Orlando shooting/derail condolences thread

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by asshol, Jun 12, 2016.

  1. DeathHamster Member

    Name one mass-shooter who was one the terror watch list when they were buying guns.

    More useless feel-good legislation
  2. mii

    US intelligence misses cues to terror - again

    US intelligence misses cues to terror - again
    DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis June 13, 2016, 6:24 PM (IDT)
    Tags: Orlando massacre, ISIS, US, US-ISIS, US intelligence, FBI,
    Moner Mohammad Abusalha, the suicide bomber who was the Orlando killer's buddy
    Omar Mateen, a US Muslim citizen aged 29, son of Afghan migrants, perpetrated the deadliest shooting attack in American history on June 12, when he massacred 50 people and injured 53 at the Pulse gay club in Orlando, Florida, with an AR 15 assault rifle and a Glock 17 handgun.
    The guns were purchased legally a few days earlier at a local shop. This alone ought to have alerted the various US intelligence and surveillance agencies responsible for countering terrorism – except that, for lack of coordination, they missed the fact that a man twice questioned by the FBI was suddenly loading up on deadly weapons.
    Mateen fit the profile of an Islamic terrorist, whose attributes the incumbent US administration consistently refuses to acknowledge: He was a Muslim, whose Afghan immigrant father is a Taliban supporter; a religious extremist, who recently made the pilgrimage to Mecca; he was divorced, known for violence, and licensed as a security officer to carry a gun.
    The Orlando killer had long been overdue for close monitoring – or least a flag to prevent him from working as a security officer or carrying arms.
    In 2013-14, the FBI interviewed him after he made "inflammatory remarks" to a colleague, before closing its investigation.
    In 2014, the FBI hauled him in again over a connection with Moner Mohammad Abu-Salha, a 22-year old Palestinian American. They had grown up together at the small Florida coastal town of Fort Pierce. Abu Salha went off to Syria, joined the al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front and killed himself in a suicide attack by driving a massive truck bomb into a restaurant filled with Syrian government soldiers.
    Yet the FBI against closed the file on Mateen after determining that the links between the two young Muslims did not warrant a full-dress inquiry.
    Compiling all the known data on the Orlando killer with the results of the FBI interviews with him would have placed him high on the list of suspects and called in for further questioning.
    The oversights of US law enforcement, intelligence and security agencies recur each time Islamist terrorists strike. The Ramadan 2016 attack in Orlando showed that no lessons had been learned from the lapses that led to 9/11.
    The FBI erred gravely in closing the case over the Mateen connection with the Palestinian American suicide bomber. This explains why senior FBI officials are down-playing the importance of that connection.
    When he was exculpated, the federal authorities also discontinued electronic surveillance of the terrorist’s movements. So they missed his mounting extremism, his frequent attendance at a mosque led by a radical imam, who regularly incited his flock to murder (“Gays must die”). He thus kept his Security Officer’s ID which gave him access to secure government sites. His name was kept on the list of licensees for carrying firearms.
    It is especially hard to understand the lackadaisical handling by federal agents of this prime suspect when the FBI Director James Comey was reiterating: “The Islamic State remains the top threat America is facing.”
    Before entering the Pulse night club with the intent to slaughter those partying inside, Mateen called 911 and swore allegiance to the leader of the ‘Islamic State’s Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and recalled Tamerlan and Dzhokhar, the brothers responsible for the 2013 Boston Marathon terror attack.
    For 20 minutes, the dispatchers did not understand what he was saying and lost the chance to triangulate his cellular phone’s location and send police to nab him.
    At the door of the club, he got into a brief exchange of fire with policeman before going in. Mateen went from room to room, firing well aimed semi-automatic rounds, killing tens of people, wounding tens more, and rounding up 30 people as hostages. He knew enough from his experience as a security guard to lock them in the restrooms which had no windows.
    Long before the police, the city hall or any other official entity came to their senses, the club’s management sent a message via social networks: 'Everyone get out of pulse and keep running.'
    For three precious hours, dozens of police cars and ambulances, with FBI agents, dog handlers, special bomb disposal units, and other security officials huddled outside the club without doing anything. During those hours only a few shots sounded and many of those wounded lost their lives from blood loss and lack of medical treatment.
    Only at 5 am, did the special anti-terror unit enter the scene, with one team using small detonators and firing at the terrorist to distract him, while a force of 9 officers blew up the opposite wall and broke a hole through which they could enter, fire and kill the terrorist. This entire event took 4 minutes.
    Despite the three-hour wait, not enough ambulances had reached the scene, and some of the casualties had to be driven in civilian vehicles.
    Mateen committed his murderous assault on the 300 partygoers at the Pulse club with ease, due to a number of factors:
    1. US law enforcement agencies have shown inexplicable tolerance toward Islamist extremists to the point that the Orlando killer was free to purchase an unlimited amount of deadly weapons.
    2. Due to lack of coordination between intelligence and law enforcement agencies, this killer was able to gain employment with a firm that trains its personnel in the use of firearms.
    3. As soon as the local police were alerted to gunfire at the door of the club, they should have swarmed in to neutralize the killer. The three-hour wait for the SWAT team’s arrival betokened weakness and an unwillingness to fight, so leaving the horrendous event in the hands of the terrorist.
    4. Pinning the dreadful episode on lack of gun control avoids the issue. Terrorists will always find murder weapons – if not guns, then homemade bombs like the Boston Marathon brothers, kitchen knives or vehicles. Even in countries with strict gun control, there is always a black market.
  3. mii

