mass shooting in orlando

[Zoraptor]

 

I think a large part of the immigration issue could be solved by making social programs only available to citizens.

How does that solve anything?

 

 

It probably doesn't solve anything or at very best 'solves' some bits while making other bits worse. But doing something makes people feel better, and that's what's really important. It's one of the great ironies that the 'right' accuses the 'left' of doing and saying impractical things to make themselves feel better and then does exactly the same thing themselves- and, of course, the 'left' does the same.

 

That suggestion also has the advantage of being self fulfilling. If there's extra crime or whatever from immigrants who cannot send their children to school or get healthcare or whatever then that 'proves' immigrants are criminal and the policy is justified. It's also utterly useless at best and almost certainly actively counterproductive in doing anything against someone like Mateen, or most of the French attackers etc, who are citizens already- unless the policy were made retroactive or something but I doubt you'd get many supporting active disenfranchisement, at least. For terrorism there isn't much at all from 1st gen refugees/ immigrants as they are by and large both worried about being sent back and grateful for being somewhere safe where they can live decently, it's the 2nd generation of citizens from whom almost all terrorists have come.

 

The real problem is that the world is run by politicians, and politicians focus on being elected so have awful forward thinking for anything not related to their (re-)election. There isn't much in the way of practical alternative to that and it may be pie-in-the-sky idealism speaking but I wish that there was a bit more honest discussion rather than soundbites, catchphrases, massaged statistics and focus group mediated press releases so that the undoubtable good bits of immigration can be balanced against the bad bits while recognising there isn't a magic wand to tell who is 'good' or 'bad' any more than there is for existing citizens. And yes, that includes things like Merkel (though she's certainly not alone) admitting that Germany needs immigrants to maintain pensions and the like a few years longer for an ageing population that votes for her party or our government admitting they need immigration because otherwise our economy is shrinking rather than growing, house prices would drop and they'd lose the election next year.

 

And specifically for Radical Islam it doesn't help that politicians simply will not deal with Saudi elephant in the room and ignore their export of a deliberately retrograde sect which is deeply intolerant of everything not itself, because Saudis have lots of money and aren't shy about spending it.

[Hurlshort]

We have a guy who attacks a gay nightclub because of intolerance, and we have a religion that everyone accuses of being intolerant, and we have a terrorist group that doesn't tolerate anything that is different...

 

And the solution is to be less tolerant?

[Valsuelm]

We have a guy who attacks a gay nightclub because of intolerance, and we have a religion that everyone accuses of being intolerant, and we have a terrorist group that doesn't tolerate anything that is different...

 

And the solution is to be less tolerant?

 

It certainly isn't to welcome all of the above with open arms.

 

If a man isn't tolerating the fact that your daughter is telling him no, your reaction should not be to tolerate him when he forces her legs open.

[Oerwinde]

The US had open immigration and no social programs, it forced people to either work, or go home. Most chose to work, and it resulted in the most prosperous society on earth, because the ones that weren't willing, didn't stay. You can have either mass immigration, or a welfare state, not both.

[BruceVC]

We have a guy who attacks a gay nightclub because of intolerance, and we have a religion that everyone accuses of being intolerant, and we have a terrorist group that doesn't tolerate anything that is different...

 

And the solution is to be less tolerant?

Hurlshot you seem to be almost intentionally not wanting an answer or rather you want someone to tell you what you like as I have given you same answer 2-3 times ...but I'll repeat it again as its not complicated

 

• It was both a hate crime and an attack on the USA
• Muslims must be welcomed into our communities but there own responsibility to the home country agreed to
• Islamic extremist must be rejected by all people including Muslims in the country attacked  

Edited June 19, 2016 by BruceVC

[Guard Dog]

AG Loretta Lynch says the 9-11 transcripts will have all references to ISIS, radical Islamic terrorism, and everything else that makes the administration uncomfortable edited out of them prior to release.  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/06/19/lynch_partial_transcript_of_orlando_911_calls_will_have_references_to_isis_cut_out.html

[Guard Dog]

The biggest lie in Presidential history... after the one about the WMDs, or the one about not having sex with Monica, or "Read my lips", or "I am not a crook", or "I did not trade arms for hostages" or "Iran is an island of stability in a turbulent corner of the world", or “I have previously stated, and I repeat now, that the United States intends no military intervention in Cuba.”

