rickyp wrote:fate

The AG actually said, ". . . our most effective response to terror and to hatred is compassion, it’s unity, and it’s love."

That's about as dumb as it gets

.

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Matthew 5.44

Her job is to enforce the laws and protect Americans.

Check the context and you'll find Jesus is discussing neither issue.

Rom 13:3-4 is far more applicable. Please stop pretending to understand the Bible. Rule #1 for reading anything is context.

Doctor Fate wrote:

rickyp wrote:bbauska its increasingly apparent that the Orlando shooter was much less an ISIS inspired terrorist and had much more in common with the dozens of mass shooters who weren't professing allegiance to anyone.

Sorry old boy, but you're the one going insane. His motives were as clear as could be. Liberals (apparently) can't understand English. You're going down the same road as FB posters. Mateen went out of his way to pledge allegiance to Al-Baghdadi and ISIS.

He also pledged allegiance to Al Nusra and the Mojahadeen. Both enemies of ISIS.

In the United States, we don't believe the government should censor. We have a right to know what he said.

There are also concepts such as not releasing all the evidence before a potential trial. We don't want investigating any accomplices to become prejudiced by early disclosure. Yes we want to know, but we may not need to know everything now.

Not really germane to the discussion but here is an interesting study on stereotypes and how they affect people's support for policies (focuses on Muslims but there is a broader discussion as well)

http://home.gwu.edu/~jsides/muslims.pdf

danivon

He also pledged allegiance to Al Nusra and the Mojahadeen. Both enemies of ISIS.

All of which lead Mudd to suspect his allegiance to ISIS was a late fabrication.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

rickyp wrote:bbauska its increasingly apparent that the Orlando shooter was much less an ISIS inspired terrorist and had much more in common with the dozens of mass shooters who weren't professing allegiance to anyone.

Sorry old boy, but you're the one going insane. His motives were as clear as could be. Liberals (apparently) can't understand English. You're going down the same road as FB posters. Mateen went out of his way to pledge allegiance to Al-Baghdadi and ISIS.

He also pledged allegiance to Al Nusra and the Mojahadeen. Both enemies of ISIS.

In the United States, we don't believe the government should censor. We have a right to know what he said.

There are also concepts such as not releasing all the evidence before a potential trial. We don't want investigating any accomplices to become prejudiced by early disclosure. Yes we want to know, but we may not need to know everything now.

Oh, good points!

He may have been confused as to what Islamic extremist group was doing what, but he knew this: he wanted to identify with Islamic extremism.

You're welcome.

Btw, please let me know when the trial for Mateen, aka the 117th "lone wolf," starts. I'll wait.

If there is a trial, then he wasn't so much of a "lone wolf," was he?

I used a word that might help you understand why your questions about trying Omar Mateen are irrelevant. It has a few syllables and looks a bit Latin, so maybe it confuses you. It is "accomplices".

You may want to research its meaning in order to understand why I used it.

danivon wrote:I used a word that might help you understand why your questions about trying Omar Mateen are irrelevant. It has a few syllables and looks a bit Latin, so maybe it confuses you. It is "accomplices".

You may want to research its meaning in order to understand why I used it.

Oh, so you're keen to call all the "lone wolf" stuff "crap?"

Good, but watch yourself: the next thing you know you'll start using words like "Islamic terror."

You are more than a bit of a jerk. The best things, erm, the worst things don't change.

I'm keeping an open mind. Maybe he was a "lone wolf". Maybe he was just insane. Maybe he had assistance, from his wife or someone else. Maybe they had a different motive.

My point was, criminal investigators rarely release all of the evidence before they're done with the investigation. And even then, if there is a legal process they tend not to make all of the evidence public before trial.

danivon wrote:I'm keeping an open mind. Maybe he was a "lone wolf". Maybe he was just insane. Maybe he had assistance, from his wife or someone else. Maybe they had a different motive.

My point was, criminal investigators rarely release all of the evidence before they're done with the investigation. And even then, if there is a legal process they tend not to make all of the evidence public before trial.

I'm not familiar with ANY ongoing investigation in which evidence was edited and altered before it was released. Why was "Allah" replaced with "God?" What evidentiary value is preserved by that maneuver?

If there are accomplices, one might expect his wife would be suspect #1. However, I see nothing that would lead me to believe they intend to charge her.