NONE SO BLIND 06.14.16 5:03 AM ET Admit It: These Terrorists Are Muslims There’s a lot of special pleading about Orlando from Muslims and liberals. It’s time to do away with that. If not, we give the issue away to Trump. LONDON — The atrocious attack in Orlando, Florida, was an act of ISIS-inspired jihadist terrorism that targeted gays. It must concern us all. Before any of our assumed multiple identities, we are human beings first and foremost. You don’t have to be black to condemn racism, nor Jewish to condemn anti-Semitism, nor Muslim to condemn anti-Muslim bigotry, and you certainly don’t have to be gay to condemn the evil that just descended upon Orlando. A puerile response by some of my fellow Muslims is to ask “why should we apologize for something that has nothing to do with us.” But this entirely misses the point. Just as we Muslims expect solidarity from wider society against anti-Muslim bigotry and racism, likewise we must reciprocate solidarity toward victims of Islamist extremism. Just as we encourage others to actively denounce racism wherever they see it, so too must we actively denounce Islamist theocratic views wherever we find them. Enough with the special pleading. Enough with the denial. Enough with the obfuscation. The killer of Orlando was a homophobic Muslim extremist, inspired by an ideological take on my own religion, Islam. In just the first seven days of this holy month of Ramadan, various jihadists have carried out attacks in Tel Aviv, Baghdad, Damascus, Idlib, Beirut, Orlando, and now Paris. This global jihadist insurgency threatens every corner of the world and has killed more Muslims than members any other faith. So why pretend it does not exist? Why shy away from calling it by name? So far do many of us liberals go in denying the problem, that we’re happy to stigmatize other vulnerable minorities in the process. “He was not a Muslim, he was nothing but a mad lunatic,” we cry in exasperation. As if those with mental health issues are somehow automatically predisposed to murder, or immune to manipulation and exploitation by cynical Islamists and jihadists. Then there’s that other old tactic to try and avoid discussing the Islamist ideology. “He wasn’t from the Muslim community,” we proclaim. “He was acting in isolation, a lone wolf.” Apart from the fact that research highlights how incredibly rare it is for jihadists to act in a vacuum, we need look no further than the Orlando attacker Omar Mateen’s father, whopraised the Taliban as “warriors” to realize this avoidance tactic for what it is. Clearly Omar Mateen had moved in an atmosphere that glorified jihadist ideology. “But it must be foreign policy in Afghanistan,” we naively protest. Albeit better than China’s, Russia’s, Saudi Arabia’s, Iran’s and most other undemocratic countries in the world, yes our foreign and domestic policies have their flaws. But what did gays in the Pulse nightclub have to do with any of that? Or the gays that ISIS regularly throws off the tallest buildings in Syria, for that matter? It is time that we liberals took the fabled red pill and accepted reality. Just as this clearly has something to do with outdated gun laws, and just as those laws need reform, this also has something to do with Islam, which also needs reform today. No other stance makes any sense. Poll after poll of British Muslims has revealed statistically significant levels of homophobic opinion. A 2009 poll by Gallup found that 0 percent of Britain’s Muslims believed homosexual acts to be morally acceptable. Despite polling methodology, what previous polls have shown us time and again is more of the same. In a 2013 Pew pollMuslims overwhelmingly say that homosexual behavior is morally wrong, including three-quarters or more in 33 of the 36 countries where the question was asked. The latest ICM poll from April 2016 asked a slightly different question about whether being gay should be legal. Over half of British Muslims surveyed said they supported making homosexual acts illegal. It did not used to be like this, so what happened? Liberals who claim that this has nothing to do with Islam today are being as unhelpful and as ignorant as conservatives who claim that this represents all of Islam. The problem so obviously has something to do with Islam. That something is Islamism, or the desire to impose any version of Islam over any society. Jihadism is the attempt to do so by force. This ideology of Islamism has been rising almost unchecked among Muslims for decades. It is a theocratic ideology, and theocracy should no longer have any place in the world today. But it is as if we liberals will stoop to anything to avoid discussing ideology. We will initiate state sanctioned presidential kill lists and launch unaccountable targeted assassinations. Yet, no amount of drone strikes under Obama—at a rate that far exceedsBush—will ever solve the problem. We cannot shoot our way out of an ideology. We cannot arrest our way out of an insurgency. Yes, law and war have their own place, but they will never solve the problem. In the long run, only reducing the local appeal of this ideology will solve the problem. Whereas Islam today requires reform, the Islamist ideology must be intellectually terminated. To do so requires first acknowledging it exists, isolating it from Muslims, devising a strategy to challenge it, and then backing the voices that do. As I argued