 

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxCVENhSq9M

[BruceVC]

AG Loretta Lynch says the 9-11 transcripts will have all references to ISIS, radical Islamic terrorism, and everything else that makes the administration uncomfortable edited out of them prior to release.  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/06/19/lynch_partial_transcript_of_orlando_911_calls_will_have_references_to_isis_cut_out.html

GD that whole " Obama\Clinton " wont say the words " Radical Islam  " is nothing but  Obama-bashing ....dont believe it for a second

 

 

http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-defends-not-saying-radical-islam-what-would-that-accomplish.html

[Guard Dog]

 

AG Loretta Lynch says the 9-11 transcripts will have all references to ISIS, radical Islamic terrorism, and everything else that makes the administration uncomfortable edited out of them prior to release.  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/06/19/lynch_partial_transcript_of_orlando_911_calls_will_have_references_to_isis_cut_out.html

GD that whole " Obama\Clinton " wont say the words " Radical Islam  " is nothing but  Obama-bashing ....dont believe it for a second

 

 

http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-defends-not-saying-radical-islam-what-would-that-accomplish.html

 

Are you kidding? You don't even live here and hear the news broadcasts we hear. Nearly every word out of their mouths is broadcasted. We know what they say and don't say far better than anyone ever will who isn't here 24-7. And for reasons all their own they won't say "radical islam" in the same sentence as terrorism. And by taking the unprecedented step of censoring them from the shooters own mouth it looks like they won't let him say it either.

 

But in this instance I was talking about the US Attorney General Loretta Lynch. To hear her describe it last week you'd think two guns walked into that club and shot those people all by themselves.

Edited June 19, 2016 by Guard Dog

[Zoraptor]

The US had open immigration and no social programs, it forced people to either work, or go home. Most chose to work, and it resulted in the most prosperous society on earth, because the ones that weren't willing, didn't stay. You can have either mass immigration, or a welfare state, not both.

 

That works fine in an "'infinite' expansion'" situation like the industrial revolution, not so much in the current situation. In this situation they'd be illegal jobs they got in a lot of cases; underpaid, no job security, prone to exploitation and depressing the local labour market even more- worse, those conditions would bleed through to the legitimate workforce as well since you could always replace that pesky entitled citizen with some immigrant who has literally no option but take what is offered or... starve, be expelled, turn to crime or whatever the end game is for a no social program system.

 

We already have a situation here where a lot of workers are imported for generally quite unskilled jobs (fruit picking, agriculture, sheesh even waiters plus perhaps the worst example, fishing where outright slavery sometimes happens) which the internal unemployed could easily do. Why? Because the imported workers will accept really bad- or dodgy as- conditions and there's a lot of nudge nudge wink wink exploitation like employers renting accommodation to their imported workers at multi 100% mark ups, where an actual citizen could easily complain about it as being 'extortion' but all the imported worker would get is their salary withheld to defray the cost of the flight home or not employed in the first place.

 

Thing is, immigration is actually great. If you have a shortage of skilled workers you can fix it quicker than X years of training can, and the inflow of new ideas and concepts is crucial to a healthy as opposed to ossified society. But it is a balance. It's not great when we import all of Fiji's nurses while all ours go to Switzerland, the UAE and Qatar because our pay is so low but higher than Fiji's, not great for us since we subsidise the education of our nurses and not great for Fiji as, well, where do they get their nurses from once we've nicked theirs? But there's absolutely no forward planning except of the most inane kind to make sure that we have enough carpenters or whatever we're short of this week. But cutting off social programs is not the answer to problems with immigration because it will exacerbate some of the underlying problems such as outright crime and illegal work and not really solve anything, it will just shift the costs elsewhere. Solving it requires a proper approach that limits numbers to those which are maximally beneficial for the country, with room for legitimate humanitarian cases; that is not exploitable and which does not make new immigrants prey to the unscrupulous who would use and discard them in an unending chain. And it all has to be enforceable, and enforced. Blunt force approaches appeal because they are simple and make an emotive point, that's their strength but in practical regards it's also their weakness. No subtlety nor nuance, just blanket application.

 

Of course it's easy for me to say that, I'll never be called on to put my vision into action and New Zealand is about as remote as you can get for illegal at least immigrants, short of Iceland.

