Fox News is reporting that the ISIS terrorist organization has claimed responsibility for the slaughter at The Pulse nightclub. At the same time, ISIS sympathizers are using the hashtag “#OrlandoIsBurning” or “Orlando_Is_Burning” on Twitter to celebrate the slaughter. ISIS supporters used a similar hashtag after the Paris and Brussels attacks: “ParisIsBurning” and “Brussels_Is_Burning.”
The kicker is that Twitter will probably not ban the people sending these tweets from their service, or report them to any authority. I’m sure they’ll be silencing conservative tweets in earnest though.
No doubt about that.
You can’t do that, then where would the Fed’s get all their intelligence from?
How much “intelligence” do you need to drop a multi-megaton city buster on these animals?
I think you’d need a shit ton of smaller bombs, spread out over a bunch of places. One megaton city buster would wipe out exactly ONE head of the ISIS hydra and a bunch of camels.
Save the city buster for the capitals of the countries behind ISIS.
But I thought it was all our fault, like Obama told us.
Here’s a hashtag for you:
#fightback
Here’s a hashtag for you:
#submit2islam
Approved by POTUS.
Pacifists with little to no resources might comprise about 99% of the population of the rest of the world. People in the U.S., however, are much more predisposed to beat the living $hit out of anyone who attacks us … and actually have the resources to do it. I wonder if that has ever entered into the calculus of Muslims?
Soft-targets are soft, no matter where in the world you are.
Yeah, but we as a society can choose to be harder. If some percentage of that nightclub had been armed, then that attack is much harder to pull off.
The West is being deliberately targeted. Political leaders can act like it’s not happening but the truth is plain. Today it’s #OrlandoIsBurning. How long before #EverytownIsBurning?
CT just tick up in my world.
“Yeah, but we as a society can choose to be hard”.
Cause soft and conversation ain’t working.
Because that’s been our MO since Vietnam? Over the last 50 years, we’ve developed an aversion to hitting back. We’ll cheer when we can impose our will like we did in 1991, but a single bop on the nose and we lose our taste.
What happened in 1991?
I’m going to guess we kicked Iraq out of Kuwait in very short order.
Exactly.
Pacifists with little to no will might comprise about 99% of the population of the rest of the world and the USA is no exception.
I think the number is more like 90% in the U.S. … which means that 10% are ready, willing, and able to act. And we have the resources to achieve results.
So, pretty close to the same ratio as every society throughout human history?
Well, except maybe Sparta.
Funny, I don’t remember B Hussain Obama mentioning this tidbit of info during his address.
Obama’s “JV team” strikes again.
Hey, Barry, if ISIS is a JV team, what does that make you?
Middle school rec team?
Short bus window licking team.
well, that is appropriate.
I mean, the White House excuse for the last 8 years is “the wheels on the bus go round and round” stuck in a loop.
LMAO.
Unfit to put the stripes on the field because the JV team is way more competent than the empty suit will ever be.
Fox News is reporting that the ISIS terrorist organization has claimed responsibility for the slaughter at The Pulse nightclub.
No, this has nothing to do with the Islam Religion.
Just workplace violence…move along now.
But…more conversations about guns are a necessity.
We need to ban fully automatic assault rifles.
Isis wants to see fire? I say we oblige them. From long range.
Amen.
Terrorist towelheads wanna see fire? I’m sure there are several Hellfire missiles ready with their names on them.
Thermonuclear weapons are more appropriate.
The target is too diffuse and the fallout would just land on us someday.
Mind you, I’d have no compunction against nuking someone IF THAT WAS THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY to address the issue. I don’t think it is here.
Lots and lots of conventional munitions…then tell Saudi Arabia to stop the fuck paying for Wahabbism to be spread, or THEY might see a nuke or twelve.
Steve,
Agreed 100%.
Too many of us seem to be forgetting that they are fighting a 4th Gen war…we can’t afford to be stuck in Gen 2 or 3.
It is in the nature of our country (in the past half century at LEAST), however, to always be reactionary…always one step behind. It’s an interesting dilemma.
ISIS would claim responsibility for your order coming out wrong at a restaurant if they knew about it. The gunman was evil, plain and simple, his “pledge to ISIS” was a tactic to grant himself legitimacy and more fame. He took hostages so the belief that he was connected to ISIS would give the hostage story pull in the media, but he probably didn’t expect the loud music (in a gay nightclub) and quick police lethal response that cut off any hostage negotiations. He didn’t kill himself, so I believe he wanted national media attention and a long negotiation. I don’t believe there was any ISIS connection.
The guy actually was a member of some loose Jihadi organization, but direct chain of command ties to ISIS? Probably not.
It’s a distinction without a difference. The Islamic state is an ideology. All it takes to join is to pronounce the shahada and practice the literal Islamic faith and you are a member. If you bake a lasagna in Orlando or in Mosul using the same recipe for all intents and purposes it’s the same lasagna. It will taste the same.
On one hand we have all the facts showing the terrorist dedicating his acts to the Islamic State and ISIS claiming him as their own and on the other what? On what proof do you have it was not the Islamic State?
I understand the sentiment that if one agrees with ISIS they can be considered a member, but the gunman held these views and stated them to others before ISIS was formed. I believe he would still have done this if ISIS were never formed. Calling in a pledge of allegiance a minute before entering seems like more of a attention garnering tactic than actual sincere allegiance. If he were so aligned why did he shun an ISIS member from his hometown when they talked after that ISIS member returned from Syria? He obviously had opportunities to communicate but did not, as three FBI investigations found. Maybe more information will come up as the investigation goes on, but the evidence points to a lone gunman that wanted more fame so he invoked the name of ISIS.
