After Orlando, time to recognize that anti-gay bigotry is not religious freedom: Neil Macdonald

originally posted by: lakenheath24
a reply to: JimBielson

Dude, that is the most un-jesus like post ever......ever. This is what I am talking about. This is not a religious issue, this was a sick, mental, twisted person who had no regard for others of his own species. He is no different than the hoards of other humans who have tormented and killed other humans thruout history... for whatever sick reason presented itself at he time.

I never said it was a religious issue. Where are you getting that? I am presenting a theory and it makes sense. I agree it was not an attack motivated by religion. He claimed it was but we all now know from many sources that he was gay. He was possibly going to be humiliated by someone and he snapped.

I don't see how that theory doesn't hold water over any other and its not inflammatory to speculate about the motive. I am not here to offend anyone. I am not the one drawing a line from this act of terror to Christians which makes no sense at all and is highly inflammatory.

There are underlying factors that drove this mad man to do what he did. I don't believe for one minute the primary motive if at all was ISIS.

Am I really wrong to be looking at all angles here?

a reply to: JimBielson

You specifically and categorically stated that the LGBT community has more culpability in this thing than they are willing to admit, and I think that is a dreadful, not to mention STAGGERINGLY stupid thing to say. It is PRECISELY the definition of blaming the victim for the violence, regardless of what backtrack you take to cover your arse.

If he was surrounded by gun toting members of the LGBT community, all pointing their guns at him and giggling madly, and THEN he had blown them away, I could understand your point. As it is, you have either been fantastically thick in the way you chose your words, or have no idea just how outrageous your statement was.

Either way, own up to it, don't backtrack. You can either say you were wrong, or you can say you genuinely believe your first statement. What you cannot do is prat about in the middle.

originally posted by: JimBielson
I agree it was not an attack motivated by religion.

Back to the books with you, then.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Exactly..and Thank You.

It's much more likely that his religious community reinforced whatever personality disassociative disorder he may have been experiencing, including self loathing and personal hatred, should it turn out that the man DID have homosexual urges. That's not to say that the Christian community hasn't also been guilty of reinforcing self loathing, when it comes to the queer community.

(Queer seems to the PC term today, above and beyond LBGTQ...and so on and so forth)

That's also not to say that the man wasn't posing as a gay man. flirting and luring gay men to their death. Is this the first time he's killed?

Who knows?

ETA: haha..I've been watching a lot of old CSI episodes lately..

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: JimBielson

You specifically and categorically stated that the LGBT community has more culpability in this thing than they are willing to admit, and I think that is a dreadful, not to mention STAGGERINGLY stupid thing to say. It is PRECISELY the definition of blaming the victim for the violence, regardless of what backtrack you take to cover your arse.

If he was surrounded by gun toting members of the LGBT community, all pointing their guns at him and giggling madly, and THEN he had blown them away, I could understand your point. As it is, you have either been fantastically thick in the way you chose your words, or have no idea just how outrageous your statement was.

Either way, own up to it, don't backtrack. You can either say you were wrong, or you can say you genuinely believe your first statement. What you cannot do is prat about in the middle.

I do own it and I will not back pedal. If it turns out he was bullied then the LGBT do have more culpability in this and they have to answer for it. Every time we hear of a Homosexual or Lesbian or Transsexual being bullied and they commit suicide or are murdered and a straight "Christian" turns out to be the offender, they lay blame there and they are relentless in seeking retribution. You can't have it both ways pal. Being a bully is either right or wrong.

If he was going to be outed and that caused him humiliation, that is a bully tactic. Being a bully anywhere is an intolerable act is it not?

If you want to talk about thick in the way words are chosen, go back the original OP. My theory is no more hyperbole than that amazing stretch of imagination.

originally posted by: DeadFoot

originally posted by: JimBielson
I agree it was not an attack motivated by religion.

Back to the books with you, then.

Explain, I never said it was religion? You make no sense.. I put forth a theory on bullies...

originally posted by: JimBielson

originally posted by: DeadFoot

originally posted by: JimBielson
I agree it was not an attack motivated by religion.

Back to the books with you, then.

Explain, I never said it was religion? You make no sense.. I put forth a theory on bullies...

You "hypothesized" that some gays might have mocked him, and then implied it was their own fault they were killed for simple mockery, as if being murdered is justified for mockery. That implication also extends to the ones who did not even know or had met him but just happened to be in the club and having a good time, who were MURDERED.

Are you gay? Are you struggling with coming to terms? Been rejected? Own Guns?

Either way, your comments are tasteless.

But that's to be expected of a troll...

originally posted by: JimBielson

In either case, the LGBT community has more culpability in this nightmare than they are willing to admit and they are trying to project guilt on the rest of us. They need to be called out on their B.S. or marginalized as incoherent and a group without reason.

You think this ONE individual was treated differently by LGBT, then other individuals?