[BruceVC]

 

 

AG Loretta Lynch says the 9-11 transcripts will have all references to ISIS, radical Islamic terrorism, and everything else that makes the administration uncomfortable edited out of them prior to release.  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/06/19/lynch_partial_transcript_of_orlando_911_calls_will_have_references_to_isis_cut_out.html

GD that whole " Obama\Clinton " wont say the words " Radical Islam  " is nothing but  Obama-bashing ....dont believe it for a second

 

 

http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-defends-not-saying-radical-islam-what-would-that-accomplish.html

 

Are you kidding? You don't even live here and hear the news broadcasts we hear. Nearly every word out of their mouths is broadcasted. We know what they say and don't say far better than anyone ever will who isn't here 24-7. And for reasons all their own they won't say "radical islam" in the same sentence as terrorism. And by taking the unprecedented step of censoring them from the shooters own mouth it looks like they won't let him say it either.

 

But in this instance I was talking about the US Attorney General Loretta Lynch. To hear her describe it last week you'd think two guns walked into that club and shot those people all by themselves.

 

Oh no, you playing the old " Bruce you dont live in the USA, you cant know more than me " 

 

 

....thats what LK said to me. It was inconsequential then and its inconsequential now, sorry buddy I respect your intelligence to much to  pander to that silly point 

 

Of course its possible I could be right about something in the USA that you dont agree with,  this is a  good example.

 

The reason is " The answer is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction " 

 

Of course this makes sense, ask Gromnir or other people  what they think 

Edited June 19, 2016 by BruceVC

[Hurlshort]

 

We have a guy who attacks a gay nightclub because of intolerance, and we have a religion that everyone accuses of being intolerant, and we have a terrorist group that doesn't tolerate anything that is different...

 

And the solution is to be less tolerant?

 

It certainly isn't to welcome all of the above with open arms.

 

If a man isn't tolerating the fact that your daughter is telling him no, your reaction should not be to tolerate him when he forces her legs open.

 

 

Let's expand on your super gross scenario.  A young man comes to your door and is interesting in your daughter.  It sounds like you want to answer the door with a gun in hand, then follow the two around with the gun, occasionally barking orders and interrogating him.  Or maybe you just don't open the door.  

 

I'd rather get to know the young man and find out his intentions.  I can tell him what my expectations are.  If he turns out to be a punk, I'm also not going to judge all other young men on his actions.  If he were to assault her, which is a terrible thought, I'd rely on the law of the land to deal with him.  I'd focus my attention on my daughter and helping her recover from her ordeal.  

[BruceVC]

 

 

We have a guy who attacks a gay nightclub because of intolerance, and we have a religion that everyone accuses of being intolerant, and we have a terrorist group that doesn't tolerate anything that is different...

 

And the solution is to be less tolerant?

 

It certainly isn't to welcome all of the above with open arms.

 

If a man isn't tolerating the fact that your daughter is telling him no, your reaction should not be to tolerate him when he forces her legs open.

 

 

Let's expand on your super gross scenario.  A young man comes to your door and is interesting in your daughter.  It sounds like you want to answer the door with a gun in hand, then follow the two around with the gun, occasionally barking orders and interrogating him.  Or maybe you just don't open the door.  

 

I'd rather get to know the young man and find out his intentions.  I can tell him what my expectations are.  If he turns out to be a punk, I'm also not going to judge all other young men on his actions.  If he were to assault her, which is a terrible thought, I'd rely on the law of the land to deal with him.  I'd focus my attention on my daughter and helping her recover from her ordeal.  

 

Okay, yes Vals and others this does seem to make sense ...but I'm veryyyyyyyy stoned so who knows what makes sense 

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

AG Loretta Lynch says the 9-11 transcripts will have all references to ISIS, radical Islamic terrorism, and everything else that makes the administration uncomfortable edited out of them prior to release.  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/06/19/lynch_partial_transcript_of_orlando_911_calls_will_have_references_to_isis_cut_out.html

GD that whole " Obama\Clinton " wont say the words " Radical Islam  " is nothing but  Obama-bashing ....dont believe it for a second

 

 

http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-defends-not-saying-radical-islam-what-would-that-accomplish.html

 

Are you kidding? You don't even live here and hear the news broadcasts we hear. Nearly every word out of their mouths is broadcasted. We know what they say and don't say far better than anyone ever will who isn't here 24-7. And for reasons all their own they won't say "radical islam" in the same sentence as terrorism. And by taking the unprecedented step of censoring them from the shooters own mouth it looks like they won't let him say it either.

