Orlando Gay Night Club Shooting

[phan52]

25 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Looks like Obama and FBI had a change of heart;

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/06/20/fbi-doj-release-new-full-transcript-orlando-shooters-911-call.html

Props to Obama for doing the right thing.  

Another example in that piece of what I am talking about.  Florida Governor Rick Scott: "We need a president that’s going to say I care about destroying ISIS."

Excuse me Rick, but this President has stated exactly that more times than I can count. Is the Governor of Florida hard of hearing or just willfully ignorant? Or is it political posturing? Inquiring minds would like to know.

 

Edited June 20, 2016 by phan52

[newtogolf]

8 minutes ago, drmevo said:

What did you learn from the non-redacted version that you didn't already know?  

It's not about what you and I learned it's about those who might not follow the news as closely as we do and also it's about what gets recorded for history.  10 years from now this will be a forgotten story and with censored transcripts people may not remember or know what the motives of the killer were. 

Imagine if we redacted and censored who was responsible for Pearl Harbor or 9-11 (though GW and Obama are still keeping 12 pages of the report hidden to cover up for Saudi Arabia's involvement with the Taliban).  

[Dave2512]

Nobody is going to forget it. People are still talking about Columbine. The redacted version wasn't vague just a lot of (edited) where ISIS or whatever is now. Politicizing it just helped get his message out. Now there is a template for future terrorists to use 911 or the news or whatever to sensationalize their sick acts. It's not just killing now it's a speaking engagement, great.

[drmevo]

2 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

It's not about what you and I learned it's about those who might not follow the news as closely as we do and also it's about what gets recorded for history.  10 years from now this will be a forgotten story and with censored transcripts people may not remember or know what the motives of the killer were. 

Imagine if we redacted and censored who was responsible for Pearl Harbor or 9-11 (though GW and Obama are still keeping 12 pages of the report hidden to cover up for Saudi Arabia's involvement with the Taliban).  

Clearly you and I are coming at this from completely different angles. The shooter's name and claimed affiliations are everywhere. It's not like we're in the dark ages and the only account of what happened is the transcript as recorded by some monk. The FBI and DOJ were refusing to further the terrorist's propaganda on his behalf.  The bold text above is such a stretch, I really don't think you could believe that, I have to believe you kind of blurted it out.

[Lihu]

8 minutes ago, Dave2512 said:

Nobody is going to forget it. People are still talking about Columbine. The redacted version wasn't vague just a lot of (edited) where ISIS or whatever is now. Politicizing it just helped get his message out. Now there is a template for future terrorists to use 911 or the news or whatever to sensationalize their sick acts. It's not just killing now it's a speaking engagement, great.

 

21 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

It's not about what you and I learned it's about those who might not follow the news as closely as we do and also it's about what gets recorded for history.  10 years from now this will be a forgotten story and with censored transcripts people may not remember or know what the motives of the killer were. 

Imagine if we redacted and censored who was responsible for Pearl Harbor or 9-11 (though GW and Obama are still keeping 12 pages of the report hidden to cover up for Saudi Arabia's involvement with the Taliban).  

 

There's something to be said for just putting out the truth as it is. If some friendly government is embarrassed by it, then that's just life.

Politicians are so used to lying, and this is just one of the ways they do it. If it weakens their stance on being anti-Gun instead of anti-Islam they will not release it. For instance, I would be just as pissed off at keeping all the Halliburton stuff private. It works both ways and the politicians involved simple have to live in the crap they helped to create. In the current administration, it's complacency and letting people like this shooter slip through the cracks.

 

[Dave2512]

1 minute ago, Lihu said:

There's something to be said for just putting out the truth as it is. If some friendly government is embarrassed by it, then that's just life.

The point wasn't to not offend or protect anyone it was to minimize the shooter. The shooter wanted to get his message out and used 911 to do it, there is no reason to assist him. Did you see the edited transcript?

[newtogolf]

59 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Looks like Obama and FBI had a change of heart;

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/06/20/fbi-doj-release-new-full-transcript-orlando-shooters-911-call.html

Props to Obama for doing the right thing.  

I gave props too quickly, seems that Barry had them swap all transcript references that contained "Allah" with "God".  

[Dave2512]

2 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

I gave props too quickly, seems that Barry had them swap all transcript references that contained "Allah" with "God".  

He spoke in Arabic, they translated all of that to English. Allah, God, Dios it's all the same thing right.

[newtogolf]

12 minutes ago, Dave2512 said:

He spoke in Arabic, they translated all of that to English. Allah, God, Dios it's all the same thing right.

Okay, fair point.  

[Dave2512]

Politicizing the transcript release is silly. Only thing it accomplished was making the killers words front page news, it's exactly what he wanted.

This is one of those things where it may have taken a different route if not an election year. I find it disturbing politicians would use the death of American's as leverage to tarnish the other guy. Saying ISIS over and over isn't going to make them go away. At this point is anyone denying the threat? I don't know one person regardless of their political beliefs that thinks oh those crazy so and so's, they're imagining ISIS.

