Loretta Lynch edits Islamic terrorist's 911 call

UNT90 · June 21, 2016

30 minutes ago, Censored by Laurie said:

- I believe Mateen was a very confused, angry and perhaps closeted/sexually repressed individual whose mode of dealing with desires and urges he had been fervently taught were vile and un-natural by his scripture was to re-double (triple, quadruple...whatever) his commitment to said scripture. I'd say this was a major contributing factor that drove him toward radicalization and particularly toward his target, Pulse. he sought out others of a similar vain a few years prior and this was what put him on the FBIs radar...but given his apparent lack of true religious devotion (as in heart-felt, rather than guilt-driven) and his apparent confusion at the differences between groups like al Qaeda and Hezbollah, amongst other reason certainly, he was cleared, probably as little more than some kid who liked to pop off at the mouth. I suspect there will be a full investigation of the particular process with Mateen and a re-evaluation of security and screening processes on the whole...and rightfully so.

- I've read nothing that would lead me to believe that Mateen had direct contact with ISIS or that this was an organized, conspiratorial plot with any either domestic or foreign ISIS-leadership. I believe ISIS heard about this attack right about the same time all of us did and had the details of his 911 call never been broadcast ISIS never would've attempted to take credit for the attack

- I believe Lynch and the FBI were initially want to remove "ISIS" from the transcripts for this very reason...that it would legitimize ISIS and serve as propaganda for them to see their name officially attached to the reports on the shooting. I think they clearly under-estimated, or perhaps at least initially didn't give a shit about, the firestorm that would generate and the total inanity in redacting something already so widely publicized.

- I do believe, however, that it is important to effort not to legitimize the idea that we are engaging in a West/US/Jesus vs. Islam war. I believe that is why the President is so insistent upon choosing his words carefully and I believe that the over-reaction the other direction...the insistence, even when either incomplete or wholly inaccurate of the now chosen buzz-words "radical islamist terrorism" is driven largely by prejudice. it feeds ISIS propaganda, both around the world and here domestically...the latter, coupled with increasingly anti-muslim rhetoric from political candidates and the text-book nationalistic blaming of immigrants and foreigners for our own domestic problems will eventually lead to more instances of domestic terrorism and makes us less safe as a nation. in short, I believe we cultivated Mateen far more than ISIS did.

- I believe we have a rampant gun culture in our country and a long-overdue need for an honest national conversation...but there exists an un-tethered lobby that has far more power than our elected officials to maintain said culture and characterize anybody who wants to have said conversation as someone who is after yer guns.

- while I have no want to ban guns...and believe that very few people do...I do believe that some measure of common-sense limitation and legislation is needed, hell...at this point if only symbolically, to rein that lobby and the culture it fosters back in. repealing Dickey-Wicker, for example.

- I believe your repeated use of Chicago as an example of failed gun-restriction policy...ignoring all other socio-economic issues...is at best disingenuous...at worst just down right ignorant

I think that about covers it. I oh so eagerly await your well-reasoned replies.

-- You seem to have completed a full psychological examination on the murdering Radical Islamist terrorist. Had did you get such access? Oh, you didn't have access and are simply offering an opinion you hope and want so desperately to be true? Got it. And you came to this conclusion through eyewitness reports that he was inside the nightclub on several occasions before the attack? Well, his wife said she took him there to scout the location. Because that's what radical Islamists terrorist do. Or maybe you base this psychological opinion on the reports that he was on gay dating web sites asking people where the hot gay clubs were? Except no one can produce those messages to the media. Or even a profile screen shot of his gay dating site profile. And you ignore that not one gay person Asha's come forward and said they actually met him for a date, indicating that if he was on these sites (no profiles) there is a very good chance it was for scouting the gay community and finding out where they concregated.

No, you WANT to believe he had gay tendencies to further your own beliefs, even though there is zero credible evidence to suggest this is a valid view.