    No letup seen in ISIS terror for US, Western cities

    No letup seen in ISIS terror for US, Western cities
    DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis June 15, 2016, 11:17 AM (IDT)
    Tags: Barack Obama, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, US, ISIS, Orlando massacre, San Bernadino attack, Paris, Brussels,
    US President Barack Obama offers no clear strategy for destroying ISIS other than predicting a long, hard road for his too-little, too-late military interventions overseas. That was evident from his latest speech Tuesday, June 14. Realizing this, Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Bagdadi still does not feel threatened by military defeat, and whenever his forces are pushed back on one front, he promptly opens a new one.
    And so, when earlier this year, US and Russian-backed local forces aided by air strikes began forcing ISIS out of territory it had occupied since 2014 in Syria and Iraq. ISIS shifted a large part of its forces to Libya and opened a third front there.
    The 5,000 Islamist fighters were quietly moved from Iraq to southern Jordan, from there to the Sinai Peninsula and from Egypt to Libya. How come that neither the Americans nor anyone else in the West acted to thwart this large-scale military movement?
    In Libya, the Islamists partly made up for the shortfall in revenue caused by the financial and military measures which President Obama described at length Tuesday when he outlined his war in ISIS. After the US bombed the Syrian oil wells and refineries captured by ISIS, Al-Baghdadi found new sources of income by seizing Libyan oil facilities, smuggling migrants out of Africa and flogging arms on Middle East black markets.
    Only after ISIS had got itself well organized in Libya, some 200km from Europe, did the Americans and Europeans step in to launch a limited military strike.
    ISIS also boosted another important front by launching and sponsoring terrorist assaults in American and European cities.
    President Obama described the war on the terror organization from a one-sided perspective, as though only his side was making progress on the battlefield. However, debkafile military and counter terrorism sources say this account is skewed. Like any other tough war still in progress, both contestants have good days of achievements and bad days of failures.
    The Orlando terror attack on June 12, when 49 Americans were murdered by a young Muslim man who swore allegiance to al-Baghdadi was one of the bad days, on which America suffered an agonizing blow.
    In his speech, Obama bent all his rhetoric skill and intelligence to drawing a thick line between 29-year-old Omar Mateen and “one of the world’s great religions” by dismissing him as a “disturbed individual” notwithstanding the mass-murderer’s oath of allegiance to the ISIS leader.
    Obviously, any young Muslim ready to die in the service of ISIS for a terrorist attack on harmless civilians is “disturbed.”
    This label is not a strategy and it will endure in the very short term only up to the next attack by an Islamic terrorist. Neither can such language be simplistically applied for thwarting terrorism, such as the jihadist killing sprees at San Bernardino, Paris and Brussels, the blowing-up of Russian and Egyptians airliners, the murderous assaults in Amman, Jordan and the Sarona Market in Tel Aviv - and now, Orlando, which capping a run of disasters that spread like a malignant plague in under a year.
    Obama’s words will not reassure worried and suffering Americans that the plague is over. His tactic, used also by the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, to urge restricting the purchase of guns as the main root of the evil, is no more than a distraction from the main cause. Denying Muslim terrorists free access to assault rifles will not stop them from getting hold of these guns and other weapons of death from illicit sources.
    The same goes for Obama’s lengthy defense against critics who accuse him of deliberately avoiding using the term “radical Islam” in relation to terror.
    “What exactly would using this label accomplish?” he asked rhetorically. “What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to try and kill Americans?”
    The truth is that a clear and precise definition of the enemy is vital to any nation and army fighting a war. When this definition is fuzzy or imprecise, the war is liable to continue to limp along as it does today against an enemy whose main advantage is relentless, undivided resolve.
    Even if Obama is correct in calling ISIS a perversion of Islam that is not shared by a billion Muslims worldwide, it will continue to spread, in the absence of a practical strategy for stemming Islamic terror, and American and European cities will continue to live under its dark cloud.

