Oh, of course they'll try to do that. When all the gay-hating religious extremists who, you know, actually KILL gays as opposed to just saying bigoted things or not baking cakes for gays have names like "Omar" "Mohammed" and "Abdul" people might eventually draw certain conclusions. Well, not Miriam or Robert Cook or Obama but ordinary people might just find themselves thinking "ya know, maybe diversity is NOT our strength."
Everything the Left does and says is designed to keep people from concluding that 2 + 2 does indeed equal 4.
I've been around deeply religious Christians. If you went into a thousand Christian Churches, talked to the priest or pastor and told him that it was your religious duty to kill as many gays, abortionists, or Muslims as possible, that priest or pastor would be horrified, and if he believed you were serious he would contact the police.
The story would be the same at a lot of mosques, but not 1000 out of 1000. In maybe one in a hundred or one in ten you would receive encouragement in your beliefs and your murderous intent.
He's a lukewarm Christian? Boy, the things you learn here. Everyone thought he was as devout as Mother Theresa until you just enlightened us.
Sometimes Democrats do stuff that is so stupid it makes you think they might actually believe their own agitprop.
I do question the sincerity of the concern over the slaughter of 50 gay people.
Holy shit! You should get some professional help!
I see they just stopped an incident of Hoosier terrorism!
Terry:
While self-defense is a natural and religious/moral right, elective abortions, especially mass abortions (e.g. "final solution", Pro-Choice), are abhorrent to Christians, and to Jews (at least since the fall of God's State and withdrawal of direct counsel -- approximately two thousand years).
"What makes you doubt that Muslims worldwide are less devout than Christians worldwide?"
????
That's not what I was getting at. It is, to repeat: what makes you think Muslims are necessarily more devout than Christians? Most self-proclaimed Christians know little about the particulars of their faith or the New Testament. I'd guess most Muslims have the same cursory relation to the particulars of their faith and to the Quran.
"What makes you doubt that Muslims worldwide are less devout than Christians worldwide?"
????
That's not what I was getting at. It is, to repeat: what makes you think Muslims are necessarily more devout than Christians? Most self-proclaimed Christians know little about the particulars of their faith or the New Testament. I'd guess most Muslims have the same cursory relation to the particulars of their faith and to the Quran.
These "assault rifles" though not, strictly speaking, identical to military weapons, are nearly ideal for mass murder, more so than full-automatic weapons.
I’m glad quotes were used for “assault rifles.” An assault rifle, available only to the military, is a weapon with a full automatic firing mode. So far, there has been no “assault rifles” used in any mass shooting. ALL the weapons have been semi-automatic, legal for civilians to own.
I’m puzzled that semi-automatic weapons are characterized as more deadly than full automatic military weapons. They are not. The opposite is true. That is why fully automatic weapons are legal only for the military.
I see what you mean. And I don't disagree. I'd guess the people who identify as Muslim who engage in violent jihad (Islamists) are more interested in Islam as an ideology than as a religion.
Blogger Robert Cook said...
"What makes you doubt that Muslims worldwide are less devout than Christians worldwide?"
You can thank Western imperialism for secularized Muslims. They were not uncommon in cities like Beirut or Cairo or Casablanca 60 years ago. But secularism throughout the Islamic world is rapidly decreasing. It is a process that started with the Iranian revolution of 1979 and sped up after 9/11. Saudis have funded much of it. (And only someone intent on keeping himself willfully ignorant has missed that trend.)
I work with a secularized Muslim Iranian-born doctor who came to this country right before the Shah was deposed. He told me the women he grew up with in Iran wore Western clothes and did not cover their heads. A woman in Iran today would be beaten and imprisoned for publicly dressing the way her grandmother did in 1955.
The pattern has become very clear in Europe. Most of the North Africans who settled in France in the 1960's wanted to assimilate. Their grandchildren are the ones who are running off to join ISIS. They might have been born in France but they feel no more French than I do. Again, this is a well documented trend.
You are a prime example of what I said above. I repeat:
"Everything the Left does and says is designed to keep people from concluding that 2 + 2 does indeed equal 4."
"I'd guess the people who identify as Muslim who engage in violent jihad (Islamists) are more interested in Islam as an ideology than as a religion."