If the DOJ says they don't want to release certain things because it may lead to worse things or empower the enemy we should believe them. Everything isn't a conspiracy of the left or right. This should be a no brainer, we have a common enemy regardless of how we vote.

[Lihu]

21 minutes ago, Dave2512 said:

Politicizing the transcript release is silly. Only thing it accomplished was making the killers words front page news, it's exactly what he wanted.

Yeah, I think it had the opposite effect of what they intended by censoring parts of it. They shouldn't have made such a big deal about it and just either have omitted  it or left it in. Actually, they should have just kept it out of the public, for now.

Now, everyone is even more "blame gamey".

 

Quote

This is one of those things where it may have taken a different route if not an election year. I find it disturbing politicians would use the death of American's as leverage to tarnish the other guy. Saying ISIS over and over isn't going to make them go away. At this point is anyone denying the threat? I don't know one person regardless of their political beliefs that thinks oh those crazy so and so's, they're imagining ISIS.

Agree, I think it's extremely reprehensible.

It shouldn't be about "gun control" nor about "Islam control", it should be about how do we prevent this type of thing from happening again?

Strange world we live in where there is nothing but blame. Mostly the people in office who want to blame anything other than themselves.

All I hear is people whining that "Guns did this", "Don't vote for anyone who supports guns" and more political crap. "Ban guns".

The other side is "Ban Islam".

We have other alternatives that do not require that we shoot holes in the constitution, and no one seems to understand that? We have technology, we have money, we just have to do the correct things. There are many technologically sound solutions that could have helped prevent such a tragedy without taking away people's rights.

 

Quote

The DOJ says they don't want to release certain things.

Sure, that's the end of it. They have good reasons not to release anything, so they shouldn't have even tried.

[newtogolf]

5 minutes ago, Lihu said:

It shouldn't be about "gun control" nor about "Islam control", it should be about how do we prevent this type of thing from happening again?

Strange world we live in where there is nothing but blame. Mostly the people in office who want to blame anything other than themselves.

All I hear is people whining that "Guns did this", "Don't vote for anyone who supports guns" and more political crap. "Ban guns".

The other side is "Ban Islam".

We have other alternatives that do not require that we shoot holes in the constitution, and no one seems to understand that? We have technology, we have money, we just have to do the correct things. There are many technologically sound solutions that could have helped prevent such a tragedy without taking away people's rights.

Sure, that's the end of it. They have good reasons not to release anything, so they shouldn't have even tried.

You're simplifying things too much.  We're at war with a group of people that have complete disdain for how we live here, which is different than being at war with a country.  When we're at war with a country we can do things like economic sanctions and attacks on the country but when you're at war with ideas and only subsections of a population that spans multiple countries it requires a different approach.  

I don't know of any conservative that wants to ban Islam or ban Muslims, what most want is better certainty that we're not allowing radicals or terrorists into the country that are posing as refugees or other types of immigrants and that we're doing a better job of stopping radicals within the country from doing what the Orlando shooter did.   

As for guns, a secret No Fly list to prevent citizens from purchasing a gun violates all sorts of constitutional rights.  I have no issue with background checks, I do wish there weren't incompetents performing these jobs though.  I also have no issue with short waiting periods (1-2 weeks max) where those with questionable backgrounds can be escalated for review.  

I'm completely against the banning of the AR-15 or any of it's derivatives though I might be willing to concede on limiting the magazine size to 10 rounds and prohibiting stocks from folding or collapsing as currently exists in NY.  

A solution requires a compromise from both sides.  The left has to stop going after the 2nd amendment and the outright banning of certain guns if it wishes the right to step up to the table and make some compromises on gun features and better regulation.  

[Dave2512]

29 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Yeah, I think it had the opposite effect of what they intended by censoring parts of it. They shouldn't have made such a big deal about it and just either have omitted  it or left it in. Actually, they should have just kept it out of the public, for now.

Now, everyone is even more "blame gamey".

IMO it's too soon to be released and I'm not sure what there was to gain. Evidently there was demand for it and I believe the effect intended by censoring it was to minimize the message or flat out dismiss it. That's why I asked if you saw the first version, there was no doubt what the shooter said and I feel by replacing Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi  with (edited) it was a giant **** you. It's not like entire sections were missing just the words referencing the killer's mission and his allegiance. But for some reason, a political reason, the anti-Obama crowd interpreted that as ISIS denial or ISIS sympathizing even.

So now it's out there and because of silly political pressure we've conveyed a dead killers message. It won't bring anyone back or heal anyone nor will it help or hurt any political cause. All it accomplished was helping an insidious douche bag continue his attack and serve as a guidebook for future attackers so they too can use the emergency system as a bullhorn.

 

[Lihu]

5 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

You're simplifying things too much.  We're at war with a group of people that have complete disdain for how we live here, which is different than being at war with a country.  When we're at war with a country we can do things like economic sanctions and attacks on the country but when you're at war with ideas and only subsections of a population that spans multiple countries it requires a different approach.  