  4. The legislation is utterly useless in any case in that it does not take into consideration the fact that guns are frequently bought and sold by persons other than the licenced dealer. Anyone owning a gun in the USA can sell it to whomever he or she likes whether or not the buyer is on any watchlist or is in stable mental health.
    Gun ownership in America is not governed by criteria set by government if anything it's a thriving free market ungoverned by anyone or anything but the right price.

    No amount of legislation in the USA will change that.
  5. In America guns dictate the law as opposed to the law dictating gun use and ownership.

    It's time Obama and his successor saw the facts as they actually are and acted on them before more lives are lost in tragedies such as the most recent one and those preceding it.
    All of them regardless of the number of lives lost should never have happened but they did and that's the result of the so called right to bear arms.
    Fuck it for the farce it is.
  6. America has quite literally shot itself in the foot with its own legislation regarding gun control and it's too late to do anything about it.

    Like I said it's a fucking farce and no amount of pretty words from any politician or campaigner can rectify what has now become America's shame.

    Gun control, no I think not.

  8. When will Americans realise that Islam ,homosexuality , or even Jack flaming Sparrow are not responsible for this utterly horrendous tragedy in Orlando ?

    It's the person wielding a firearm who is responsible and no matter what labels you tie on him he is still a killer first last and always.
    What's more there is every chance he would have gone on a shooting spree anyway without an excuse.
    He had that desire in him and having ready access to a firearm enabled him to carry it out.

    To hell with the Islam homophobic devil worship illuminati loafer wearing profiles, the guy was a killer and having access to a firearm off he went and shot off several rounds to make himself feel better.

    Ask yourselves , would this have happened if gun ownership was so free and easy?

    Probably,possibly,but, what are the chances of these shootings being so frequent?

    America it's time to waken up to the fact you are allowing mass murder by your own fucked up legislation.

    What are you doing about it?


  10. Returning to my point about the right to bear arms.
    If they weren't so fucking freely available.............
  11. You can apportion blame to the fact he ate too much cheese or wore spectacles or anything else you can find in Breitbart or any news site anywhere but one single fact remains and that is he had easy access to a weapon .

    He exercised his right to bear arms.

    And look what he did with that right.
  12. If we lose the right to bear arms we aren't Americans anymore. Maybe we'll be called the Imperial Americans of the Republic of America.
    The right to bear arms is so important that it's the Second amendment. Taking away guns isn't a answer. I'm not sure what is, there are guns in other countries without this carnage so in part it's a culture problem. terrorism is not going to be stopped by gun control, they will get guns. It's the mass killings by crazy people that are the problems.
    Gun control has to be better, but the government plan will be totalitarian and we have enough of that already.
    Btw that guy was a homosexual homophobe, his Isis statement was his way of denying his real problem and going out a hero.

