Heck, even linking the attack to to Islam is silly since the logical chain that so many seem to make is that "Shooter claimed allegiance to ISIS (dubious - not very substantial) implies connection to violent extremist Islamic terrorist group (odd - most of ISIS's victims are Muslim) implies Islam is violent (arguable, but I'm no theologist) implies all of its followers are violent implies persecution is justified (outright fallacy, easily disproven, amoral)."
I would tend to agree with you, except after looking into Islam more it became immensely clear to me that Islam is a religion of hate. It's so terrible for humanity that a good course of action for the U.S. would be to label Islam as an ideology in order to get it out from under constitutional protection. This is just an opinion I am currently entertaining, but if we start reading
things like this it's easy to see Islamic practice includes beating, stoning, and killing of gays. They believe it's merciful to end their perverted lives.
When an understanding of Islam matures suddenly violent events like the one in Orlando may start to become expected.
- "Whomever you find doing the actions of the people of Lut then kill the one doing it, and the one it is done to"
- "Verily, you practise your lusts on men instead of women. Nay, but you are a people transgressing beyond bounds (by committing great sins)"
(I'm not sure if these translations are correct, from above link, I don't read Arabic)
These people believe in Sharia law; women have no say, they believe in slavery (including sex slaves), beating/killing wives, stoning infidels to death. The Orlando shooter, as far as I can tell, pledged to ISIS and frequented a nearby Mosque. Mosques act as Sharia law courts. Sounds a lot like Islamic practice to me! A quick google search like
this one shows a lot of links talking about both topics. Sure, there can exist reformed Muslims in the U.S. -- that doesn't change the Quran and it doesn't change the millions of violent followers that vastly outweigh all reformed Muslims.
For example, if many violent events, murders, mutilations, rapes, brutalities, etc. occurred in the named of Christianity in current times then it would't matter if there were some reformed Christians. Clearly there would be something terribly wrong involving Christianity to incite such violent acts. Maybe it would be Christian teachings, or maybe particular Christian leaders who were the cause of the problem, or maybe a mixture of causes. It just wouldn't matter. In our reality reformers are just irrelevant when it comes to Islam due to sheer numbers and frequency of violence.
There is an old saying: "Gun control to stop violent shootings is like spoon control to stop obesity". As tempting as it is to fantasize about everyone on earth living as peaceful citizens, blaming guns for shootings like the Orlando incident really is akin to blaming spoons to obesity. We have to consider the people committing the actions of obesity and shootings; obese people probably have problems causing their obesity other than the convenience of spoons. I'm sure we can agree on this. When we consider guns, I don't think anyone would think that the convenience of guns has much to do with shooting. Obesity is often caused by excess convenience, and removing spoons alone will probably not do much to curb massive food convenience.
Shootings are caused by things such as psychological problems, cult followings, violent religious beliefs, terrible human conditions, etc. These causes will not be addressed by gun control similar to how obesity convenience will not be addressed by spoon control. Criminals will still seek out weapons illegally, and anyone looking for violence will either acquire an illegal gun, or move onto other violent weapons like knives. Obese individuals will still have easy access to food. Stopping obesity is a matter of tackling the convenience dilemma, while stopping mass violence is matter of addressing the previously listed causes (and possibly many other causes); these causes should not be pigeonholed.
In China the state brutally enforces gun control and knife attacks are rampant. These are probably caused by the totalitarian state and the terrible living conditions of most citizens.
China as a current example (knife attack at a children school), and history in general, really do show that violence cannot be stopped by force. Especially "legal" force. If legal force ever worked to stop acts like this, then this act wouldn't have happened; murder and shooting people is illegal. That didn't stop the incident from happening. Why would adding more laws work to stop the incident? This isn't a law problem. Perhaps it's an Islam problem.
We're free to draw our own conclusions based on the information we can gather, and I'm just trying to provide an alternative view to this tragic incident that should be at least considered. As with all politically charged current events it can be very difficult to sift through false info without journalistic skills, so take whatever you hear with a lot of skepticism -- even if it sympathizes with your own self-interest.
Post has been edited 7 time(s), last time on Jul 5 2016, 5:00 pm by CecilSunkure.
None.