in a TV debate with Fareed Zakaria, the danger of not doing so is twofold. Within the Muslim context, it is a betrayal of those liberal reforming Muslims who risk everything daily. These are feminist Muslims, gay Muslims, ex-Muslims, dissenting liberal and secular Muslim voices, persecuted minority sects among Muslims, the Ismailis, the Ahmedis and the Shia—all these different minorities within the minority of the Muslim community—they are immediately betrayed by our silence. By shutting down the conversation about Islamist extremism we deprive them of the lexicon to deploy against those who are attempting to silence their progressive efforts within their own communities. We surrender their identity of Islam to the extremists. The second danger is in the non-Muslim context. What happens if we don’t name the Islamist ideology and distinguish it from Islam? We leave a void for the vast majority of Americans—who are unaware of the nuances in this debate—to be filled by Donald Trump and the Populist Right. They will go on to blame all versions of Islam and every Muslim, and their frustration at not being able to talk about the problem will give in to rage, as it has done. By refusing to discuss it, we only increase the hysteria. Like “he who must not be named”—the Voldemort Effect, I call it—we increase the fear. So this is my appeal to President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and to all liberals and Muslims, for humanity’s sake let’s stop playing politics with evil. Just as this so obviously has something to do with lax gun laws, it so clearly has something to do with Islam. Hillary Clinton nearly conceded as much after these recent attacks. But liberals must own this debate, not merely appear to be defensively reacting to Trump’s agenda. This September will mark 15 years since the 9/11 attacks, and we still haven’t devised a strategy to address Islamist extremism, let alone identified voices who can do so globally. Not al Qaeda, not ISIS, nor any other theocratic jihadist group that may emerge in the future, but a strategy that recognizes we are in the middle of a Cold War against theocracy. If we refuse to isolate, name and shame Islamist extremism, from fear of increasing anti-Muslim bigotry, we only increase anti-Muslim bigotry. If the rise of Trump has not convinced us of this yet, then nothing will. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/14/admit-it-these-terrorists-are-muslims.html
Come to think of it, I recall that the few gay clubs I went to in my youth (no homo jokes please - the music at these bars is great and I went with my GF), the security was incredibly lax. There is one in Chicago called Berlin and if I remember correctly, there isn't even a doorman. It is street to bar with no buffer. Don't know what is like today.
Here’s What Happened When A Terrorist Attacked LGBT People In A Country With Strict Gun Laws There’s no right to bear arms in Israel, and the death count in recent terror attacks is much lower than in terror-inspired U.S. mass murders. 06/13/2016 06:46 pm E Jessica Schulberg Foreign Affairs Reporter, The Huffington Post "Like Florida shooter Omar Mateen, Yishai Schlissel was a homophobic extremist determined to kill gay people. But Schlissel, unlike Mateen, lived in a country with strict gun laws: Israel. When Schlissel attacked a gay pride parade in Jerusalem a year ago, he was armed with a knife, not an assault rifle. "He stabbed six people, killing a 16-year-old girl before he was apprehended. Mateen used a semiautomatic assault-style rifle to shoot more than 100 people in a Florida gay nightclub early Sunday, killing 49, before law enforcement officers shot him to death. "There is no such thing as a right to bear arms in Israel. To get a gun, an individual has to apply for a license, show a need for a firearm (either for work or personal safety), demonstrate an ability to safely use a gun, and pass a mental health check. Licenses are only granted to individuals who have been Israeli residents for more than three years and who are over 21 years of age if they served in the military, and 27 if they didn’t. Even after obtaining permission to buy a gun, the government limits the amount of ammunition an individual can purchase. "In Israel, a country that faces frequent terror threats, proving a “need” for a gun isn’t automatic. During the Second Intifada, a violent Palestinian uprising in the early 2000s, author Daniel Gordis applied for a license to purchase a gun, citing his frequent travels to dangerous areas to report on violence. Gordis, now a senior vice president at Shalem College in Jerusalem, said the government rejected his application. "Israel has a sense that there’s no right to a weapon ... A weapon is a responsibility, and it can be earned. Dr. Daniel Gordis “I thought it was a legitimate request and they turned me down,” Gordis said during a phone interview. “Obviously, I was momentarily annoyed that I got turned down — but, actually, I took the larger view of it, and I thought, ‘Wow, that’s pretty amazing!’ “Israel has a sense that there’s no right to a weapon,” Gordis explained. “A weapon is a responsibility, and it can be earned. Or you can have a need for a weapon — but you don’t have a right to weapon.” "Last year, the Israeli government encouraged individuals with firearms licenses to carry their weapons, and made it easier for people living in certain areas to legally carry a gun. The policy changes were tied to the wave of Palestinian attacks and drew criticism from Palestinian rights groups. But even with the changes, access to guns in Israel remains far more regulated than in the U.S. “The message is a bit mixed,” in Israel’s relaxed gun restrictions, said Natan Sachs, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute who focuses on Israeli policies. Because of Israel’s near-universal mandatory military service, guns are ubiquitous in the country, he said. “But there is still no perception in Israel that people, writ large, should just carry arms,” he added. "In the U.S., owning firearms is considered an inherent right, regardless of need or the ability to safely use weapons. In a country with few restrictions on firearms purchases, Florida, in particular, has some of the least-restrictive regulations on gun ownership. "The Sunshine State, which received an “F” last year on a scorecard compiled by Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, doesn’t restrict the sale of assault weapons, limit the number of guns that can be purchased at one time, or require background checks for private sales, including sales at gun shows. Guns & Ammo magazine ranked Florida as the 12th-best state to own a gun, describing the state’s laws as the “envy of gun owners nationwide.” "Mateen, who was once on an FBI watchlist for possible ties to terrorism, legally purchased a semiautomatic assault-style rifle capable of spraying bullets as fast as the shooter can pull the trigger. "Asked if an Israeli civilian could get access to the type of assault weapon used by Mateen — and by numerous other U.S. mass murderers — Gordis was emphatic. “Never, never, never, never, never, never, zero,” he said. “People are walking around with pistols. … The only people walking around with real serious guns are soldiers.” "When terrorists in Israel get guns, they don’t always work. Last week, two Palestinian gunmen opened fire on civilians in Tel Aviv. But they were using cheap imitations of a Swedish World War II-era rifle. Video footage of the attack shows one gun appearing to jam and an ammunition clip falling out of the second. The two terrorists killed four people in the attack. "Part of the reason for Israel’s strict regulation of civilian gun ownership is that the country has a security-driven interest in making sure weapons don’t flow into the hands of terrorists. “There is a very tight monitoring of where all the weapons are,” Sachs said. “The last thing you want, especially in a place like Israel, is to have arms roaming free.”
"It is time that we liberals took the fabled red pill and accepted reality. Just as this clearly has something to do with outdated gun laws, and just as those laws need reform, this also has something to do with Islam, which also needs reform today. No other stance makes any sense." from optionpros article. the left and the establishment need to deal in turth and reality.
As I stated elsewhere, Islam's lack of progressiveness can be attributed to one major historical event: The Islam king(s) forbade the printing press around the same time that the west (Christians) embraced it. We had the enlightenment. [Many of them] are stuck in the 15th century. If the Christians had made the same mistake, we would still be doing this:
i have not studied the matter other than to know that sharia law is incompatible with the U.S. Constitution and the culture I grew up with. But, I read that some muslims cultures laws and thoughts have not changed much since the 8th century. (before the printing press) For instance putting gays to death or female genital mutilation is mostly likely not a lack of the printing press for a few years problem. My analysis is that cultures...that practice overly repressive ideas about sex and or marriage wind up with far too many pyschotic men. willing to do terrible things. These practices seemed to allow a vacuum that allows crazy leaders to get crazy men to do crazy things because they do not have a proper normal outlet for normal sexual needs and desires. Then you get a culture that rapes boys... and makes things even worse. (by the way I go to Catholic Church and believe not allowing priests to marry was a major part of the priesthood's problem. At the very least it created a vacuum to let the wack jobs in.)
Is there no ground between principle and common sense legislation? Are we so far beyond trusting each other that all we will consider is our own positions? Must every partisan political success be a Pyrrhic victory? Just askin'
I just want to know why we can't stop immigration? What is so wrong with keeping everyone out to we control our border and can effectively screen out terrorists. It will keep us safer and bring up wages. Will some Obama or establishment apologists answer that question?
I don't know. I'm pretty pessimistic about the future of the country at large. Given the choices we're being presented with this election cycle I see absolutely no reason to believe this contempt and mistrust of each other will improve. We're too far down the road. Regardless of who gets elected we're going to have tens of millions of really pissed off people, and it's highly unlikely any of the ""brilliant" ideas that either candidate has come up with will ever come to fruition given that most of the criminals in congress will be returning.