  13. I disagree with your statement about not being American if you lose the right to bear arms.
    While some may be yourself Included regard it as part of your national identity I'd say it's more of a cultural aspects to the American people.
    As in let's go shoot up something or if there's a home invasion you'll shoot at the burglar. Fair enough defend yourself and your property but don't see the right to bear arms as compulsory, it's not.
    You don't stop being who you are if you don't have a cache of weapons in the cupboard , it's not UnAmerican to not own guns.
  14. There's no point in shutting the stable door as the horse has already bolted so to speak and foresight is a wonderful thing and it makes me wonder if at the time of writing the American constitution would the right to bear arms have been included if anyone could have foreseen the events in Orlando or Columbine or any of the other massacres?
  15. A return to the pointless hate mongering doesn't present a decent or even valid argument for gun control or anything else.
    But hey, keep on posting that shit if it makes you happy and think it makes you look good.
  16. The Wrong Guy Member

  17. DeathHamster Member

    • Like Like x 1
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  19. anon8109 Member

    It seems that the chair of a committee in congress has the power to ignore the majority by simply deciding that they are not.
    Rather than counting votes, the chair can just declare the winner of a vote by ear.

    This is democracy?

  20. anon8109 Member

    The Dickey amendment.


  22. One congressman was interviewed today insisting that the danger is 'no gun' zones and said the night club should have been a gun friendly place- but even the NRA says don't drink and gun.
    He was suggesting everyone carrying a gun would have taken care of that guy.
  23. I have heard similar sentiments expressed. I think that the thought was that if there had been an individual there who was legally carrying a firearm, that it could have possibly reduced the number of casualties slain in that massacre. As far as the gay community goes, some have reacted by suggesting that they would be well advised to learn how to protect themselves.
  24. Drunk gun owners in a bar means murders. All it takes is one drunk who thinks someone else is a terrorist because whatever. Drunks with guns who think the honor of their wimminz is insulted, or a discussion about how much your team sucks leads to mayhem. This is the reason towns in the Old West made men leave their guns at the door. Just watch Have Gun Will Travel and you will see.
  25. A sober, professional and armed security guard could be a good thing.
    Also, not everybody who goes out to a club gets completely shitfaced drunk.
  26. The Wrong Guy Member

    FBI Still Concealing Almost All of What the Orlando Gunman Said

    By Robert Mackey, The Intercept, June 20, 2016


    Doing nothing to advance the heated political debate over what combination of factors might have prompted Omar Mateen to open fire inside a gay nightclub in Orlando last week, the FBI on Monday refused to release the audio or a full transcript of the gunman’s phone conversations with the police during the attack.

    The FBI instead published a written timeline of the attack, which included a redacted transcript of one conversation between Mateen and a 911 operator, and a partial summary of what he said in three further calls with the Orlando Police Department crisis negotiators that lasted 28 minutes in total. The bureau argued that letting the public hear or even read the gunman’s justification for the attack in his own words risked encouraging further attacks.

    Later on Monday, after that redaction was widely criticized, the FBI reversed itself, issuing an unredacted transcript revealing what had been removed: the name of the person the gunman said he dedicated his attack to, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria.

    However, based on a previous description of Mateen’s 911 calls given by FBI Director James Comey last week, it appears that the federal investigators continued to withhold details of a second conversation Mateen had with the 911 operator, which was not referred to at all in the government’s timeline. “He made 911 calls from the club, during the attack,” Comey said last week. “He called and he hung up. He called again and spoke briefly with the dispatcher, and then he hung up, and then the dispatcher called him back again and they spoke briefly. There were three total calls.”

    Also missing from the transcript and summary of the conversations was any mention of the fact that, as Comey also said last week, Mateen had expressed solidarity with the Tsarnaev brothers, who carried out the Boston Marathon bombings in 2013, and Moner Mohammad Abusalha, a Floridian who carried out a suicide bombing in Syria in 2014 on behalf of al Qaeda’s representatives there, the Nusra Front. The FBI’s Boston office revealed that Mateen had referred to the Tsarnaev brothers as his “homeboys” during one of the 911 calls, despite a lack of evidence that he had ever been in contact with them.

    At a news conference in Orlando on Monday morning, the assistant special agent in charge of the FBI’s Tampa field office, Ron Hopper, said that while “the audio is compelling,” it would not be released as part of an effort to not glorify such attackers.

