Trump releases statement on terrorist attack

[Poot 719]

There is nothing wrong with him using this for his politic campaign though. You want him to keep quiet about it? However what he is doing, is spreading hatred and propaganda and that is wrong.

[Poot 719]

I know many of you despise Trump's ban statement, so what would you suggest to stop radical terrorism? This attack could maybe be prevented by gun control/ban, but when an extremist with connections to an extremist network arises, gun control won't matter and they will find a way to sneak guns either way (look at Europe). 

I don't often see Liberals come up with a solution and imo then it's not a surprise the general public will crawl to the only one battleing it (often the right wingers, here Trump), despite it not being that great of a solution either. Hillary is too shook to offend Muslims and I get that, but one way or another she will need to find a solution to battle radicalsm, because with only gun control at her plate, Trump might end up winning the presidency. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

The most irritating bit of all is that he's using Islam as a scapegoat when the hatred that set the terrorist on the path to violence was the anti-LGBT culture that still persists in the USA from politicians to religious folk.

[Morphine Prince 109,984]

7 hours ago, Bebe said:

But is it better for Obama/Hillary to act as smart/strong leaders and be perceived by some as 'weak'? Or is it better that they act like weak leaders for an illusion of strength?

Trump is no doubt a problem, but I don't think we can solve the problem by stooping to his level and using the same sort of divisive language. That just means all the candidates are using problematic, divisive language. There needs to be an example of a better alternative and I think that a less divisive response is the better way to go, even if it makes Trump look like a stronger leader in the eyes of some.

The best response to this situation is a response that is as inclusive as possible. It's a response that doesn't draw attention to a particular minority and place the blame on them. It's a response that seeks to mitigate any fear or discriminatory feelings some people will undoubtedly have after a situation like this. The best response is to reduce any levels of distrust people might have for a certain section of our society, it's a response that is careful not to inflame or feed any of the fears of 'the other' that swells after these sort of incidents.

Yes, some people might not understand why it's not being called "Islamic terrorism", yes some people might cry that it's just being politically correct, but I think that's a price worth paying when the alternative is feeding into the divisiveness and mistrust that our enemy wants us to feel against our muslim citizens. 

I think I pointed out in my previous point that lone wolves are very obviously inspired by ISIS and other radical groups, they absolutely are sympathetic to such organisations. But it's not like the fact he is Islamic is being ignored - everyone knows the attacker was muslim. The investigators are aware that he is muslim. This isn't a cover up of this fact, Obama/Hillary are not oblivious to the fact that ISIS is an islamic terrorist group and this attacker was a muslim likely inspired by such a radical islamic group.

The intention isn't to cover up, the reason why they are not using the term "Islamic terrorist" is not because they are naive to the reality of the situation, the reason they are not using the term "Islamic terrorist" is because it's an unhelpful, divisive term. It's because they are trying to avoid divisive rhetoric and fear mongering over Islamic citizens.

Well it does not seem to be helping. The things I've read online directed towards Muslims (in a large amount) is horrible. Many calling Obama a coward. 

But I guess this is what happens when people are too stupid to differentiate between a radical extremist and an average Muslim. 

[Roomingfree77 244]

13 hours ago, YourSweet666 said:

7 hours ago, CustomGueseppi said:

6 hours ago, Poot said:

I know many of you despise Trump's ban statement, so what would you suggest to stop radical terrorism? This attack could maybe be prevented by gun control/ban, but when an extremist with connections to an extremist network arises, gun control won't matter and they will find a way to sneak guns either way (look at Europe). 

I don't often see Liberals come up with a solution and imo then it's not a surprise the general public will crawl to the only one battleing it (often the right wingers, here Trump), despite it not being that great of a solution either. Hillary is too shook to offend Muslims and I get that, but one way or another she will need to find a solution to battle radicalsm, because with only gun control at her plate, Trump might end up winning the presidency. 

Ban ha 

Idgi how labelling terrorism is more important than acknowledging the victims. 

"Our nation"...many of his supporters were happy about it. 

 

I am down with a ban, muslims need to step up and police their own kind much the same way Catholics had to accept responsibility for the  Priest. and the sooner we hit them were it hurts, the better..

[lego 44,165]

1 minute ago, Roomingfree77 said:

I am down with a ban, muslims need to step up and police their own kind much the same way Catholics had to accept responsibility for the  Priest. and the sooner we hit them were it hurts, the better..

 

Shut up.

I don't hear you saying that when anyone from "your race/ethnicity/religion/group" commits a crime.

And there was never any call for banning Catholics no matter how many rape cases happened in Catholic church. There was no call for mass condemnation nor analyzing on major networks "was it religion, that made them do these things".

 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

2 minutes ago, YourSweet666 said:

 

Shut up.

I don't hear you saying that when anyone from "your race/ethnicity/religion/group" commits a crime.

And there was never any call for banning Catholics no matter how many rape cases happened in Catholic church. There was no call for mass condemnation nor analyzing on major networks "was it religion, that made them do these things".

 

It's so sad to see how easily people fall for fearmongering in this day and age with so much access to information on the Internet and elsewhere.

[Roomingfree77 244]

1 minute ago, YourSweet666 said:

 

Shut up.

I don't hear you saying that when anyone from "your race/ethnicity/religion/group" commits a crime.

And there was never any call for banning Catholics no matter how many rape cases happened in Catholic church. There was no call for mass condemnation nor analyzing on major networks "was it religion, that made them do these things".

 

that's cuz we Catholics stepped up and finally got a rope around its neck before it before it became epidemic (aint you proud?) These Muslims need to do the same thing and that ban is a great idea to get the ball rolling and shame on you for telling me to shut up over voicing my opinion on here...

[Poot 719]

3 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

It's so sad to see how easily people fall for fearmongering in this day and age with so much access to information on the Internet and elsewhere.

That's what's gonna cost Hillary the presidency imo. Trump is making statements, even though a Muslim ban don't make sense with a US born shooter, but Hillary is going with gun control. And as many said, if they wouldnt change gun laws after Sandy Hook, what will.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

2 minutes ago, Poot said:

That's what's gonna cost Hillary the presidency imo. Trump is making statements, even though a Muslim ban don't make sense with a US born shooter, but Hillary is going with gun control. And as many said, if they wouldnt change gun laws after Sandy Hook, what will.

This isn't going to cost her anything in the long run.

[Poot 719]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

This isn't going to cost her anything in the long run.

Lemme requote you when the results are in 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

2 minutes ago, Poot said:

Lemme requote you when the results are in 

Most people have the memory of a goldfish.

This will be a distant memory on Election Day. 

And the outrage over lack of gun control will hold as much or more equal footing as Islamophobia. 

[Eighteen 5,430]

3 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Most people have the memory of a goldfish.

This will be a distant memory on Election Day. 

And the outrage over lack of gun control will hold as much or more equal footing as Islamophobia. 

hm i don't know about that. i feel like Islamophobia is already more powerful than the outrage for gun control.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

8 minutes ago, Poot said:

That's what's gonna cost Hillary the presidency imo. Trump is making statements, even though a Muslim ban don't make sense with a US born shooter, but Hillary is going with gun control. And as many said, if they wouldnt change gun laws after Sandy Hook, what will.

Majority of people support common sense gun control, it was things like the Dickey Amendment and the NRA's tragic lack of foresight combined with their political influenced that didn't change gun laws after Sandy Hook, which is pretty much obstructing the will of the people. 

Just clarifying. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

3 minutes ago, 18 said:

hm i don't know about that. i feel like Islamophobia is already more powerful than the outrage for gun control.

Perhaps now but the domino has fallen.

This was a shooting via Assault Rifle and the presidential platform will make this a national discussion once and for all.