Orlando 911 calls will be edited to remove references to "Islamic terrorism".

a reply to: jordan77

I don't buy that. ISIS already had propaganda videos out championing this attack before these transcripts were released. The media already put it out there that this guy pledged allegiance to Bagdadi and ISIS.

The administration seems to think if people just ignore the threat, ignore various 'trigger words' then it will go away.

a reply to: khnum

So we're in the Middle East not knowing who the enemy is? Bombing random places hoping to get random people? Our soldiers are being sent on missions not knowing who they're after? Nonsense. Such a political talking point. Saying "radical Islam" is not a strategy.

a reply to: SonOfThor

You dont have to contribute to it though. Because something is out there doesnt mean the adminstration is obligated to go along with it and make it worse.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
I wonder if this entire move is DOJ cover-up slight of hand.

-Say you're removing something specific....
-Wait for uproar...
-Renege on your decision and agree to put it back...
-More uproar...
-Ultimately, removing something else entirely during all the distraction.

Yes. That's why the audio wasn't released.

a reply to: jordan77

I understand your point - I just ponder what is more harmful to bringing this country closer together; an apparent lack of transparency (perceived or actual) of our own Government, or an apparent sound byte for another ISIS video.

As of right now, this attack literally just split our polarized country further apart. Some people say Radical Islam, some say guns. Many people aren't able to see the nuance and complexity of the whole situation. We are fracturing, for better or worse and I think there are serious implications for the sustainability of this country.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: IAMTAT
I wonder if this entire move is DOJ cover-up slight of hand.

-Say you're removing something specific....
-Wait for uproar...
-Renege on your decision and agree to put it back...
-More uproar...
-Ultimately, removing something else entirely during all the distraction.

Yes. That's why the audio wasn't released.

True.
Completely inexplicable why they wouldn't release audio to match released text.

a reply to: SonOfThor

I think they probably saw better of it, but the PR damage from the lack of transparency was done already. Personally, they should've just not released the transcripts or released then in its entirety. It was all or none. Redacting never really works, IMO.

originally posted by: jordan77
a reply to: SonOfThor

I think they probably saw better of it, but the PR damage from the lack of transparency was done already. Personally, they should've just not released the transcripts or released then in its entirety. It was all or none. Redacting never really works, IMO.

Seriously, the whole transcript brouhaha was intended to detract from the fact that they aren't releasing the audio recordings. Seems to have worked.

a reply to: gladtobehere

Im starting to believe that me not being able to move to the US was a blessing in disguise! Its is starting to look like a sinking ship with all this PC!

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I was talking to a police official last night (unrelated department) about all of this, and he stated that there were reports surfacing within their command which indicate that not a single hostage died until SWAT made their entry (several hours after the initial calls). I do NOT have a lot of substantiating links, but was able to find this. It's not much, but it does seem to support his statements.

SWAT entry

I'm not sure what to make of this, but it certainly contrasts drastically with the narrative we've been told so far. The Islamic Terrorist shooter didn't walk in and immediately start shooting up the place as has been stated. It's sounding like he may have engaged the (off-duty cop) doorman first and then stopped. From there it sounds like it was a hostage situation. Hostage negotiations with extremist religious hostage takers usually end badly (very).

If this is true, there may have been quite a bit more collateral deaths/injuries than initially thought. Could this be why none of the other recordings have been released?

Again, not sure what to make of this, but I put it out there for discussion.

originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: jordan77

Some people say Radical Islam, some say guns.

No one is denying this was Radical Islam. Guns are simply the thing being targeted in the Problem/Reaction/Solution scenario.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: jordan77

Some people say Radical Islam, some say guns.

No one is denying this was Radical Islam. Guns are simply the thing being targeted in the Problem/Reaction/Solution scenario.

I might be. I'd like a full, formal investigation into certain people in the federal government who have exploited this shooting for certain benefits. That's motive, IMO, dressed up to look like 'Problem/Reaction/Solution.'

Will that ever happen? No, of course it won't. But that doesn't mean there isn't probable cause to investigate and it doesn't mean an investigation has ruled them out as suspects.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Agreed. Like you said, of course that kind of investigation won't happen. Both sides, all sides, all governments use the 'problem/reaction/solution' methods of shaping their societies. We can be angry about it, but if the evidence and support isn't there to go after heads of state, all we can do is try to support a reaction/solution that upholds our ideals.

The gun issue is a legit problem. If we're to accept that these kinds of rifles designed for rapid fire/multi-target are to be allowed in civilian hands, then does it make sense for police to be carrying hand guns? Should police be militarized. Is that the direction we want to go? It's a problem worthy of debate... a healthy compromise is needed by both sides... a way to future-proof 2nd Amendment rights. I don't think a militarized society is the way to go, but that's just my opinion.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: neo96

You don't selectively edit 911 calls unless your trying to COVER UP something.

"What we're not going to do is further proclaim this man's pledges of allegiance to terrorist groups, and further his propaganda," Lynch said.

Why do you and others deflect or ignore this?

yet still state he is mulsim, an islamic soldier, use the words (in arabic), and somehow pretend that not using the word term ISIS and a single name, will prevent anything.

you are the deluded one here.

"Hey we all know he said ISIS, but the FBI said he didnt, better put the bombs away you guys, we now have no motive to attack anyone.." -- said no militant muslim ever.

What is wrong with you..

originally posted by: ATruGod
Makes You wonder if He actually said it.

Especially on hearsay alone!

Not really. Makes you wonder why officials would kowtow to muslim terrorists though.

Maybe it was really trump, and they just know batman wasn't there, so they better shhh..

originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Or during negotiations Mateen name dropped the FBI informants who worked him up then he went rogue from and actually committed the act. Maybe he was asking for protection from his handler once he knew his gig was up.

(This is based on one false flag scenario, which based on the FBI's way of entrapping people to foil terror plots is a feasible scenario to me)...

Or, he could have mentioned accomplices that may still be under investigation / not apprehended. Either way, there is some sketchy stuff going on with the three most recent high profile terror attacks in this country - Boston, San Bernardino, and Orlando...

Jesus this just annoys me.

Do you think they'd even mention the calls, transcripts etc, if that was the case? Huurrr durrrr.. NO.

"Oh dear boys, he said our names, gee watta we gonna do, ya think we should just remove our names and pretend, because no one will even guess, and then release it? right boys! Gee we're good at this game, I think we all play a game of snap to celebrate."

No.. There would be NO release at all.

ugh...

but lets all think they're as stupid as those who invent these things, in their feeble little brains, to congratulate themselves.

originally posted by: M4nWithNoN4me

originally posted by: SonOfThor
Or during negotiations Mateen name dropped the FBI informants who worked him up then he went rogue from and actually committed the act. Maybe he was asking for protection from his handler once he knew his gig was up.

Wow, that is a really interesting theory... and VERY plausible.

No it's not.

You're begging for them to release withheld info that leads right back to them. and that's just inane.

originally posted by: Jonjonj
Power wants power, there can be no other conclusion.

Knowledge gained is knowledge shared - and to add to that, knowledge gained is power halved.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: xuenchen

So, are we all happy now? The full transcript is released and we can all feel okay now?

Except you, it appears. He who would prefer that truth be obfuscated to appease an agenda..