    Pressed by reporters as to why the transcript released on Monday was partial and edited, Hopper seemed to refer to Mateen’s words about the other attackers. “Part of the redacting is meant to not give credence to individuals who have done terrorist attacks in the past,” he said. “We’re not going to propagate their rhetoric, their violent rhetoric, and we see no value in putting those individuals’ names back out there.”

    “We’re trying to prevent future acts from happening again,” he continued, “and for cowards like this one, people like that influence them, so we are not going to continue to put their names out front.”

    Later in the news conference, a reporter asked the Orlando police chief, John Mina, if some of the patrons killed at the nightclub might have been shot by his officers as they stormed the building. Mina said this was still under investigation, but appeared to acknowledge that it did occur, saying, “Those killings are on the suspect and on the suspect alone, in my mind.”

    Officials also said they would not make public the content of any calls made by patrons inside the club during the attack.

    Whatever the reasoning, the decision to withhold the audio and a complete transcript only seemed to encourage speculation online, and in the political arena, that the investigators might be concealing something.

    House Speaker Paul Ryan and other opponents of the Obama administration suggested that the records had been censored to downplay the role of Islamist extremism, and reporters objected that the calls were clearly a public record and therefore covered by Florida law mandating transparency.

    Some observers mocked the redaction:

    After Attorney General Loretta Lynch said on Sunday that the transcript would be partial and redacted — to, in her words, “avoid re-victimizing those who went through this horror” — Florida’s governor, Rick Scott, said that he strongly disagreed with the administration, telling Fox News, “It sure appears that they don’t want to talk about that ISIS was involved.”

    Continued here:
    • Like Like x 1
  27. The Wrong Guy Member

    Gridlock on guns in Orlando's wake | The Hill


    The Senate rejected four separate gun control measures on Monday as Republicans and Democrats jockeyed for position the week after the deadliest mass shooting incident in U.S. history.

    All four measures — two dealt with background checks and two sought to prevent people on terrorist watchlists from buying guns — were expected to fail.

    All four required 60 votes to move forward, and Republicans and Democrats offered separate amendments on both issues. The National Rifle Association opposed the two Democratic measures.

    The pinnacle vote was on a measure sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) that would have prohibited people on terrorist watchlists from buying guns or explosives. It failed 47-53. Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.) was the only Democrat to vote against it.

    Only two Republicans backed the Feinstein amendment: Sens. Mark Kirk (Ill.) and Kelly Ayotte (N.H.). Kirk is the most endangered Republican up for reelection in the Senate, and Ayotte also faces a tough race.

    Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy (D), who waged a filibuster last week focused on the Feinstein measure, offered a separate amendment to expand background checks to include private sellers of firearms. It also failed to reach 60 votes.

    Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Heitkamp and Jon Tester (Mont.) voted against moving forward with the proposal. Kirk supported it.

    Despite the legislative defeats, Democrats came away confident of a political victory. They plan to use these votes in campaign ads this fall against vulnerable Senate Republicans.

    Monday’s votes came just over a week after a gunman pledging allegiance to radical Islamic groups shot and killed 49 people at a nightclub in Orlando.

    A CNN/ORC poll released Monday shows that public support for gun control has surged in the wake of the shooting, with 55 percent of respondents nationwide calling for stricter gun laws — 9 percentage points higher than in October.

    Eight-five percent of respondents said they favored preventing people on government terrorist watchlists, including the no-fly list, from owning guns. Just over nine in 10 said they support requiring a background check for anyone attempting to purchase a gun.

    Continued here:
  28. Quentinanon Member

    And any measures that would exclude potentially violent people from legally purchasing firearms, such as a license to buy requiring a forensic assessment, will not even get discussed.
  29. It only takes one shit faced ass with a gun to ruin the evening.
  30. DeathHamster Member

    How about something simple like proof of taking and passing a recognized gun safety course?

    We don't let people drive cars without that.
  31. It's a bit late in the day to consider that suggestion after all how many people are in possession of unlicensed firearms in the US today?

