"He [Omar] was terrified that he was infected," he said. "I asked him, 'Did you do a test?' Yes. He went to the pharmacy and did the test … it came out negative but it doesn't come out right away. It takes 4, 5 months."

"When I asked him what he was going to do now, his answer was 'I'm going to make them pay for what they did to me.'"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as I am aware there is not a huge gay army killing people around the world in many different countries to support the overthrow of governments and otherwise causing chaos.

Enough with the red herrings already. He was Muslim, he killed in the name of Islam. It's an ideology that helps people who might be prone to kill for other reasons justify mass murder as ethically correct.

I'm not aware of a gay ideology that justifies mass murder. That he may have happened to be gay is completely irrelevant. It may explain some of his underlying complex motivations but it doesn't excuse the fact that he did it in the name of Islam and Islam specifically supports the murder of gays.

Here are Christians who kill blacks in the name of Christianity. Now if you see an issue with this, maybe you will understand how Muslims feel about whack jobs who use Islam to justify their acts of madness.

Not the PP. Even then, Christians rejected the KKK. Entire governments in the Middle East abuse and kill homosexuals and women.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21729362



Consanguineous marriages in Afghanistan.
Saify K1, Saadat M.
Author information
Abstract
The present cross-sectional study was done in order to illustrate the prevalence and types of consanguineous marriages among Afghanistan populations. Data on types of marriages were collected using a simple questionnaire. The total number of couples in the study was 7140 from the following provinces: Badakhshan, Baghlan, Balkh, Bamyan, Kabul, Kunduz, Samangan and Takhar. Consanguineous marriages were classified by the degree of relationship between couples: double first cousins, first cousins, first cousins once removed, second cousins and beyond second cousins. The coefficient of inbreeding (F) was calculated for each couple and the mean coefficient of inbreeding (?) estimated for each population. The proportion of consanguineous marriages in the country was 46.2%, ranging from 38.2% in Kabul province to 51.2% in Bamyan province. The equivalent mean inbreeding coefficient (?) was 0.0277, and ranged from 0.0221 to 0.0293 in these two regions. There were significant differences between provinces for frequencies of different types of marriages (p<0.001). First cousin marriages (27.8%) were the most common type of consanguineous marriages, followed by double first cousin (6.9%), second cousin (5.8%), beyond second cousin (3.9%) and first cousin once removed (1.8%). There were significant differences between ethnic groups for the types of marriages (?2=177.6, df=25, p<0.001). Tajiks (Soni) and Turkmens (also Pashtuns) showed the lowest (?=0.0250) and highest (?=0.0297) mean inbreeding coefficients, respectively, among the ethnic groups in Afghanistan. The study shows that Afghanistan's populations, like other Islamic populations, have a high level of consanguinity.

PMID: 21729362 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

From information I've gleaned from TV and credible 'net sources, I'm going with mental illness. Apparently, he was bipolar. He was probably also suffering from schizophrenia.

Here is a fact: when people decide that they're going to kill, it's darn near impossible to stop them. If by some mystical power every single gun were taken from every single law abiding American, criminals will retain theirs or gain access to them. That's what criminals do. They commit crimes. If they need a gun to commit crimes, they'll get them. And all the gun control in the world will not stop them. To think otherwise is naive at best and probably delusional.


Is there paperwork on that, re: bipolar?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as I am aware there is not a huge gay army killing people around the world in many different countries to support the overthrow of governments and otherwise causing chaos.

Enough with the red herrings already. He was Muslim, he killed in the name of Islam. It's an ideology that helps people who might be prone to kill for other reasons justify mass murder as ethically correct.

I'm not aware of a gay ideology that justifies mass murder. That he may have happened to be gay is completely irrelevant. It may explain some of his underlying complex motivations but it doesn't excuse the fact that he did it in the name of Islam and Islam specifically supports the murder of gays.

Here are Christians who kill blacks in the name of Christianity. Now if you see an issue with this, maybe you will understand how Muslims feel about whack jobs who use Islam to justify their acts of madness.

Anonymous wrote:As far as I am aware there is not a huge gay army killing people around the world in many different countries to support the overthrow of governments and otherwise causing chaos.