I agree with this, and I also think "Islam" is used as an equivalent to the nationalism that rallies a population to support a secular nation's war efforts. The Islamic extremists have their various goals and reasons for their actions, and much of it has to do with evicting Westerners from their lands. Our continuing wars in the Middle East serve only to inspire more anger and hatred of the U.S., which the extremists use to recruit more members to their cause. Many Americans would just as readily become "terrorists" against the forces and people of any nation or external force that invaded our country.
"I see what you mean. And I don't disagree. I'd guess the people who identify as Muslim who engage in violent jihad (Islamists) are more interested in Islam as an ideology than as a religion."
The thing is Meade, Islam has always been a political ideology. Mohammed led actual armies and conquered people. Jesus did not. In fact, I would say that Islam is a political ideology masquerading as a religion. It has always been concerned with earthly power. Of course, (yes, here comes the usual disclaimer) throughout much of the past 2000 years, the Church has also been concerned with earthly power. However, Christ's admonition about leaving to Caesar what belongs to Ceasar has no equivalent in Islam.
"I don't understand who they think they're arguing with."
With people who lack any desire to do anything beyond argue on the internet because arguing on the internet falsely allows one the belief one has done something.
If people weren't faceboocking their feelings, they might actually use those same feelings to accomplish something tangible.
"You are conflating, and other commenters are pointing out that your conflation is designed to conceal. It...isn't working very well."
She's the star. It works for her. Her values and goals and aspirations are not yours.
@shiloh
If you're being sarcastic, you should say so (sarc.).
@Meeea, in one of the news reports I saw mention of the Orlando bomb squad being sent in, but so far I am treating the suicide vest as an unsubstantiated rumor. Perhaps he had one and it didn't work? Because once the SWAT team showed up young Mr. Mateen must have known his lifespan was down to minutes and he could have taken a bunch of the hostages with him.
Here's an AK vs AR vs concrete block video.
Like a terrorist, a troll only needs one success to make it all worthwhile.
Success could be raising blood pressure of folks sitting inside thinking of the stupidity the world contains instead of ...
Well, one Hell of a lot of things.
Robert Cook said: I agree with this, and I also think "Islam" is used as an equivalent to the nationalism that rallies a population to support a secular nation's war efforts. The Islamic extremists have their various goals and reasons for their actions, and much of it has to do with evicting Westerners from their lands. Our continuing wars in the Middle East serve only to inspire more anger and hatred of the U.S., which the extremists use to recruit more members to their cause. Many Americans would just as readily become "terrorists" against the forces and people of any nation or external force that invaded our country.
If only.
Please read this 2015 piece by Graeme Wood in The Atlantic -- What ISIS Really Wants: The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse.
"Our continuing wars in the Middle East serve only to inspire more anger and hatred of the U.S."
Eisenhower talked of something called the Military-Industrial Complex in which certain people enrich themselves through war.
So your point is very sadly myopic and self-centered in this case. Please don't help the rape of the poor in America to continue via War without knowing who gets served.
Grackle,
In the case of mass murder, the shooting down of as many unarmed civilians as possible, aimed fire will get you many more hits/magazine than auto. I HAVE fired M16's full auto. Its a good way, IMHO, to waste a lot of ammo. A mass killer wants to kill as many as possible with his load of ammo, and wants to minimize magazine changes, during which he is vulnerable. Automatic fire is not optimal for this.
The purpose of auto fire on the military versions is to provide a high volume of fire in order to suppress opposing troops, keep their heads down and unable or unwilling to fire back, so that other men can maneuver to the flanks or get closer. This is not a requirement when killing unarmed civilians.
What makes these rifles so deadly is their handiness, their large magazines, their low recoil, rapid action, and if so fitted, excellent short range sights. This lets the killer aquire and shoot targets very rapidly, going from one to the next, shooting each just once or twice.
I dont know if you have tried these in semi auto. Give it a go, line up a lot of bottles and cans at @20 feet, and try shoot them all as fast as you can. You'll see what I mean.
"...which the extremists use to recruit more members to their cause."
Your comments recruit more conservative extremists Mr. Cook. Because they don't agree with you, these extremists become more entrenched in their extremism.
You know I'm right.
Examples abound both current and in the past.
But, I encourage you to incite these conservative extremists with all your might, as I believe you to be sincere. Like Buckley said, you shouldn't give away or cede any rights, including your right to speak your conscious.
"Please read this 2015 piece by Graeme Wood in The Atlantic"
Yes. That piece in the Atlantic is an excellent analysis of what makes ISIS tick. It's essential reading. Needless to say, the Atlantic is not a right-wing publication.