 

But in this instance I was talking about the US Attorney General Loretta Lynch. To hear her describe it last week you'd think two guns walked into that club and shot those people all by themselves.

 

Oh no, you playing the old " Bruce you dont live in the USA, you cant know more than me " 

 

 

....thats what LK said to me. It was inconsequential then and its inconsequential now, sorry buddy I respect your intelligence to much to  pander to that silly point 

 

Of course its possible I could be right about something in the USA that you dont agree with,  this is a  good example.

 

The reason is " The answer is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction " 

 

Of course this makes sense, ask Gromnir or other people  what they think 

 

I'm saying there isn't an idea behind them not calling out radical Islam by name. Whether I agree with it or not. But it cannot be denied they will not say the words... and people notice and draw their own conclusions.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

AG Loretta Lynch says the 9-11 transcripts will have all references to ISIS, radical Islamic terrorism, and everything else that makes the administration uncomfortable edited out of them prior to release.  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/06/19/lynch_partial_transcript_of_orlando_911_calls_will_have_references_to_isis_cut_out.html

GD that whole " Obama\Clinton " wont say the words " Radical Islam  " is nothing but  Obama-bashing ....dont believe it for a second

 

 

http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-defends-not-saying-radical-islam-what-would-that-accomplish.html

 

Are you kidding? You don't even live here and hear the news broadcasts we hear. Nearly every word out of their mouths is broadcasted. We know what they say and don't say far better than anyone ever will who isn't here 24-7. And for reasons all their own they won't say "radical islam" in the same sentence as terrorism. And by taking the unprecedented step of censoring them from the shooters own mouth it looks like they won't let him say it either.

 

But in this instance I was talking about the US Attorney General Loretta Lynch. To hear her describe it last week you'd think two guns walked into that club and shot those people all by themselves.

 

Oh no, you playing the old " Bruce you dont live in the USA, you cant know more than me " 

 

 

....thats what LK said to me. It was inconsequential then and its inconsequential now, sorry buddy I respect your intelligence to much to  pander to that silly point 

 

Of course its possible I could be right about something in the USA that you dont agree with,  this is a  good example.

 

The reason is " The answer is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction " 

 

Of course this makes sense, ask Gromnir or other people  what they think 

 

I'm saying there isn't an idea behind them not calling out radical Islam by name. Whether I agree with it or not. But it cannot be denied they will not say the words... and people notice and draw their own conclusions.

 

But this is in the article, Obama explains it clearly...see below? Its perfectly logical to me ...but I am stoned so I may be wrong 

 

" During his speech, delivered on Tuesday, Obama continued to use the acronym ISIL instead of ISIS as he doubled down on his refusal to say the term “radical Islam”:

And let me make a final point. For a while now, the main contribution of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have made in the fight against ISIL is to criticize the administration and me for not using the phrase “radical Islam.” That’s the key, they tell us. We cannot beat ISIL unless we call them radical Islamists.

What exactly would using this label would accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to try to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this?

The answer is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction." 

[Volourn]

The one doing the poitical distraction is Obama. You gotta call a spade a spade. When an extremist Christian makes an attack nobody hesitates to call him or the religion out.

 

This attack was done by a Muslim extremist. That is fact. PERIOD.

 

Yet Obama's lackies  blame  the Conervative Christian right for his actions.

[Hiro Protagonist]

We have a guy who attacks a gay nightclub because of intolerance, and we have a religion that everyone accuses of being intolerant, and we have a terrorist group that doesn't tolerate anything that is different...

 

And the solution is to be less tolerant?

 

Is that you Captain Sweden? So tolerant.

Edited June 20, 2016 by Hiro Protagonist

[redneckdevil]

Ow yes, Christian extremists, Morman extremists, Catholic extremists, ALL can be said without hesitation and have been said and are continued to be said here because we've all seen the bombings, shootings, suicides and know that these are individuals who take something to the extreme. There's normal " such and such" and then there's the whack job "extremists".

I can only relate to my surroundings, but even most stanched Obama supporters even question it and wonder why.