I don't know of any conservative that wants to ban Islam or ban Muslims, what most want is better certainty that we're not allowing radicals or terrorists into the country that are posing as refugees or other types of immigrants and that we're doing a better job of stopping radicals within the country from doing what the Orlando shooter did. 

Sure, but I also hear of a lot of people who would like to make it nearly impossible for all Muslims to enter our country.

 

Quote

As for guns, a secret No Fly list to prevent citizens from purchasing a gun violates all sorts of constitutional rights.  I have no issue with background checks, I do wish there weren't incompetents performing these jobs though.  I also have no issue with short waiting periods (1-2 weeks max) where those with questionable backgrounds can be escalated for review.  

Makes sense.

 

Quote

I'm completely against the banning of the AR-15 or any of it's derivatives though I might be willing to concede on limiting the magazine size to 10 rounds and prohibiting stocks from folding or collapsing as currently exists in NY.  

A solution requires a compromise from both sides.  The left has to stop going after the 2nd amendment and the outright banning of certain guns if it wishes the right to step up to the table and make some compromises on gun features and better regulation.  

Same here. At one point, I was kind of on the fence about this one, but recent events have shown me that it is better to allow people to arm themselves. Possibly not in my town as we have a 2 minutes 911 response time.

 

1 minute ago, Dave2512 said:

IMO it's too soon to be released and I'm not sure what there was to gain. Evidently there was demand for it and I believe the effect intended by censoring it was to minimize the message or flat out dismiss it. That's why I asked if you saw the first version, there was no doubt what the shooter said and I feel by replacing Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi  with (edited) it was a giant **** you. It's not like entire sections were missing just the words referencing the killers mission and his allegiance. But for some reason, a political reason, the anti-Obama crowd interpreted that as ISIS denial or ISIS sympathizing even.

So now it's out there and because of silly political pressure we've conveyed a dead killers message. It won't bring anyone back or heal anyone nor will it help or hurt any political cause. All it accomplished was helping an insidious douche bag continue his attack and serve as a guidebook for future attackers so they too can use the emergency system as a bullhorn.

 

Exactly!

[newtogolf]

2 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Sure, but I also hear of a lot of people who would like to make it nearly impossible for all Muslims to enter our country.

Yes, but they are a very small minority who fear that we can't determine which Muslims are radicalized and which aren't so it's safer to just not allow any for now.    

[Lihu]

2 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Yes, but they are a very small minority who fear that we can't determine which Muslims are radicalized and which aren't so it's safer to just not allow any for now.    

I hope so, it's a very small minority here too. In fact, I don't know anyone who actually feels that way, but I see them on the internet and on the news sometimes.

[Gunther]

7 hours ago, Elmer said:

1 hour ago, newtogolf said:

You're simplifying things too much.  We're at war with a group of people that have complete disdain for how we live here, which is different than being at war with a country.  When we're at war with a country we can do things like economic sanctions and attacks on the country but when you're at war with ideas and only subsections of a population that spans multiple countries it requires a different approach.  

I don't know of any conservative that wants to ban Islam or ban Muslims, what most want is better certainty that we're not allowing radicals or terrorists into the country that are posing as refugees or other types of immigrants and that we're doing a better job of stopping radicals within the country from doing what the Orlando shooter did.   

As for guns, a secret No Fly list to prevent citizens from purchasing a gun violates all sorts of constitutional rights.  I have no issue with background checks, I do wish there weren't incompetents performing these jobs though.  I also have no issue with short waiting periods (1-2 weeks max) where those with questionable backgrounds can be escalated for review.  

I'm completely against the banning of the AR-15 or any of it's derivatives though I might be willing to concede on limiting the magazine size to 10 rounds and prohibiting stocks from folding or collapsing as currently exists in NY.  

A solution requires a compromise from both sides.  The left has to stop going after the 2nd amendment and the outright banning of certain guns if it wishes the right to step up to the table and make some compromises on gun features and better regulation.  

I'm good with everything here except your aversion to restricting no-fly listees from buying guns.  It stands to reason if we don't let them on a plane, we shouldn't let them buy guns.

[newtogolf]

16 minutes ago, Gunther said:

I'm good with everything here except your aversion to restricting no-fly listees from buying guns.  It stands to reason if we don't let them on a plane, we shouldn't let them buy guns.

My issues with the no-fly list are really about how it is managed and the lack of due process for US citizens.  The database from what I have read contains over 1,000,000 names and is indexed by name because in many cases there aren't any SSN's or other means to identify the individuals so there is high level of false positives.   Today you don't know you're on the no-fly list until you try to purchase airline tickets and you get flagged as not being able to.  You then have to prove to officials that you or your child is not the person they intended to flag.  

The airlines have been forced to maintain their own database to reduce the number of false positive but that is on a per airline basis and not feasible to implement for guns shops who lack the expertise and funds to implement such as database. 

If they provide due process for US citizens and improve the quality of the data I wouldn't be opposed to the list being used to restrict gun purchases but they have a lot of work to do and Lynch doesn't seem willing to give on the due process.