-- You won't read whether he had direct contact with ISIS, because if he did (and the FBI probably already knows this from his computer forensic analysis) it will be held secret while the military tries to convince this administration to use the information to attack ISIS positions. That may still come, but it will take absolute, undeniable proof before this President will act, so release of this info may not happen for a long time, if ever. You also don't seem to get that President Obama doesn't want the American people to think this has anything to do with ISIS, as the idoitic decision to edit the transcript of the phone call to push an anti gun agenda today, the same day that 4 anti gun legislation bills were voted on by the House of Reps. Terrible political mistake, as Americans aren't so stupid yet as to not take a terrorist at his word when he makes a point to say he is a terrorist and names the organization and pledges dying allegiance to that organization.

-- It is what it is. ISIS isn't legitimate, and publishing this murdering radical Islamist terrorist actual words does nothing to "legitimize" any organization, it just lets the American public know his own, recorded motivations in his very own words. President Obama tried to hide this truth from the American people for political gain. Disgusting. Did I mention 4 anti-gun bills were voted on today? Did you watch any of the Sunday morning liberally controlled news shows? Were you too hungover? All the talk was about gun control, with Lynch proclaiming that the statements were being redacted. Not a coincidence. Thank Hod the American public isn't that stupid. Yet.

-- Here is a clue. Radical Islamist terrorist see the President's words as weakness. Moderate Islamist see his words as a lack of leadership. Did you know I'm a recent poll of a cross section of US Muslims, 51% wanted to live under Sharia law... Inside the United States. Have you looked at polls about Muslims actually believe as a religion? About the percentage of Muslims that approve of the death penalty for being gay? Of the death penalty for leaving the Muslim religion? Of killing those who refuse to convert? The numbers are startling, whether you want to believe it or not. The Neville Chamberlain approach didn't work by not calling Hitler a fascist in the mid to late 30s, and it damn sure won't work by refusing to hold the religion of Islam responsible for their own radicals.

-- Maybe if the left's only answer to any radical Islamist terror attack wasn't to immediately grab for guns this conversation could occur. But when the left is so clearly only concerned with disarming American citizens and not addressing radical Islamist terrorism (hell, refusing to even call it exactly what it is, much less confront it) the immediate and proper response should be a huge pushback from citizens and every single lobby to stop am overbearing, blame shifting government more concerned with politics than doing its #1 job: PROTECTING AMERICAN CITIZENS FROM ATTACK.

-- Socio-economic issues caused by a corrupt democrat party that has controlled the city for decades and has removed the right of self defense from their citizens. Want to see what America would look like if democrats had their way? Chicago is a great microcosm. IN CONTROL FOR DECADES.

I think you live in a fantasy world if you believe "not talking bad" about radical Islamist terrorism will make it go away. I think you have zero understanding of the Muslim religion and what the vast majority of Muslims think anout YOU. i don't know if you are naive, just a true stupid hippy, or just another example of a pseudo-intellectual idiot who doesn't understand how the world works. My guess would be a combination of the above.

UNT Five&Dime · June 21, 2016

12 hours ago, UNT90 said:

Have you looked at polls about Muslims actually believe as a religion? About the percentage of Muslims that approve of the death penalty for being gay? Of the death penalty for leaving the Muslim religion? Of killing those who refuse to convert?

Oh, so it was a hate crime.

UNT90 · June 21, 2016

Just now, UNT Five&Dime said:

Oh, so it was a hate crime.

By a radical Islamist terrorist.

All violent crimes are hate crimes.

UNT Five&Dime · June 21, 2016

3 minutes ago, UNT90 said:

All violent crimes are hate crimes.

Huh, you really are an idiot.

UNT90 · June 21, 2016

4 hours ago, UNT Five&Dime said:

Huh, you really are an idiot.

So you violently assault people you don't hate?

MeanGreenMailbox aka TFLF · June 21, 2016

On 6/20/2016 at 1:51 PM, Censored by Laurie said:

how was Sandy Hook not a terrorist act?

I forgot which terrorist organization Adam Lanza pledged his support to. And, what terrorist organizations the Feds found him to be communicating with.

Refresh our memories, please.

UNT Five&Dime · June 21, 2016

8 minutes ago, UNT90 said:

So you violently assault people you don't hate?

I'll try to go slow.