Enough with the red herrings already. He was Muslim, he killed in the name of Islam. It's an ideology that helps people who might be prone to kill for other reasons justify mass murder as ethically correct.

I'm not aware of a gay ideology that justifies mass murder. That he may have happened to be gay is completely irrelevant. It may explain some of his underlying complex motivations but it doesn't excuse the fact that he did it in the name of Islam and Islam specifically supports the murder of gays.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It really doesn't matter if his shooting spree was inspired by groups like Isis or the result of an internal conflict and self hatred of himself.

The only "narrative" that matters is that he had access to guns that let him kill a lot of people in a short amount of time.

The Adam Lanza the Sandy Hook shooter, Dylann Roof the shooter at a church in Charleston, James Holmes the shooter at the theater in Colorado, Seyd Farook and Tashfeen Malik the San Bernardino shooters, Jared Loughner the Tucson shooter--all had different ideologies, different levels of mental illness--but all had access to guns.

I'm OP, but I've been saying this from the first moment I heard about this. I don't care about the killers feelings and psychological issues, we'd never know about them if he didn't have guns. I know there will be a narrative that will determine what does or doesn't happen going forward and of course that won't include doing anything about these killing machines. 'Merica.

Anonymous wrote:It really doesn't matter if his shooting spree was inspired by groups like Isis or the result of an internal conflict and self hatred of himself.

The only "narrative" that matters is that he had access to guns that let him kill a lot of people in a short amount of time.

The Adam Lanza the Sandy Hook shooter, Dylann Roof the shooter at a church in Charleston, James Holmes the shooter at the theater in Colorado, Seyd Farook and Tashfeen Malik the San Bernardino shooters, Jared Loughner the Tucson shooter--all had different ideologies, different levels of mental illness--but all had access to guns.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it was a hate crime. I think he sympathized with ISIL because it made his feelings of violence and hate seem legitimate. It gave him a sense of purpose and focus. He hated himself and anyone who acted on the homosexual feelings he denied (or maybe he acted on them and hated himself for it).

Does anyone else think the designation hate crime doesn't quite work if he himself was gay? "self hate to gays plus hate to west (Isis element) crime"? I think its important to not give this a pat label that will obfuscate the intentions once time passes and specifics are forgotten.

No. People can internalise a lot, especially harmful stuff.

Whatever he internaized, if he's gay its sadly gay on gay violence, or self hate. I dont think if a black man massacred a black church because he was not ok with being black - that it would be characterized as a hate crime. Its a self hate crime.

I dont see how this is homophobia if he hung out at a gay bar and had gay sex.

.

New poster here. It sounds like he was a self-hating gay man. There are plenty in the world and unfortunately many kill themselves. Maybe he chose this other path based on that recent anti-gay talk he heard at his mosque. I'm convinced this was due to religion.

Here is the question - what do we do about imams who come to the west and spew hate to susceptible young men and women?not just of gays, but of the west? Where does free speech end? These guys have in incited so much violence, in London, France, Australia, here etc. Why do they still have a microphone?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it was a hate crime. I think he sympathized with ISIL because it made his feelings of violence and hate seem legitimate. It gave him a sense of purpose and focus. He hated himself and anyone who acted on the homosexual feelings he denied (or maybe he acted on them and hated himself for it).

Does anyone else think the designation hate crime doesn't quite work if he himself was gay? "self hate to gays plus hate to west (Isis element) crime"? I think its important to not give this a pat label that will obfuscate the intentions once time passes and specifics are forgotten.

No. People can internalise a lot, especially harmful stuff.

Whatever he internaized, if he's gay its sadly gay on gay violence, or self hate. I dont think if a black man massacred a black church because he was not ok with being black - that it would be characterized as a hate crime. Its a self hate crime.

I dont see how this is homophobia if he hung out at a gay bar and had gay sex.

.

New poster here. It sounds like he was a self-hating gay man. There are plenty in the world and unfortunately many kill themselves. Maybe he chose this other path based on that recent anti-gay talk he heard at his mosque. I'm convinced this was due to religion.

Here is the question - what do we do about imams who come to the west and spew hate to susceptible young men and women?not just of gays, but of the west? Where does free speech end? These guys have in incited so much violence, in London, France, Australia, here etc. Why do they still have a microphone?