It was too late to remove the references to the terrorist group ISIS as it had been all over the news. I could understand not releasing the audio/transcripts where one person is named from the terrorist group. They don’t need anymore free advertising.
I don’t believe the shooter was as smart as Hans Gruber to give names of terrorist groups to throw everyone off his true motive.
“Erasing actual evidence from a 911 call reminds me of Benghazi - it was “a spontaneous outburst” because of some low budget film that no one knew about, not a planned terror attack that officials were actually warned about. Thankfully they have back tracked and decided not to “scrub” the 911 transcripts. Maybe the guy was nuts and trying to cover his true motives but rewriting what actually happened is not the answer”
I agree. And I do appreciate the fact that they backtracked so quickly, instead of sticking to it. Had they backtracked quickly from Benghazi, as soon as they realized that course of action was a mistake, nobody would talked about it for long. It is sad that everything has to be so political, and not just the honest truth.
'workplace violence".
Wasn’t it just?
And - my bad - prior to Sandy Hook. Gotta remember that qualifiers to stats aren’t ever carelessly added.
Would it make you feel better if nobody mentioned the fact that this guy was Muslim, claiming to be an iSIS supporter, Donna? Should the news reporters leave those details out? Would it somehow help all those dead people not to be honest about that?
Hey, let’s not even list out those details, because look at all those white Christian killers. It would be just as inane if I said that we are be far more likely to be killed by a young black man than a Muslim terrorist. This attitude of hate is just sad.
I’m certainly not suggesting omitting that fact, as I think I’ve made clear throughout this thread. What I’m objecting to is the dismissiveness about mass shootings by non-Muslims, as if they somehow don’t also count, and/or as if those who perpetrate them are all just mentally ill loners.
I still think the statement by CNN is just flatly wrong.
I don’t think there is any dismissiveness. We hear about those situations nonstop when they happen. But this just happened, is horrific, and I believe its the largest mass shooting ever, in the US. So of course that is why people are talking about it. Should people be discussing the other murders instead, saying how they did it because they were white? Male? Christian? How many of those murderes listed called the police and said they were doing it because of their whiteness? Or their maleness? Or their Chrustianity?
Van Jones either isn’t familiar with the concept of ‘per capita’ or he’s chosen to ignore it. Can’t say I’m surprised.
On the number of shootings – the number of times a non Muslim was able to obtain a gun and shoot a bunch of people – he is correct.
Okay, well, seeing as less than one percent of the adults in the US are Muslim, the Muslims who are committing mass murders are going way above and beyond in their effort to kill others. Very impressive numbers for how few Muslims live here.
So what is the point of this? It seems like some have this desire to discount terrorism committed by Muslims as not relevant to their faith. Yet it certainly appears that it was quite central to their faith. I don’t understand why the pretense otherwise.
48 people were shot and 12 of them died while the Senate democrats were filibustering the other night (for bills that ultimately did not pass). We are just a big dysfunctional mess.
“48 people were shot and 12 of them died while the Senate democrats were filibustering the other night (for bills that ultimately did not pass). We are just a big dysfunctional mess”
Wow, that is awful. I don’t understand the mentality that makes people want to shoot each other. It used to be enough to get into a fist fight, or verbally insult someone, now you gotta shoot them.
Van Jones was just wrong. When John Allen Muhammed killed all those people around Washington DC, it was’t chalked up as Muslim terrorism. As for being 7 times more likely to be killed by a right wing extremist (?), I really don’t know where he gets that. Other than OKC (168) and Planned Parenthood (3) and Charleston, I can’t think of any mass killings attributed to right wing extremism. None of the school killings, not Tucson, not Aurora, not Virginia Tech, not Sandy Hook. I don’t know where Jones got his statement. But consider the other side of the ledger, there have been thousands killed here and overseas by Islamists, by bombs, planes and shootings.
FWIW, a person is most likely to be killed by someone they know, a spouse, lover, etc. After that most likely street crime.
I really don’t know why the left wants to downplay terrorism. I really don’t.
@TatinG not all on the left seem to want to downplay terrorism. What about Bill Maher or Sam Harris? They are some of the most rational people you’ll see on TV.
Tatin, Tucson/Sandy Hook et al were not Islamic extremism either. They were evidence that we have allowed the defunding of our mental health system to go way too far.
I for one am not downplaying terrorism. But I recognize that solving the problem of mass shootings is a bit more complicated than crying “radial Islam!” Especially in the Orlando case, there is a strong thread of homophobia and probably mental disturbance as well. And what about the numerous mass shootings where there is no Muslim ideology at all? Should we just ignore them?
Focusing just on terrorism prevents us from looking at other causes which also desperately need to be addressed. Surely we as a nation can walk and chew gum at the same time.
“Focusing just on terrorism prevents us from looking at other causes which also desperately need to be addressed. Surely we as a nation can walk and chew gum at the same time.”
I don’t think anyone on here would disagree with that.
It bothers me that we squabble about these causes instead of looking into all of them. We can’t find solutions if we’re busy squabbling endlessly, we just get more dysfunctional. Politicians seem to specialize in this!
We can’t focus just on terrorism, or just on guns. The government should be looking at both. But it seems one ‘side’ wants to focus just on one and the other ‘side’ just on the other.
Focusing just on terrorism leaves out those who are mentally ill who commit mass shootings. Focusing just on guns leaves out bombings which I think have killed more as mass casualty events.
And of course, none of it addresses the weekly unnoticed carnage in big cities, notably Chicago, every day.
I’m not downplaying the real risk of terrorism, which manifested itself in Paris and in the radicalized shooter in California. I still think this guy is from a different kettle of fish. He’s someone who has exhibited violent tendencies and has expressed the desire to kill others since his youth. I think he was either born off or became disturbed very young. The investigation hasn’t shown the signs of someone who truly became radicalized – he didn’t become more religious in terms of mosque attendance, dress, or attitudes. He didn’t forge relationships with known terrorists groups or even identify with one group, rather he has spouted about all of them. I think he’s been looking for an outlet for his hate and an excuse to act on that and found it in Islamic terrorism. Basically, in my opinion, he’s a sociopath who decided to feel better about himself and possibly get a free pass to heaven by invoking religion. We will never be able to identify all possible killers in advance, regardless of our mental health care system or the FBI or other agency’s best efforts at monitoring potential terrorists.
Maybe they see a generational conflict on the horizon and hope that if they bury their heads deep enough, popping up occasionally to revile some Christians, it will pass them over.