Seems here where I'm at, it's more along the lines that Obama won't admit.....that's there's something wrong with the religion of the Muslim belief. Here in America, there are soooooooooo many people of all different beliefs that will all agree that there's some things that are not kosher with their religion, in that it isn't perfect with the current times. For most religious Americans, when pressed will say there are things we disagree with with our faith and when we see extremists, we see people who have gone overboard and to far with their faith. We see "religion" extremist and see them different than the normal religion faith.

With Obama not making the distinction, something we have grown accustomed with, it makes people wonder either if Obama isn't labeling it as extremists (people who have taken something to far) because they ARE practicing the religion in a right way and can't go against it because he's the same religion or is he trying to be PC about it which infuriates a lot of people because while being PC is all well and good and something we should go, it shouldn't be a bar or a wall that we willingly let block us in a time of crisis.

[Guard Dog]

 

The answer is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction." 

 

Which are more dangerous Bruce; Sunni terrorists or Shia terrorists. ISIL is only one of those. But they are all radical islam. If there is a bear rampaging through the forest killing hikers and the hunter shows up and talks in vague terms about stopping dangerous animals you would have a hard time taking him seriously wouldn't you? Barack Obama is generally thought of as being a weak man here in the US. Buy refusing to even identify the root cause of the problem he only reinforces that notion both at home and abroad.

 

Not an apples to apples comparison but take a look at the contrast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfKGUF9uDxU

[Hurlshort]

 

Is that you Captain Sweden? So tolerant.

 

 

Did you feel good about this comment?

[Guard Dog]

Timing is everything: http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/06/19/mourners-in-awe-as-rainbow-appears-over-massive-orlando-vigil/

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

Offer incentive for returning (financial, logistical) and working with current regimes in stabilizing the region (like accepting that the overthrowing of Saddam and Gadaffi were terrible mistakes and start supporting Assad as the least evil option). 

 

If they still don't want to leave then sadly there will be conflicts on some degree or the other.

 

You're a relatively astute person, so this is probably somewhat rhetorical:

 

Did it ever occur to you that overthrowing Saddam and Qaddafi were not terrible mistakes? That perhaps the folks who orchestrated these things knew exactly what they were doing?

 

The outcomes were indeed predicted by many, even as early as the 90s. So at least in some quarters there was no surprise at what happened. If we are to take the position that these things were terrible mistakes, what are we doing allowing those who made them to continue holding the strings of power?

 

And if we take the position that they were not mistakes....

 

Then /pol/ is right and we are in for terrible times ahead. I do not wish for that to happen.

 

 

Reddit and 4chan are places I do not frequent (I'm not sure which one you're referring to). But I would agree that terrible times are ahead. I also do not wish for them to happen. However, us wishing thus is akin to us wishing the tides to not happen. Rubicons have been crossed. We are past points of no return at this point, and have been for quite some time methinks. The calm before the storm is passed, and the waves are beginning to get choppy these last few years. The worst part methinks is that the longer the flames take to ignite the worse the explosion is going to be.

 

I'm curious if you have any particular essays/articles/authors you would reference/recommend on /pol/. If not, no worries.

 

 

If /pol/ is right then we have a financial catastrophe on the horizon followed by a race war in the US, civil wars in Europe and a grand confrontational war with Russia. The refugee crisis was actively manufactured, media creates only certain contexts and narratives for social control, and the universities are completely subverted beyond repair. The war on terror, the patriot act and weapons-ban in the western world are tools for demoralisation of rebellious tendencies and social cohesion is destroyed by moving labor anywhere in the world for political reasons, not financial. The end goal is total erosion between different ethnic groups, harmonization of a global culture into a consumer one, which is easily controlled through hyper-individualization were what you buy is the only thing that separates you from the rest. Nations are only trade zones and the political power is beholden by a cabal consisting of old european aristocracy, jewish bankers and transhumanist technicians.

 

No, i am personally too optimistic for such satanic scenario to actually be at play, because i do not think society can be controlled to such a degree even if they try. The phenomenons of Trump and Bernie are manifestations of a soft landing being possible, control not being overreaching and a rebound not only being within the realm of imagination. But first we have to be honest about ourselves, our society and be able to express it openly. That will take time.

 

/pol/ is anonymous posting on an image-board, so you cannot really recommend any specific books or essays really.