    How to you track them down and ask them to sit a test?
    Simple answer is you can't because if they are in possession of an unlicensed firearm it's because they are not allowed to have one in the first place.
    Reasons being they have a criminal record, mental illness or they fit into any of the other criteria that disqualifies them.

    Think about the immediate issue of firearm ownership and as one poster says it only takes one shit faced guy to ruin the evening for everyone.
    Ripples in a pond when you look at it, not only are lives taken but the families left behind lose something irreplaceable too.

    Tests are not the answer, and fuck only knows now what it is.

    That horse has bolted for good.

    Tuesday, 21 June 2016
    Delusion and Reality in the Obama Administration
    by Michael Curtis

    It would be too unkind to say that the Obama Administration resembles the Gang that Couldn’t Shoot Straight, the appellation given by the novelist Jimmy Breslin to a story about a Brooklyn Mafia mob. Yet, even loyal supporters of the Administration are perplexed and embarrassed by the decision on June 19, 2016 of Attorney-General Loretta Lynch to redact the most important parts of the transcript of the self-described soldier of Allah, the Islamist murderer of 49 people in Orlando, Florida.

    Two recent actions have illustrated the insularity of mind, the remoteness of the U.S. Administration from reality, and given the impression of a fanatical obsession with a fabricated version of affairs. One is the repeated refusal by President Barack Obama and, on June 20, 2016, Attorney-General Loretta Lynch, to acknowledge that terrorist incidents are linked to if not the result of Radical Islam. The other is an unwillingness to abide by the Freedom of Information Act of 1966 that allows anyone to request information from executive branch government agencies.

    It is inexplicable why Barack Obama and Loretta Lynch still persist in refusing to utter the words Radical Islam as if they were a kind of witchcraft in referring to the terrorists in the U.S. The murderers told us who they were and explained their actions. Major Nidal Hassan who killed 13 at Fort Hood on November 5, 2009 said he was linked to the notorious terrorist leader Anwar al-Awlaki. Muhammad Abdulazeez who killed 5 at Chattanooga, Tenn., on July 16, 2015 was motivated by Islamist propaganda. The couple that killed 14 in San Bernardino on June 12, 2016 were home grown terrorists inspired by Islamist groups.
    Why cannot the President and the Attorney General accept the references to Islamic terrorism by the perpetrators including those made by the murderer Omar Mateen in Orlando, Florida in his calls to the police during his intervals of murdering 49 people? Mateen had clearly said he had pledged allegiance to the ISIS leader Abu Bakr al Baghdadi and the ISIS organization. It is unrewarding that the Administration’s excuse for not speaking frankly is desire to avoid alienating supposed allies in the Muslim world.
    What an extraordinary difference between the Obama Administration’s inability to speak truth to the American public and the forthrightness and clarity of French political leaders in responding to terror in their country and elsewhere in Europe. After the ghastly series of massacres starting on January 7, 2015 at the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris and the nearby kosher supermarket that killed 17 people, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls stated the obvious.

    The Obama administration should heed Valls’ words, “We are at war, but not against a religion, not against a civilization, but at war to defend our values. It is a war against terrorism, against jihadism, against Radical Islam.” After the terrorism on March 22, 2016 at the airport and metro station in Brussels, Valls repeated the reality, the existence of war against the three mentioned enemies.
    President Obama correctly said that all of us have a responsibility to refute the view that groups like ISIL (ISIS) somehow represent Islam. The problem is that no serious critic of his foreign policy has suggested this is the case. All accept that the vast numbers of Muslims in the U.S. and around the world are peaceful people. But it is the height of irresponsibility to deny or overlook the fact that a part of the Muslim community can be characterized as adherents of Radical Islam, one expression, if a perverted one, of Islam.

    Similarly, it is not true that addressing the terrorists correctly as Radical Islamist will in some way discourage efforts to combat them, or suggest the West is fighting a war against a religion, or even worse encouraging would be jihadists to join the terrorist groups. The statement and decision of Loretta Lynch in redacting the specific enemy, Islamic jihadists, from the transcript of the 911 calls made by the terrorist becomes incomprehensible, except as one that is politically motivated and thus politicizing the Department of Justice.