Do you think he is the only closeted gay muslim?

What other LGBT person has ever shot up an LGBT nightclub?

Is the LGBT community responsible for his behavior and getting expelled from school at age 10?

NO. His wounds go far deeper and long before experiencing his sexual orientation.

a reply to: JimBielson

You're basing this entirely on the notion that he was gay.

I would think it rather obvious that, if he was gay, he believed that his only means of redemption was Jihad against what he believed was the very evil, that possessed him.

You think it's because people in the club called him names?

Exactly why do you keep using the word "culpability", anyways? Just say what you're saying without the fluff and it comes out like this:

"It's the gay community's fault that this happened. I believe he was bullied because I needed to establish another motive so I made one up."

Also be aware that pointing out other people's theories that don't make sense to a lot does't make your own any less ridiculous.

originally posted by: JimBielson
Explain, I never said it was religion? You make no sense.. I put forth a theory on bullies...

Your 'theory' is baseless.

a reply to: JimBielson

Do you even read what you write?

No one, regardless of what verbal threat they make to change a persons life, no matter what language they use against the individual they are verbally harassing, deserves to be shot for it, no matter who they are speaking to, or why, or how.

Only a physical threat of lethal violence, should ever illicit a lethal response.

Because of this, no unarmed person has ever deserved to be shot dead, nor any great mass of unarmed persons for that matter. What you have said, is , for this reason, utter, and total twaddle. The individuals who died in that bar are incapable of being responsible for the circumstances which lead to their deaths, because they did not pose a lethal threat to the perpetrator who carried out their murders.

You can think otherwise if you wish, but only if you have the time to waste being totally and utterly wrong. Life is short, so get wise.

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: JimBielson

originally posted by: DeadFoot

originally posted by: JimBielson
I agree it was not an attack motivated by religion.

Back to the books with you, then.

Explain, I never said it was religion? You make no sense.. I put forth a theory on bullies...

You "hypothesized" that some gays might have mocked him, and then implied it was their own fault they were killed for simple mockery, as if being murdered is justified for mockery. That implication also extends to the ones who did not even know or had met him but just happened to be in the club and having a good time, who were MURDERED.

Are you gay? Are you struggling with coming to terms? Been rejected?

Either way, your comments are tasteless.

But that's to be expected of a troll...

Ummm.. Ok, here is a quote from a patron of said club.

"He was trying to pick up people. Men," Van Horn said late Monday outside the Parliament House, another gay club. Van Horn said he met Mateen once. He said the younger man was telling him about his ex-wife. "My friends came out from the back and said, 'Let's go take pictures on the patio,'" Van Horn said. "So I left. And then they told me they didn't want me talking to him, because they thought he was a strange person."

They thought he was a strange person. Yes, I would say that is an indication of the guy being humiliated and bullied in some form. He didn't cut the mustered for being a patron at Pulse. It sure seems he wasn't made to feel comfortable. That is just one comment on the atmosphere at Pulse. .

Source

No, I am not gay. I know, that is another tactic of the LGBT when they feel threatened. Don't feel threatened. This is just a theory, a conversation of ideas.

ETA - Where did I ever say this was justified? Please point that out? It was his perceived threats that carried it out. I am just saying it looks to be less of an ISIS attack and move of a tormented individual, be in internal or external..

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: JimBielson

Do you even read what you write?

No one, regardless of what verbal threat they make to change a persons life, no matter what language they use against the individual they are verbally harassing, deserves to be shot for it, no matter who they are speaking to, or why, or how.

Only a physical threat of lethal violence, should ever illicit a lethal response.

Because of this, no unarmed person has ever deserved to be shot dead, nor any great mass of unarmed persons for that matter. What you have said, is , for this reason, utter, and total twaddle. The individuals who died in that bar are incapable of being responsible for the circumstances which lead to their deaths, because they did not pose a lethal threat to the perpetrator who carried out their murders.

You can think otherwise if you wish, but only if you have the time to waste being totally and utterly wrong. Life is short, so get wise.

You are becoming unhinged. I never said this was an excuse for what he did. I am just putting forth a theory of what may have happened. I never said 49 lost souls deserved what they got. How can you interpret what I said as condoning what this mad man did? Take a breath man..

originally posted by: JimBielson


They thought he was a strange person. Yes, I would say that is an indication of the guy being humiliated and bullied in some form. He didn't cut the mustered for being a patron at Pulse. It sure seems he wasn't made to feel comfortable. That is just one comment on the atmosphere at Pulse. .

If they were bullying him regularly, why would they make up an excuse to get him away from the guy?

Why wouldn't they just outright humiliate him?

Does't make a lot of sense to me.

If I was a bully, and wanted someone not near a person who I bullied, I wouldn't say, "Hey, let's go take some pictures on the balcony!", I would say, "Ew, get away from that thing."

Appreciate the sourcing, though

a reply to: DeadFoot

Well from reading the article he did a piss poor job of trying to fit in and he may have internalized the reactions to those around him as disapproval. He wanted to be one person but to him he wasn't being allowed and he committed the most horrific act in seeking retribution on those he saw as the enemy.

I noticed they said he would sit alone and sulk I guess. Then when he had a few drinks he over compensated. When he was rejected he internalized that and took extreme offence. Again, he wanted so much to be one person but he just couldn't and he exploded in his own madness.

Those around him had no idea what he was thinking when his advances were rejected. The guy was a time bomb.

ETA - It may not have been an in your face bullying but when people get drunk and act like an idiot people tend to laugh at them. I don't think it was overt bullying but it was bullying nevertheless. Again, he may have internalized those laughing at him as rejection.

Again, I am not making excuses for what he did..

a reply to: JimBielson

You used the word culpability, not me.

Interpretation is not necessary. My grasp of the English language is perfect, so if there is a miscommunication here, it must be to do with your choice of words. If you are going to use a word, you had best be sure what it means. For the record, suggesting any culpability on the part of dead patrons, or living patrons of the nightclub, suggesting any culpability on the part of the LGBT community, suggesting any culpability for the results, other than the culpability pinned squarely to the shooter IS WRONG!

Now, once again, if that is not what you meant to do, then just say so, retract the statement, and rephrase it in a manner which is actually accurate to your understanding of the incident, and your actual feelings about it, preferably without using the word culpability, or anything that could be exchanged for it to convey a similar sentiment.

originally posted by: windword



Any law that allows people to conspire against a group or an individual to deny them employment, housing, food, fuel and medical care, based on religious bias and superstition, also allows for that individual or group to be purposefully neglected to death. That is what these state's, so called, Religious Freedom and Restoration Acts do.

So you extract a proposed law that allows someone not to serve a gay person food etc. such as the pizzeria and bakery means that they want those people to starve to death? You are absolutely ridiculous!

You have lost all credibility. The only explanation for making this claim is that you hate Christians. By saying a Christian baker that does not want to bake a cake for a gay wedding is just as bad as murdering people, you are demonizing them. So does that make you culpable in all of the Christians executions that occur around the world?

You know I deal with a lot of people that don't follow news or sites like this. I have been telling them today how people oin a site I am on are blaming Christians for this killing. You would not believe how much good showing them this thread is doing for finally convincing them how screwed up the progressive agenda is.

PLEASE keep posting, you are doing great!

Finally, here is a video from Douglas Murray a gay man describing liberal hypocrisy on Islam. The whole video is good, but starting at the 8 minute mark he talks about how people direct there ire to Christians denying marriage rights, and although he agrees with them, he thinks they ought to direct their ire at people who want to murder him. The reason for this, they don't want to be called racists, and its vogue to bash on Christians.

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: JimBielson

You used the word culpability, not me.

Interpretation is not necessary. My grasp of the English language is perfect, so if there is a miscommunication here, it must be to do with your choice of words. If you are going to use a word, you had best be sure what it means. For the record, suggesting any culpability on the part of dead patrons, or living patrons of the nightclub, suggesting any culpability on the part of the LGBT community, suggesting any culpability for the results, other than the culpability pinned squarely to the shooter IS WRONG!

Now, once again, if that is not what you meant to do, then just say so, retract the statement, and rephrase it in a manner which is actually accurate to your understanding of the incident, and your actual feelings about it, preferably without using the word culpability, or anything that could be exchanged for it to convey a similar sentiment.

He was rejected and it looks like there is even more evidence he was bullied or made to feel inferior by the patrons at Pulse. I am not excusing what the guy did. I don't think you can separate what I am saying from the indignation you feel but this is the measuring stick by which the LGBT measures bullying.

If you make an LGBT member feel humiliated or inferior to the rest of society, that is unacceptable and I agree but you cannot have two different rulers just because the person happens to be a member of the club. Bullying is bullying period.

If this guy was bullied and that was the trigger at the very least, retrospection is needed. Culpability is what I hear time and time again when the shoe is on the other foot but fine, if it was inflammatory I will retract it if retrospection is a more sensitive word.. (Retracted)

a reply to: JimBielson

Even if all that were the case, the fact is that the guy had been on the FBIs terror watch list since 2001 for publicly praising the attacks on the twin towers.

His ex-wife reported that she drove him to Disney World before the attack, but he decided he did not want to go after seeing the high security.

He wanted to commit a mass shooting in the name of his god. You could argue that he wanted to get 2 birds with one stone and that's why he went to Pulse, I would entertain that. You don't, however, get to erase the plain fact that the man pledged himself to ISIL and had been planning this for a while.

It was absolutely religiously motivated. Clear as ever.

A sick, mentally twisted guy. In a sick, mentally twisted establishment...doing sick, twisted, and demonic things. .. How twisted and ironic.