ISIS may claim the actions of evil actors with malice in their hearts, but that doesn’t mean ISIS made them evil or placed that evil will in the individual. The gunman obviously wanted us to think he was linked to ISIS, but that link may only be he had the same hatred and evil as the group and made comments during a phone call. I don’t believe there is direct action on the part of ISIS in this case.
This is no defense of ISIS, I just don’t think ISIS had any involvement or even awareness of this individual at any time before the press broke this news. I do think there is a difference between someone that has any kind of aid and awareness from ISIS and someone that simple invokes the name of ISIS. They are very different situations.
Well yeah, he was attention seeking. Millions of Muslims around the world think he is a hero. In his mind, he got the attention of Allah, who is burying him in virgins right now.
I am going to need some actual evidence before buying that his final words and actions were all a false flag plot against an organization he supposedly hated. Especially because his act raises ISIS’s reputation in the Islamic world and will inspire the thousands of terrorists-in-the making already here.
If Isis wants responsibility, let them have it. And whatever retribution goes with the claim.
During the Second World War the Allies used to broadcast instructions to resistance groups via the BBC. Three days ago ISIS broadcast a threat. Do you think ISIS isn’t smart enough to do the same thing?
This is why all concealed carriers with good intentions should start ignoring gun free zones. They don’t work.
That probably won’t work in many places. It’s alot of legal risk for the majority of people because the odds are still relatively low that they will be involved in such an attack. A higher yield solution would be to work diligently to get venues to stop creating these kill zones through refusal to enter a kill zone and informing the owners of the kill zone of the reasons why you won’t go there. We’ve had pretty good success getting businesses to remove their signs. More than a few thought that they were required to post signs and were relieved to find out that it was their choice; so they removed them on the spot.
If I thought that there was a high likelihood such an attack happening in a location, I wouldn’t want to be there to begin with. If I was there, I would want at least a rifle (or shotgun). If I was there and did not have a rifle, I would at least want a handgun. The places I do go to allow open carry, which means I could have my rifle if I want. That’s the best kind of safety zones to have. There are many things I choose not to do because they are labeled kill zones. Anyone who knows me well, knows exactly why I won’t go to a labeled kill zone. It’s a matter of both principle and personal security.
“ISIS would claim responsibility for your order coming out wrong at a restaurant if they knew about it. The gunman was evil, plain and simple, his “pledge to ISIS” was a tactic to grant himself legitimacy and more fame.”
I think maybe we’d do well to start taking people who say they want to kill us at their word. Whatever their reasons.
I think there are a lot of otherwise reasonable people who underestimate the sophistication of our adversaries. Look up what people thought about the Japanese prior to Pearl Harbor.
As are most Islamic terror organizations, ISIS is led by well educated and sophisticated people, many of whom have Western education. They know how to set up cells and recruit lone wolves and exercise good command and control over them. When the dots get connected there will be little doubt that he was operating under the direction of ISIS.
Sea of GLASS azzwholes. THIS is an act of war-nothing else. You scum wants to be responsible-you get it…
We are at war.
A Muslim does not need orders to attack a soft target. In Detroit earlier this year a Muslim immigrat was planning to attack a black church and was arrested before he could carry out his plan.
He stated the gun free zone status of the church was his reason he selected the church for attack.
Math here is bothering me… Bad guy starts shooting on the way into the club. He empties one mag tops before the bystanders scatter. If he was a great shot and lucky, he gets 10 mortally. It takes experience to even get that many hits while under return fire from the off duty cop. Reload, get in the club, rinse, repeat 4-5x. Why doesnt anyone tackle the guy while reloading? Why dont most of the people run out the fire doors?
Say he makes it clear that it’s a hostage situation and he has a bomb. Even if he winds up with 40+ hostages, how does one guy execute each without the rest making a break for it or mounting a counterattack. At Bataclan there were 4-5 shooters iirc, higher density of innocents and casualties were an order of magnitude lower percentage wise. At VT the attacks were at separate locations with less time elapsed and no hostage execution scenario. This is a very unique case in a lot of ways.
There is more to this story. Either there were multiple shooters and it’s being managed by .gov to reduce panic, the weapon was modified to fire full auto (not sure that would increase body count for average daesh shitstain but possible) or there was a stampede that killed most of the victims (which would in no way excuse the reponsible party but truth deserves to be told).
Sad day for hundreds of families and sad day for America. Daesh represents a franchised (metastasized?) version of the backwards fucks that we have been fighting for years. To paraphrase someone more eloquent than myself- time to cut off the head so the body of the snake running through Europe to the US withers and dies.
Another factor. It was a club in the wee hours of the morning. How many of the patrons were under the influence of alcohol, drugs or both?
Getting out of the way of a sober madman with a rifle whilst crowded into a herd of impaired people may have had a lot to do with it. And yes, trampling may well have occurred.
3 hours is a long time to wait for medical attention if you have been shot. Blood loss probably was the ultimate cause of death for many. Blood supply is a concern for the injured.
Hadn’t considered that and that delay definitely cost lives.
” Why doesnt anyone tackle the guy while reloading? Why dont most of the people run out the fire doors? “
The fact that people were tweeting and posting fb status updates when they should have been tending to their own survival during the attack may owe to part of it as well.
People do what they are ‘trained’ to do. Our society, for the most part, has been trained into pacifism and that things like “tweeting” are ‘doing something.’
The real world is a hard teacher. I’m hoping survivors are taking a good, hard look at their cognitive dissonance today.
Another solid point. They dont call them sheeple for nothing.
Comments are closed.