But it will be ignored by those who wish to go on believing that ISIS is a group of loony outliers who have nothing to do with "real Islam."
The Islamic extremists have their various goals and reasons for their actions, and much of it has to do with evicting Westerners from their lands
Bull fucking shit. Islam has been about world domination since its founding, and has been fighting wars of conquest from the very beginning, long before any contact with the west.
Miriam wrote: Trump is a Presbyterian, lol. So now how many of you will vote for this lukewarm Christian?
I shall overlook Trump's Presbyterianism just as you likely overlooked Obama's membership in the congregation operated on a "for profit" basis by the execrable Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
"I HAVE fired M16's full auto. "
Not that I have fired an M 16 but I think they have three shot burst option, also.
The whole idea of the AR 15 was the smaller caliber and the reduced weight of ammo and reduced recoil with the smaller round.
The defect of the M 14 was full auto with 7.62 ammo was uncontrollable.
The Thompson was also reputed to be inaccurate with full auto. They are also heavy as hell.
I'm hoping for a Garand for Christmas. I was Air Force and we fired M1 carbines, which were toys.
I love the M1 carbine. We had one to carry around the Cavite hills, and we fought for it. The losers had to carry Garands.
If I had to have a rifle, not that I have any use for one, that would be mine.
In the case of mass murder, the shooting down of as many unarmed civilians as possible, aimed fire will get you many more hits/magazine than auto. I HAVE fired M16's full auto. Its a good way, IMHO, to waste a lot of ammo. A mass killer wants to kill as many as possible with his load of ammo, and wants to minimize magazine changes, during which he is vulnerable. Automatic fire is not optimal for this.
Anecdotes make for weak points in debates but for the record I have shot both auto and semi-auto weapons. I can change a magazine in a Thompson in a very short time, too short of a time for panicked, surprised, unarmed and drunk nightclubbers to do anything about it.
The purpose of auto fire on the military versions is to provide a high volume of fire in order to suppress opposing troops, keep their heads down and unable or unwilling to fire back, so that other men can maneuver to the flanks or get closer. This is not a requirement when killing unarmed civilians.
And the reason opposing troops “keep their heads down” is because they do not want their heads shot off by the full auto weapons. They do not use semi-auto for this. The verdict is clear: Full auto is more effective at shooting heads off than semi-auto. On that basis alone I feel I win the argument but there are other points as well.
The commentor is talking about effectiveness on the battlefield, with fields of fire, usually no closer to the enemy than several hundred yards. But the debate is about a comparatively small, enclosed, restrictive space – a nightclub, not a battlefield.
On the battlefield the shooter is faced with trained, armed and aggressive soldiers, not hapless, drunk civilians caught in a terrorist nightmare. Sure, an AR-15 is more accurate but would accuracy be that important if you were shooting into a crowd at point blank range?
What makes these rifles so deadly is their handiness, their large magazines, their low recoil, rapid action, and if so fitted, excellent short range sights. This lets the killer aquire and shoot targets very rapidly, going from one to the next, shooting each just once or twice.
Give me any restored standard military/police Thompson submachine gun with spare magazines over any semi-auto AR-15-style rifle for the kind of slaughter that was performed at the Orlando gay club, with the caveat that some practice has to have taken place beforehand. True, if the shooter has no experience with a Thompson he would probably end up putting some of the ordnance into the ceiling. But with enough spare magazines he could still get the job done. Short bursts of fire is the key.
There’s a reason the Thompson was used in the St. Valentine’s Day massacre. It’s nickname in WW1 was “the Trench Sweeper.”
This is an experiment that would be instructive.
Maybe one of the firearms Youtube channel fellows may try it.
Darn it! Typo alert: WW1 should read WW2.
"Worst shooting on US soil," says the Times in its headline on the anniversary of the Battle of Cold Harbor.
gackle @ 10:25
I'll take a semi auto 12 ga. shotgun with 00 buckshot and an extended magazine. The fact remains that it is the shooter not the weapon that matters.
I'll take a semi auto 12 ga. shotgun with 00 buckshot and an extended magazine.
Sure, me too. But I do not posses a semi-auto shotgun, just an H&R 12 ga. pump. But I’ll still take the Tommy with extra 100-round drum magazines in my backpack for close quarters shooting or even an Uzi, which I’ve also shot.
I just don't want to go through the whole NFA thing to own a machine gun.
Michael K.,
The M1 Carbine was meant to be a pistol replacement.
Post a Comment