 

 

I know we go over this stuff with alarming regularity, but the amount of intolerance that gets thrown around here is depressing. How does that solve any of these issues?

 

And you can have a tolerant society that still expects newcomers to follow the letter of the law and make steps to embrace the culture they are joining. They are not mutually exclusive, quite the opposite. Lead by example.

 

What activity, law or behaviour previously not liked by western society should be tolerated? What is to be gained by perpetually accepting such acts?

 

If you answer with new restaurants and interesting music then you have missed what people are being upset about.

[Hurlshort]

 

I know we go over this stuff with alarming regularity, but the amount of intolerance that gets thrown around here is depressing. How does that solve any of these issues?

 

And you can have a tolerant society that still expects newcomers to follow the letter of the law and make steps to embrace the culture they are joining. They are not mutually exclusive, quite the opposite. Lead by example.

 

What activity, law or behaviour previously not liked by western society should be tolerated? What is to be gained by perpetually accepting such acts?

 

If you answer with new restaurants and interesting music then you have missed what people are being upset about.

 

 

I must not be explaining myself well enough here.

 

You can be tolerant and still have a reasonable expectation that your laws will be followed and your culture will be respected.  You do not need to accept such acts, but you do not need to condemn the many for the sins of a few.

 

You have a mentally unstable homophobic Muslim man who is the son of a Afghani immigrant (who is also pretty unstable.)  He stockpiled weapons and then killed 30 people in the name of ISIS.  

 

Saying the solution to this is to condemn all Muslims is no better than those that want to ban all guns.  They are both short sighted and reactionary, and ignore the vast numbers of peaceful Muslims/responsible gun owners.  Islam, guns, even his use of ISIS; these are all just tools that he used to carry out a terrible tragedy.  They obviously amplified his instability, and that should not be ignored.  But how come no one focuses on the root of this issue?  He was a crazy person.  This was evident long before the shooting.  He had issues in school and there were red flags throughout his life.  

 

We have a serious lack of mental health care in the US, and no one seems to be addressing it.  That's my take on this.  It isn't going to get better by kicking out Muslims. 

[BruceVC]

Timing is everything: http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/06/19/mourners-in-awe-as-rainbow-appears-over-massive-orlando-vigil/

  

That was a very nice link, well done and thanks for posting it 

 

 

@ GD

 

R u supporting what Hurlshot is asking? I'm not sure I am following his logic on this one but now is not the time to discuss tolerance and how we incorporate more Muslims ...lets have a break for  a few days 

[BruceVC]

 

 

I know we go over this stuff with alarming regularity, but the amount of intolerance that gets thrown around here is depressing. How does that solve any of these issues?

 

And you can have a tolerant society that still expects newcomers to follow the letter of the law and make steps to embrace the culture they are joining. They are not mutually exclusive, quite the opposite. Lead by example.

 

What activity, law or behaviour previously not liked by western society should be tolerated? What is to be gained by perpetually accepting such acts?

 

If you answer with new restaurants and interesting music then you have missed what people are being upset about.

 

 

I must not be explaining myself well enough here.

 

You can be tolerant and still have a reasonable expectation that your laws will be followed and your culture will be respected.  You do not need to accept such acts, but you do not need to condemn the many for the sins of a few.

 

You have a mentally unstable homophobic Muslim man who is the son of a Afghani immigrant (who is also pretty unstable.)  He stockpiled weapons and then killed 30 people in the name of ISIS.  

 

Saying the solution to this is to condemn all Muslims is no better than those that want to ban all guns.  They are both short sighted and reactionary, and ignore the vast numbers of peaceful Muslims/responsible gun owners.  Islam, guns, even his use of ISIS; these are all just tools that he used to carry out a terrible tragedy.  They obviously amplified his instability, and that should not be ignored.  But how come no one focuses on the root of this issue?  He was a crazy person.  This was evident long before the shooting.  He had issues in school and there were red flags throughout his life.  

 

We have a serious lack of mental health care in the US, and no one seems to be addressing it.  That's my take on this.  It isn't going to get better by kicking out Muslims. 

 

 But yet there will be another  attack on the USA and it will  be linked ISIS, thats the reality of fighting a group like ISIS

 

They will be destroyed but we need to accept terrorist attacks in the future