Robbery is classified as a violent crime. Generally, robbers just want stuff.

Rape is classified as a violent crime. I don't rape people, but if I did I wouldn't rape people I hate.

None of that matters though, since "people you hate" being the victim(s) is not what makes something a hate crime.

FirefightnRick · June 21, 2016

4 hours ago, UNT Five&Dime said:

Huh, you really are an idiot.

Oooh you really got 'em that time chief!

Rick

UNT Five&Dime · June 21, 2016

8 minutes ago, FirefightnRick said:

Oooh you really got 'em that time chief!

Rick

Thanks, buddy!

FirefightnRick · June 21, 2016

3 minutes ago, UNT Five&Dime said:

Thanks, buddy!

Any time.

Rick

UNT90 · June 21, 2016

1 hour ago, UNT Five&Dime said:

I'll try to go slow.

Robbery is classified as a violent crime. Generally, robbers just want stuff.

Rape is classified as a violent crime. I don't rape people, but if I did I wouldn't rape people I hate.

None of that matters though, since "people you hate" being the victim(s) is not what makes something a hate crime.

So you would rob and rape people you like?

What if this murderer just went to the club because there were a lot of people there? Is it still a hate crime? I mean, he didn't say anything on the transcripts about gay people, only ISIS.

Also, let's further limit it to murder, since that is the crime we are talking about. Are you saying you would murder someone you didn't hate?

Edited June 21, 2016 by UNT90

UNT Five&Dime · June 21, 2016

19 minutes ago, UNT90 said:

So you would rob and rape people you like?

What if this murderer just went to the club because there were a lot of people there? Is it still a hate crime? I mean, he didn't say anything on the transcripts about gay people, only ISIS.

Also, let's further limit it to murder, since that is the crime we are talking about. Are you saying you would murder someone you didn't hate?

Okay, suppose it was a completely random target in a completely random target's pride month coincidently. The attack, according to you, is completely "radical Islam" driven. So by religious motivation, yes this would be considered a hate crime. But, of course you know that.

UNT90 · June 21, 2016

15 minutes ago, UNT Five&Dime said:

Okay, suppose it was a completely random target in a completely random target's pride month coincidently. The attack, according to you, is completely "radical Islam" driven. So by religious motivation, yes this would be considered a hate crime. But, of course you know that.

A hate crime against what group? What evidence is their that the CRIME was directed at a specific "protected" group? Because that's what you are really trying to say, right?

Because it sounds like you are trying to say that any radical Islamist terrorist attack is a hate crime.

I don't recall 9/11 being referred to as a hate crime. Or the Boston Marathon bombing. Or the Fort Hood shooting. Or the USS Cole. Or the first WTC bombing. No one called those hate crimes because the murderers were radical Islamist terrorists.

Tell me, what makes this different?

UNT Five&Dime · June 21, 2016

8 minutes ago, UNT90 said:

A hate crime against what group? What evidence is their that the CRIME was directed at a specific "protected" group? Because that's what you are really trying to say, right?

Because it sounds like you are trying to say that any radical Islamist terrorist attack is a hate crime.

I don't recall 9/11 being referred to as a hate crime. Or the Boston Marathon bombing. Or the Fort Hood shooting. Or the USS Cole. Or the first WTC bombing. No one called those hate crimes because the murderers were radical Islamist terrorists.

Tell me, what makes this different?

YOU are declaring the motivation by calling them radical Islamists. Your assessment is it's religiously motivated.

UNT90 · June 22, 2016

1 hour ago, UNT Five&Dime said:

YOU are declaring the motivation by calling them radical Islamists. Your assessment is it's religiously motivated.

But why wasn't 9/11 called a hate crime then? YOU are the one declaring this a hate crime and using my definition of this being an act of Radical Islamist terrorism as the reason it is a hate crime.

We know a radical Islamic Terrorist was responsible for 9/11, so why didn't you or anyone else call it a hate crime? We know radical Islamist terrorists were responsible for all the acts I listed in my previous post, yet neither you nor anyone else referred to them as a hate crime. We know that radical Islamist terrorists were responsible for the Paris nightclub shootings, yet neither you nor anyone else called it a hate crime.

We absolutely KNOW that the rockets lobbed into Isreal by radical Islamist terrorists are the very definition of a hate crime, yet neither you nor anyone else calls them by that name.

We also know that killing someone FOR THEIR RELIGOUS BELIEFS is the definition of a hate crime. Oh, unless the killer is Muslim and the victim is Christian or Jewish.

Why is that?

Edited June 22, 2016 by UNT90

foutsrouts · June 22, 2016

5 hours ago, UNT90 said:

But why wasn't 9/11 called a hate crime then? YOU are the one declaring this a hate crime and using my definition of this being an act of Radical Islamist terrorism as the reason it is a hate crime.

We know a radical Islamic Terrorist was responsible for 9/11, so why didn't you or anyone else call it a hate crime? We know radical Islamist terrorists were responsible for all the acts I listed in my previous post, yet neither you nor anyone else referred to them as a hate crime. We know that radical Islamist terrorists were responsible for the Paris nightclub shootings, yet neither you nor anyone else called it a hate crime.

We absolutely KNOW that the rockets lobbed into Isreal by radical Islamist terrorists are the very definition of a hate crime, yet neither you nor anyone else calls them by that name.

We also know that killing someone FOR THEIR RELIGOUS BELIEFS is the definition of a hate crime. Oh, unless the killer is Muslim and the victim is Christian or Jewish.

Why is that?

Not that 9/11 wasn't very inclusive, but there is no such thing as a hate crime against WASP heterosexuals. I thought this was common knowledge?

UNT Five&Dime · June 22, 2016

12 hours ago, UNT90 said:

But why wasn't 9/11 called a hate crime then?

You knuckleheads weren't vilifying an entire religious group back then.

12 hours ago, UNT90 said:

YOU are the one declaring this a hate crime and using my definition of this being an act of Radical Islamist terrorism as the reason it is a hate crime.

I think you're confused. You defined it, not me. I was surprised to learn it was a hate crime.

On ‎6‎/‎20‎/‎2016 at 10:02 PM, UNT90 said:

Have you looked at polls about Muslims actually believe as a religion? About the percentage of Muslims that approve of the death penalty for being gay? Of the death penalty for leaving the Muslim religion? Of killing those who refuse to convert? The numbers are startling, whether you want to believe it or not.

21 hours ago, UNT Five&Dime said:

Oh, so it was a hate crime.

UNT90 · June 22, 2016

1 hour ago, UNT Five&Dime said:

You knuckleheads weren't vilifying an entire religious group back then.

I think you're confused. You defined it, not me. I was surprised to learn it was a hate crime.

Actually, it was EXTREMELY well defined after 9/11.

I don't think you understand what a hate crime is, or at least is supposed to be. You WANT this to be a hate crime, but you can't find a shread of evidence that it is (hateful statements about a protected class while committing a crime is sadly what a "hate crime" has devolved into).

Because all the shooter did was pledge allegiance to ISIS in the 911 transcript.

And by your very own statements, you think violent crime can be committed without hate, but at the same time suggest EVERY crime committed against a gay person is a hate crime (because the murderer didn't proclaim an anti-gay agenda) even when there is no evidence to prove a hate element.

You talk in circles. Stop trying to make a terrorist attack a democrat talking point.

UNT Five&Dime · June 22, 2016

4 minutes ago, UNT90 said:

I don't think you understand what a hate crime is, or at least is supposed to be. You WANT this to be a hate crime, but you can't find a shread of evidence that it is (hateful statements about a protected class while committing a crime is sadly what a "hate crime" has devolved into).

You appear to be the one that doesn't understand what a hate crime is defined as.

4 minutes ago, UNT90 said:

And by your very own statements, you think violent crime can be committed without hate, but at the same time suggest EVERY crime committed against a gay person is a hate crime (because the murderer didn't proclaim an anti-gay agenda) even when there is no evidence to prove a hate element.

When did I make that suggestion? Again, you made the statement that there was a hatred involved, not me. And are you really still suggesting all violent crime is rooted in hate?