    Both Lynch and Obama have spoken of the Orlando massacre as an act of terror, an act of hate. But neither mentioned it was inspired by terrorist ideology or that Mateen stated his allegiance to the world’s major terrorist group. It is a truism that Mateen was not directed by ISIS or was part of a larger operation. ISIS has fully explained its strategy of calling for lone wolf operations, rather than relying on large scale, disciplined and organized ones.

    Lynch’s actions and non-actions have revealed a wider problem in the Obama Administration, the lack of transparency if not the continuing politicizing of the Department of Justice, already familiar from members of previous and present administrations, such as John Mitchell in the Nixon administration, and Eric Holder, the previous Attorney-General. On April 1, 2016 the White House was inexcusably undiplomatic by censoring a video of French President Francois Hollande and redacting his remarks that Islamist terrorism is at the root of terrorism.

    On a number of occasions Obama has assured the country that his administration is the most transparent administration in history. His memorandum to the heads of executive departments and agencies declared that the Administration would, consistent with law and policy, disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use.

    Accordingly there has been some commitment to transparency. But, even admitting the growing problem because of the increase in the number of requests for information, there have been frequent departures from this noble principle. Rather, there has been secrecy, and imperfect closure of information of off the record and concealed meetings. We know the State Department edited the transcript of the journalist James Rosen. The White House spin-doctor Ben Rhodes has arrogantly revealed his deception of the media and the general public over the nuclear deal with Iran. Censorship has been rife. It may be true as the administration argues that some information needs to be private, but the clear and frequent pronouncements, made clear in the media, by Mateen do not fall in this category.
    The record of the Administration regarding secrecy and openness and transparency has been imperfect. Pertinent to the ongoing presidential campaign, a federal judge in May 2015 rebuked the State Department for not releasing the emails of Hillary Clinton, and ordered them to be released in batches every 30 days. More broadly in 2014, the Obama administration censored or refused to release more government records than in any previous year. About 39 % of total requests for information were censored or access was denied. In about 30 % of other instances, no records could be found or the request was found unreasonable. Federal officials could not find any records for one sixth or 13,000 requests for information.

    Happily, it was a severe backlash and strong public concern from American citizens about the proposed redaction by Lynch that caused the Department of Justice to change its mind and make public the seemingly whole transcript of Mateen’s remarks. The Administration’s behavior, by denying or minimizing reference to the perpetrators as Islamic or linked to ISIS in some way, is largely political in character. It’s explanation that by redacting the information it is preventing spreading of Islamic propaganda is a specious one. The families of the 49 killed in Orlando deserve better from their rulers.

    53 shot in Chicago over the weekend, but crickets because business as usual there

    How many of those guns in Chicago were legally purchased, complete with background checks, do you think? My guess is maybe 3 guns. Maybe classes would've helped their aim, so the 200 deaths would be a closer match to the 1800 victims shot. /sarcasm.
  34. The equivalent of someone shot every 43 minutes.
    How cheap human life has become.
  35. America the time has come to rethink your gun policy.
    Your right to bear arms is mindlessly killing innocent people in vast numbers in your own country. You are at war with yourselves for no reason other than a single amendment in your constitution, a freedom gone too far.

    Lives are lost in meaningless acts of violence perpetrated by your citizens who see mass killings as an expression of anger and hatred.

    This is your country where freedom is now represented by gunning down as many people as possible in the shortest possible time.

    This is now the American way but ask yourselves is this the American dream?
  36. It really is not necessary to bash America and all Americans.

    A terrorist muslim shot up the place, but you seem to ignore that important detail.
  37. I'm not bashing America or its people I'm bashing damned hard at the out of control gun use which has arisen as a result of the right to bear arms.

    The guy who murdered those people in cold blood in Pulse nightclub used Islam as an excuse, something to take the blame for his ruthless aggression towards innocent people living their lives.

    He murdered them.

    The big question is would he have been able to do so quite as easily if the amendment was not part of the constitution?

    If guns were not so readily available would he have acted in the same way?

    I love America and it's people but I do not and never will be happy about guns being so freely available to anyone with the right amount of cash in his pocket.

    There has to be a line drawn somewhere in the sand and soon too before more lives are taken in such a senseless manner.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins