News What is the recent tribute song released for the Orlando nightclub shooting?

[Bob Wolf]

It's a tragedy of immense proportion. But, guns are something we have the right to own. It's all in the sale of firearms and the background check. It MUST get tougher and much more thorough. I received my CCW permit over 2 yrs ago. I have not fired my weapon since. A person can own a gun and not kill other people with it.
He sent up warning flares and the FBI did a profile check into his activities. I still believe they sparsely investigated the magnitude of his banter. God Speed to those killed or injured.

 

[jim hardy]

He sent up warning flares and the FBI did a profile check into his activities. I still believe they sparsely investigated the magnitude of his banter.

that is troubling.
Lunatic Fringe sites that i wouldn't dare link to here report his Dad is a retired CIA operative from days of "Charlie Wilson's War" .. Waiting for a credible confirmation or refutation of that one.
Absent something startling, i'd chalk off FBI 's miss to his probable smooth talking the agents
https://www.fbi.gov/news/news_blog/director-provides-update-on-orlando-shootings-investigation

Comey said the Bureau is reviewing those cases to see if anything was missed. “We’re also going to look hard at our own work to see whether there is something we should have done differently. So far, the honest answer is: I don’t think so. I don’t see anything in reviewing our own work that our agents should have done differently.”

 

[Evo]

Let's not make this a "guns" thread, please. Gun threads always spiral downhill and get locked. It's ok to discuss the killer's use of guns, but not about your right to own guns or the politics of guns. Thank you.

 

[HossamCFD]

An Imam is the officiating priest in a mosque.

Yes. That's what I said.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I don't know where it'll go.
Other sources claim radical islamic ties
http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/06/12/orlando-massacre-gunmans-radical-ties-isis-claims-shooter-their-own-was-follower-ex-conVoice of America says this:
http://www.voanews.com/content/orla...e-potential-radicalize-from-afar/3374341.html

I'm skeptical about the report from Fox News, since propagandists from within ISIS have been known to claim any attack committed by anyone even loosely associated with Islam as being one of their own to gain the type of publicity they crave, whether they actually committed it or not. Ditto for the Voice of America report.

According to the following article from the Guardian, CIA director John Brennan has stated that the agency has not been uncover any link between Omar Mateen and ISIS.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ooter-omar-mateen-isis-pulse-nightclub-attack

Of course, it's still early in the investigation and more information may come to light, but from all of the reports I've read thus far, the evidence thus far points more to a case of a homophobic attack from a deeply disturbed, self-hating individual (with no connection to any organization but acting entirely on his own) than an orchestrated attack directed by ISIS or similar jihadist group.

 

[jim hardy]

Of course, it's still early in the investigation and more information may come to light, but from all of the reports I've read thus far, the evidence thus far points more to a case of a homophobic attack from a deeply disturbed, self-hating individual (with no connection to any organization but acting entirely on his own) than an orchestrated attack directed by ISIS or similar jihadist group.

It's too early for me to have a strong opinion one way or the other.
FBI is certainly leaving their options open
From the fbi.gov link above
https://www.fbi.gov/news/news_blog/director-provides-update-on-orlando-shootings-investigation

“There are strong indications of radicalization by this killer and of potential inspiration by foreign terrorism organizations,” Comey said, adding that the FBI is the lead investigative agency on this case because it is a terrorism investigation.

So the two dot.gov agencies tell us he might have been radicalized by foreign terror organizations and he wasn't connected to them .
Fair enough.

So I'm not asserting anything more definite than " from information I've seen it could be either of above."

 

[mheslep]

... the evidence thus far points more to a case of a homophobic attack from a deeply disturbed, self-hating individual

Probably an apt description of executions of gays by ISIS in the Middle East.

(with no connection to any organization but acting entirely on his own) than an orchestrated attack directed by ISIS or similar jihadist group.

There is Mateen's sworn allegiance to ISIS, joining with the groups around the world giving allegiance to ISIS, in Eygpt, in Pakistan, and most recently including Boko Haram.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/10/egyptian-jihadists-pledge-allegiance-isis
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...group-swears-allegiance-to-Islamic-State.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/11/isis-affiliates-map_n_6849418.html

 

[StatGuy2000]

Probably an apt description of executions of gays by ISIS in the Middle East.There is Mateen's sworn allegiance to ISIS, joining with the groups around the world giving allegiance to ISIS, in Eygpt, in Pakistan, and most recently including Boko Haram.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/10/egyptian-jihadists-pledge-allegiance-isis
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...group-swears-allegiance-to-Islamic-State.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/11/isis-affiliates-map_n_6849418.html

mheslep, there are several points here worth pointing out.

1. First, I am well aware of executions of gays by ISIS in the Middle East. Gays are also executed/imprisoned/tortured in Saudi Arabia, who follow the very same Wahabi ideology that ISIS (and al-Qaeda) professes as well. And these are supposed to be allies to the US!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia

2. Second, I am well aware that fundamentalists/extremists within Islam that profess hatred against homosexuals, but the same is true of right-wing Christians and Orthodox Jews. In fact, the rhetoric used by ISIS on gays is almost exactly the same as the rhetoric used by Christian fundamentalists, particularly in the American South.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-mcswain/this-i-was-taught-to-beli_b_806380.html

So I can certainly conclude that Mateen's homophobia (possibly of the self-hating sort, given some of the reports I've read and posted where he might have been closeted himself) was influenced by Islam, but one can also make a strong claim that it was influenced by the broader culture within the United States, where hatred and intolerance is still widely expressed in many circles -- much less so than the recent past, but still common enough for him to be influenced by this.

3. Third, just because Mateen gave a statement swearing allegiance to ISIS doesn't necessarily mean that the attack was an attack orchestrated by ISIS. As of this moment, there are conflicting reports about whether Mateen had links to ISIS or not, as you can tell from my earlier posts and its reply after that. So one should not conclude anything beyond this.

4. Your posts about Egyptian and Pakistani jihadis are old news, and not relevant to the discussion at hand.

 

[mheslep]

1. First, I am well aware of executions of gays by ISIS in the Middle East. Gays are also executed/imprisoned/tortured in Saudi Arabia, who follow the very same Wahabi ideology that ISIS (and al-Qaeda) professes as well.

Yes, agreed.

2. Second, I am well aware that fundamentalists/extremists within Islam that profess hatred against homosexuals, but the same is true of right-wing Christians and Orthodox Jews. In fact, the rhetoric used by ISIS on gays is almost exactly the same as the rhetoric used by Christian fundamentalists, particularly in the American South...

And this comparison is absurd. After acknowledging actions of radical Islamists (cultists?) who commit wholesale murder of homosexuals , Christians, and Jews, the comparison to the beliefs of some right-wing Christians or Orthodox Jews is absurd. These latter groups teach that homosexuality is a sin, alongside, say, prostitution. They do not teach, allow, or wink at wholesale slaughter. Mateen was, of course, not taught by fundamentalist Christians or Orthodox Jews. And BTW, neither the word hatred nor any suggestion of violence is found in the HuffPo anecdote you linked. Moral equivalence fallacy, Chomsky version: Detroit made some dangerous cars, so the US is more or less in the same bag as the Nazis.

So I can certainly conclude that Mateen's homophobia (possibly of the self-hating sort, given some of the reports I've read and posted where he might have been closeted himself) was influenced by Islam, but one can also make a strong claim that it was influenced by the broader culture within the United States, where hatred and intolerance is still widely expressed in many circles

You're not alone that opinion. The NYT editorial board suggests Mateen was seduced to kill 50 people by Republicans via their opposition to gay marriage. Perhaps the NYT should have included Obama in the blame, not the progress, as he too opposed gay marriage in Mateen's formative years, especially given the best explanation for Obama's 2008 position is that he had something "to exploit" as the NYT says.

Yes, there are many kinds of circles of intolerance.

3. Third, just because Mateen gave a statement swearing allegiance to ISIS doesn't necessarily mean that the attack was an attack orchestrated by ISIS. As of this moment, there are conflicting reports about whether Mateen had links to ISIS or not, as you can tell from my earlier posts and its reply after that. So one should not conclude anything beyond this.

4. Your posts about Egyptian and Pakistani jihadis are old news, and not relevant to the discussion at hand.

Orchestration was not what you would have ruled out earlier; connection was the term you used: "with no connection to any organization..." and it is this claim with which I take issue. I also doubt Mateen was actually orchestrated by ISIS, that is, told one on one by some handler to go shoot up a bar. The point being that there is also little evidence that Boko Haram, the Egyptian and Pakistani jahadi groups are actually orchestrated by ISIS, but after their statements of fealty to same I don't see a route to saying there is "no connection" for those groups or Mateen. The connecting ideology driven by a group headquartered in Raqqa, and seen as strong by its followers, is the problem.

 

[russ_watters]

3. Third, just because Mateen gave a statement swearing allegiance to ISIS doesn't necessarily mean that the attack was an attack orchestrated by ISIS. As of this moment, there are conflicting reports about whether Mateen had links to ISIS or not, as you can tell from my earlier posts and its reply after that. So one should not conclude anything beyond this.

I think you are drawing too binary/exclusive of a distinction, where an attack is either directed by ISIS or is totally independent of but "inspired by ISIS" and therefore "no link" or "entirely on his own". In fact, "Inspired by ISIS" is exactly what ISIS is after in their global Jihad and what today separates them from and makes them a more serious threat than al Qaeda.

ISIS represents not a new threat, but the latest incarnation of the continuing threat of militant Islam. Whereas al Qaeda operates as a traditional terrorist network with cells reporting to an established hierarchy, ISIS is far more opaque and decentralized. ISIS is a network of influence; al Qaeda is a network of command.
[emphasis added]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/25/opinions/rogers-paris-attacks/

It is worth remembering that we've been at war with Islamic terrorism for some 40 years, and their tactics are evolving to keep the threat high.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I think you are drawing too binary/exclusive of a distinction, where an attack is either directed by ISIS or is totally independent of but "inspired by ISIS" and therefore "no link" or "entirely on his own". In fact, "Inspired by ISIS" is exactly what ISIS is after in their global Jihad and what today separates them from and makes them a more serious threat than al Qaeda.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/25/opinions/rogers-paris-attacks/

It is worth remembering that we've been at war with Islamic terrorism for some 40 years, and their tactics are evolving to keep the threat high.

I would respectfully disagree somewhat with some of your assertions above.

First of all, all jihadist groups operating throughout the world, including al-Qaeda and ISIS, have as their primary aim global holy war (i.e. jihad) against forces they identify as being the enemies of Islam -- whether that would be Western nations or Muslims who disagree with their particular version of their ideology (who in jihadist's eyes are equivalent to apostates and traitors to their faith).

Second, contrary to the CNN article, both al-Qaeda and ISIS (i.e. ISIL, Islamic State, Daesh -- all variant names for the same group, which, keep in mind, derives from and is an offshoot of al-Qaeda) are both networks of command and networks of influence. In actual fact, counterterrorism experts have pointed out that ISIS has a clear command structure, in the form of the "caliph", Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and has clear structures of a state (something which al-Qaeda does not have). In territory under their control, ISIS has issued traffic tickets, regulated the price of foodstuffs, etc. -- all mundane structures of governing. See the following link below.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/who-runs-the-islamic-state/

Third, there are various news sources where ISIS has both coordinated attacks and inspired individuals to carry out attacks, and there is a clear distinction made between these. See for example, the following New York Times article.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...t/map-isis-attacks-around-the-world.html?_r=0

"The Brussels explosions are the latest attacks to demonstrate a significant leap in the Islamic State’s ability to coordinate operations against the West. In October, the Islamic State downed a Russian passenger jet, killing all 224 people on board. Two weeks later, an assault across Paris killed more than 100 people.
The Islamic State has also inspired people to carry out attacks. In December, a woman in San Bernardino, Calif., posted her “bayat,” or oath of allegiance, to the Islamic State on a Facebook page moments before she and her husband opened fire in a conference room, killing 14 people.
The couple did not appear to have been directed by the Islamic State, but seemed to have been inspired by the group’s instructions for supporters to attack Western targets."

So yes, there are people who, for various reasons are inspired by ISIS to carry out attacks, but there are also clear cases where ISIS has orchestrated or directed attacks.

The question I would have is this -- if ISIS did not exist, would those who carried out attacks under its name found another source of "inspiration" to do what they do anyways? We may never know the answer to this; however, my suspicions are that if people are prepared psychologically to kill, then it would not take much for them to find inspiration in anything that justifies their state of mind (caveat -- I'm not a psychologist or psychiatrist, so my opinions are purely speculative).

 

[StatGuy2000]

Orchestration was not what you would have ruled out earlier; connection was the term you used: "with no connection to any organization..." and it is this claim with which I take issue. I also doubt Mateen was actually orchestrated by ISIS, that is, told one on one by some handler to go shoot up a bar. The point being that there is also little evidence that Boko Haram, the Egyptian and Pakistani jahadi groups are actually orchestrated by ISIS, but after their statements of fealty to same I don't see a route to saying there is "no connection" for those groups or Mateen. The connecting ideology driven by a group headquartered in Raqqa, and seen as strong by its followers, is the problem.

When I stated that Mateen had no connection to any organization, I meant exactly that -- there does not seem (at least at this stage of the investigation) that Mateen had any contact with ISIS members or in any way associated with those with suspicions to ISIS membership, quite apart from his final statement itself. That doesn't mean he may not have been radicalized -- just that this may be the case of a "lone-wolf" attack.

As far as Boko Haram and the Egyptian and Pakistani jihadi groups -- these are organized groups with an ideology founded on the extreme Wahabi version of Sunni Islam that al-Qaeda and ISIS operate under (in fact, prior to their statements of fealty to ISIS, they swore similar oaths to al-Qaeda, at least in the case of Boko Haram). So the most you can say is that these are similar jihadi groups who felt it convenient to align themselves to ISIS instead of al-Qaeda. Again, I don't see the relevance to the Orlando shooting.

 

[jim hardy]

The question I would have is this -- if ISIS did not exist, would those who carried out attacks under its name found another source of "inspiration" to do what they do anyways? We may never know the answer to this; however, my suspicions are that if people are prepared psychologically to kill, then it would not take much for them to find inspiration in anything that justifies their state of mind (caveat -- I'm not a psychologist or psychiatrist, so my opinions are purely speculative).

You'd like Eric Hoffer's "True Believer" which is a book about such fanatics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer
I agree with his premise typical fanatics are inadequate personality types, "losers" if you will, looking for a cause to join so they can achieve some sense of pride.from a local newspaper article about the mosque Mateen attendedhttp://www.tcpalm.com/news/special/...a8-76c7-49fc-e053-0100007f619d-383484061.html

EXTREMISTS

Orlando shooter Omar Mateen and Moner Mohammad Abu-Salha, believed to be the first American suicide bomber in Syria, were on the fringes of the Islamic Center community, according to Imam Syed Shafeeq Rahman and other mosque members.

Mateen's Afghani heritage and age — at 29 he was more than 10 years younger than the typical adults in attendance — may have contributed to his detachment, according to Ruiz.

"There's an absence in the community of older teens to people in their 40s. He was very unusual," Ruiz said about Mateen. "After Friday noon prayers, the older people stay and socialize. He did so very few times. Usually, as soon as prayer concluded, he got back in his car and went to work."

Abu-Salha kept an even lower profile; most of the congregation knew his family but probably not his name until 2014 when he carried out the alleged bombing in Syria, Ruiz said.

They went through the motions of prayer but didn't shed their inner rage.and achieve humility with inner peace , which i believe is what religious ritual is intended to do for us.

Too bad they didn't pick up John Birch Society literature instead of whatever they did read.
Those Bircher folks rant harmlessly about CFR and Trilateral Commission which are sometimes described as " drinking clubs for washed out diplomats". But it keeps the excitable ones out of mischief.

old jim

 

[Kevin McHugh]

It's a tragedy of immense proportion. But, guns are something we have the right to own. It's all in the sale of firearms and the background check. It MUST get tougher and much more thorough. I received my CCW permit over 2 yrs ago. I have not fired my weapon since. A person can own a gun and not kill other people with it.
He sent up warning flares and the FBI did a profile check into his activities. I still believe they sparsely investigated the magnitude of his banter. God Speed to those killed or injured.

Then I would suggest some trips to a firing range to familiarize yourself with your weapon.

 

[russ_watters]

First of all, all jihadist groups operating throughout the world, including al-Qaeda and ISIS, have as their primary aim global holy war (i.e. jihad) against forces they identify as being the enemies of Islam -- whether that would be Western nations or Muslims who disagree with their particular version of their ideology (who in jihadist's eyes are equivalent to apostates and traitors to their faith).

I'm aware. That's not what we are discussing. We are discussing how they wage that war.

Second, contrary to the CNN article, both al-Qaeda and ISIS (i.e. ISIL, Islamic State, Daesh -- all variant names for the same group, which, keep in mind, derives from and is an offshoot of al-Qaeda) are both networks of command and networks of influence. In actual fact, counterterrorism experts have pointed out that ISIS has a clear command structure...

I'm aware of that as well. But again, that isn't what we are discussing. We're discussing the ISIS context of the Orlando shooting: we're discussing how ISIS attacks *us*, not how they operate in the Middle East.

Third, there are various news sources where ISIS has both coordinated attacks and inspired individuals to carry out attacks, and there is a clear distinction made between these.

Agreed: it just isn't the distinction you were making and in my perception what some in the media/politics are trying to make. You said:

"no connection to any organization but acting entirely on his own"

The "connection" is that he was inspired by ISIS. And this matters for the reason I/the CNN article described and because of my perception of this:

The question I would have is this -- if ISIS did not exist, would those who carried out attacks under its name found another source of "inspiration" to do what they do anyways? We may never know the answer to this; however, my suspicions are that if people are prepared psychologically to kill, then it would not take much for them to find inspiration in anything that justifies their state of mind.

Right, that's where we differ. I think the "inspired by ISIS" campaign matters and is partly responsible for the significant increase in terrorist activity in the US in the past several years. There are identifiable eras in Islamic extremist terrorism in the US, as you can see in the timeline:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#Islamic_extremism

At one point from 1977 to 1993 we went 16 years between Islamic Extremist terrorist attacks in the US. Then al Qaeda happend. Now ISIS has taken over and is better at the "Inspired by" tactic than al Qaeda was.

My main point here is related to previous discussion that appears aimed to paint this as primarily an anti-LGBT hate crime and downplay the Islamic extremism aspect as just an excuse that the shooter chose arbitrarily. The reason it is a mistake IMO is because if we act based on that spin of the motive, the next time it happens we won't be able to stop it because we may be looking in the wrong place. If we pay better attention to that aspect, our odds of stopping the next attack improve. On the flip-side, some of the success we had over the past 10 years in stopping attacks was because al Qaeda attacks tended to more tightly coordinated and therefore left a larger trail to follow.

And backing-up:

...one can also make a strong claim that it was influenced by the broader culture within the United States, where hatred and intolerance is still widely expressed in many circles...

That is quite a provocative claim, so yes, I would like to see your strong substantiation of it. Specifically, what "circles" was he "influenced" by and how?

 

[StatGuy2000]

I'm aware of that as well. But again, that isn't what we are discussing. We're discussing the ISIS context of the Orlando shooting: we're discussing how ISIS attacks *us*, not how they operate in the Middle East.

What I'm skeptical of is the very claim of the ISIS context with respect to the Orlando shooting itself -- from everything I've read thus far, I see very few concrete evidence that Mateen can credibly be considered to be part of ISIS. Furthermore, there are reports which provide a credible alternative to the ISIS context -- that of a repressed, closet homosexual who acted out of self-hatred and internalized homophobia (there have been reports, with links I have already posted, that Mateen had frequented the Pulse club in Orlando for a very long time, and attempted to pick up men there, as well as had a gay dating app on his phone -- all actions which seem inconsistent with someone who is a member of ISIS but is consistent with someone who is a repressed gay man).

Hence my statement about the "no connection to any organization but acting entirely on his own". Hence my skepticism about the whole ISIS angle, in spite of Mateen's self-professed statement about ISIS.

My main point here is related to previous discussion that appears aimed to paint this as primarily an anti-LGBT hate crime and downplay the Islamic extremism aspect as just an excuse that the shooter chose arbitrarily. The reason it is a mistake IMO is because if we act based on that spin of the motive, the next time it happens we won't be able to stop it because we may be looking in the wrong place. If we pay better attention to that aspect, our odds of stopping the next attack improve. On the flip-side, some of the success we had over the past 10 years in stopping attacks was because al Qaeda attacks tended to more tightly coordinated and therefore left a larger trail to follow.

The problem with your above assertion is that the evidence thus far is pointing to an anti-LGBT hate crime rather than Islamic extremism (although the two can be confounded here). If we are to effectively prevent future mass shootings of any sort, then it is important that we understand the facts of the case and learn and apply the right lessons.

I don't dispute that ISIS is a threat, and jihadist propaganda is a serious concern. What I'm concerned with is that excessive focus on Islamic extremism will end up creating a climate of fear, where all Muslims end up being treated with suspicion. I already see evidence of this in popular discourse within the US, and I feel that this very fact is in fact counter-productive in trying to prevent future attacks.

That is quite a provocative claim, so yes, I would like to see your strong substantiation of it. Specifically, what "circles" was he "influenced" by and how?

First of all, from all the reports I've read thus far about this case, Mateen was brought up in a conservative Muslim home, where homosexuality was considered a sin. Furthermore, Mateen had grown up in St. Lucie County, Florida, and I have friends and family members in Florida who informed me that there is a sizeable evangelical Christian community there, and TV broadcasts from televangelists were not uncommon. And these Christian televangelists have often condemned homosexuals in much the same language that extremist Muslims have done so. Given this cultural milieu, is it not inconceivable that Mateen could have been influenced by these broader forces.

Combine that with earlier reports with links posted about his being (likely) a closeted homosexual, as well as reports about his serious mental health issues (I can post a link about this if you wish), and one can start to see a picture of someone who is deeply disturbed and a potential danger to others around him. Without any obvious link to radical Islam.

 

[russ_watters]

Statguy, if we can't take the self-professed ISIS inspired Islamic extremist terrorist at his word about his motivation during his dying act, then we are delving into inherrently unprovable conspiracy theory.

And again, I share mhslep's incredulity that you could suggest with a straight face that a self-identified Islamic terrorist was instead a closet Christian identifier! It's nonsensical.

But should I take your new words "not inconceivable" to be acknowledgment that "strong claim" was a bad claim and you are retracting it?

 

[StatGuy2000]

Statguy, if we can't take the self-professed ISIS inspired Islamic extremist terrorist at his word about his motivation during his dying act, then we are delving into inherrently unprovable conspiracy theory.

And again, I share mhslep's incredulity that you could suggest with a straight face that a self-identified Islamic terrorist was instead a closet Christian identifier! It's nonsensical.

But should I take your new words "not inconceivable" to be acknowledgment that "strong claim" was a bad claim and you are retracting it?

First of all, I think it would be unwise to take the words of someone at face value who (if the reports are accurate) have a history of mental illness or mental disturbances. Also, Mateen's self-professed membership to ISIS ideology is clearly contradicted by reports that he was seen in a gay nightclub, drinking and trying to pick up men! The fact that people can't see the contradiction is to me incredulous!

Second, you are twisting my words when you state that I somehow referred to Mateen as a "closet Christian identifier" -- I said absolutely no such thing! What I was trying to point out is that Mateen was born and raised in the US, and therefore a product of the culture of the US (more specifically, in Florida), and there are many elements within the US who spout intolerance and condemnation against the LGBT community. These aren't necessarily marginal voices either -- you have elected officials and prominent church leaders who are influential within many areas of the American community who denounce the LGBT community. That, combined with similar denunciations coming from both his father and other members of the Muslim community is bound to influence him, and his attitudes to his own homosexuality and to members of the LGBT in general, as well as influence his state of mind. To not take that into consideration is frankly foolish.

Finally, in what way is anything I write above a conspiracy theory? What conspiracy am I espousing? I have provided the reports and evidence as available and based my speculations on the available evidence at the time. I don't feel that I'm doing anything differently from what you are doing. In fact, if I dare say so myself, I find too many people leap to the conclusion that this horrific attack, this tragedy, must be the work of ISIS -- that this must be the work of a radical Islamist jihadi. The evidence at hand suggests that there is more to it than this, and I'm pointing this out.

[BTW, this is my last post in this thread, and I have no intention to respond any further. If anyone else wants to discuss this further, please send me a PM.]

 

[russ_watters]

[BTW, this is my last post in this thread, and I have no intention to respond any further. If anyone else wants to discuss this further, please send me a PM.]

I don't. And I was going to ask, as a moderator, that you reign-in your imagination here. Bowing-out is a good alternative.

 

[jim hardy]

EDIT
I see this may be moot now...
@russ_watters
feel free to erase this post , i defer to your judgement.

The problem with your above assertion is that the evidence thus far is pointing to an anti-LGBT hate crime rather than Islamic extremism

First of all, from all the reports I've read thus far about this case, Mateen was brought up in a conservative Muslim home, where homosexuality was considered a sin. Furthermore, Mateen had grown up in St. Lucie County, Florida, and I have friends and family members in Florida who informed me that there is a sizeable evangelical Christian community there, and TV broadcasts from televangelists were not uncommon. And these Christian televangelists have often condemned homosexuals in much the same language that extremist Muslims have done so. Given this cultural milieu, is it not inconceivable that Mateen could have been influenced by these broader forces.

Sounds might flimsy to me !
Evidence thus far ?
Is there any record of his spouting LGBT hare speech ?
If it walks like a duck and publicly proclaims itself a duck, it is likely a duck.
But yes it might be something else imitating a duck.

As i said earlier i'll wait for more facts to come out.

I share mhslep's incredulity that you could suggest with a straight face that a self-identified Islamic terrorist was instead a closet Christian identifier! It's nonsensical.

me too.
Counter this assertion:
Islam is harder on homosexuals than is Christianity.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/06/17/omar-mateen-gay-religion-orlando-column/85927492/

The Muslim world is not exactly known for its embrace of sexuality of any kind. There are 10 countries where homosexuality is still punishable by death. Mateen’s parents came to the U.S. from Afghanistan, which is on that list despite 15 years of U.S. nation-building.

Islamic law advocates that gays be killed. It is important to recognize that this view is not exclusive to ISIL, al-Qaeda, or other terrorist groups. It is part of sharia law, which draws on Islam's primary texts. In one narration, referring to same-sex intercourse, the prophet Mohammed said, “Wherever you find those committing http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/abudawud/038-sat.php, kill the one doing it and the one to whom it is done."

Identifying Mateen’s religion and cultural background as contributing factors to his actions offends some and might be interpreted as bigoted, even racist. After all, most Muslims are good people and ignore passages in the Quran advocating violence. Most choose to live and to let live. But this does not change the fact that violence against gays is blatantly sanctioned by Islamic scripture and advocated by some of the most respected scholars of the faith.

"Death is the sentence. There’s nothing to be embarrassed about this. Death is the sentence," British-born Farrokh Sekaleshfar, a medical doctor and recognized Shiite scholar who visited an Orlando area mosque in March, said in 2013. Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, one of Sunni Islam’s most influential sharia jurists, has opined that “while such punishments may seem cruel, they have been suggested to maintain the purity of the Islamic society and to keep it clean of perverted elements."

Not all muslims profess that, though...

see this from the imam of his mosque, Imam Syed Shafeeq Rahman :
http://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/news/orlando-shooting-at-fort-pierce-islamic-center-mat/nrfPK/

Rahman said that a basic tenet of Islam is that all creatures are the family of Allah. He didn’t answer directly whether he felt homosexuality was a sin, but said that in cases where people live outside the principles his faith prescibes, Islam - like Christianity and Judaism - calls on believers to pray for others.

“There is nothing outside the door that says you can’t come in and worship God and be here and pray if you are gay,” he said.

 

[russ_watters]

Moving forward, what can the FBI, specifically, do to help prevent this sort of attack in the future? Here's a CNN article about 3 recent homegrown radical Islamic terrorist attacks where the perpetrators were on the FBI radar prior to the attack (includes the Orlando attack):
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/17/opinions/fumbling-bureau-of-investigation-bergen/

In a notable fourth, last years' San Bernardino attack, the terrorists were not on the FBI's radar but did abandon plans for a previous attack after several of their associates were arrested (later convicted) for an unrelated plot: http://www.latimes.com/local/califo...-shooting-terror-investigation-htmlstory.html

Some thoughts:
1. Active law enforcement interest deters/disrupts plots, even if it doesn't result in arrests. Vigilance.
2. The FBI must do a better job of reading signs. The Ft. Hood shooting was a particularly egregious failure, but in terms of the Orlando shooting, a budding terrorist who shows up on the FBI radar twice before later committing an act of terrorism is a dropped ball.
3. Guns: when someone who has been investigated as a potential terrorist buys an assault rifle, that fact should be flagged for and be of great interest to the FBI.
4. Criticism aside, the FBI's position is difficult because they are charged in this case not just with prosecuting crimes but with preventing them. That's difficult when a person is innocent until proven guilty and can only be charged with crimes actually committed. In other words, in order to get a budding terrorist out of circulation they have to be caught in the act of planning or committing the act. That's really tough to do.

 

[jim hardy]

That's difficult when a person is innocent until proven guilty and can only be charged with crimes actually committed. In other words, in order to get a budding terrorist out of circulation they have to be caught in the act of planning or committing the act. That's really tough to do.

Instead of being used for anti-Trump propaganda, this story should have been used to thank the muslim man who called FBI on Mateen.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Donald-accuses-Muslims-hiding-something.html

Friend and mentor of Orlando shooter hits out at Trump saying he DID report Omar Mateen to the FBI - after The Donald accuses all Muslims of 'hiding something'

Mohammed Malik attended the same mosque as shooter Omar Mateen
He said Mateen never said anything extreme until summer of 2014
Malik had already given information to the FBI about a suicide bomber who had attended their mosque before going to kill himself in Syria
When Mateen showed sympathy to hate preachers, Malik called the FBI
But the FBI closed the file on Mateen saying he was not suspicious
...
He added: 'Agents asked me if there were any other local kids who might resort to violence in the name of Islam. No names sprang to mind.'

However, after that conversation, Malik spoke with members of the congregation included Mateen - who admitted to watching the same hate preacher that Abu-Salha was inspired by, Anwar al-Awlaki.

When Malik asked Mateen what he thought of the cleric, Mateen allegedly said, 'they are powerful'.

Alarmed, Malik got back in touch with the FBI.

'After speaking with Omar, I contacted the FBI again to let them know that Omar had been watching Awlaki’s tapes.
...
He added: 'My last conversation with Omar was by phone in mid-May. He called me while he was at the beach with his son to tell me about a vacation he’d taken with his father to Orlando the previous weekend. He’d been impressed by the local mosque.'

Which local Orlando mosque ? I didnt know there were so many.

Mormons gave up polygamy.
Protestants gave up drowning witches.
Islam must do something about this preaching of jihad.

 

[mheslep]

...
2. The FBI must do a better job of reading signs. The Ft. Hood shooting was a particularly egregious failure, but in terms of the Orlando shooting, a budding terrorist who shows up on the FBI radar twice before later committing an act of terrorism is a dropped ball.

Good points with one note, Ft Hood was an egregious failure by the Defense Dept, not the FBI.

 

[Astronuc]

Son Collapses in Tears at Funeral of Mother Who Protected Him From Bullets in Orlando
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/son-collapses-tears-funeral-mother-protected-him-bullets-063400082--abc-news-topstories.html

Brenda Lee Marquez-McCool was dancing with her son Isaiah Henderson at Pulse nightclub when shots rang out over the blaring music. Instead of running away, she threw herself on her son, shielding him from shooter Omar Mateen. She saved her son's life but lost her own.

Peace be upon her and her family and friends.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I had originally stated that I had no further intentions of posting on this thread, but with the following latest news development, I felt I had to respond here.

See the following video on The Young Turks (an online news program), where the gay lover of Orlando shooter Omar Mateen comes forward.



Here is the original news report with the interview with the lover, on the Univision website:

http://www.univision.com/univision-...rism-says-man-who-claims-he-was-gunmans-lover

The above links indicate that Mateen did have gay tendencies, and the shooting may have been inspired by internalized homophobia and self-loathing (rather than some commitment to radical Islam or ISIS).

 

[mheslep]

...(rather than some commitment to radical Islam or ISIS).

The evidence, if anything, indicates motives *in addition to*, not "rather than".

Mateen's (repeated) statement does not go away:
"I pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr al Baghdadi may God protect him [Arabic], on behalf of the Islamic State,”

Maybe Mateen was bullied in school, or maybe his father was detached. I don't know. None of it makes the obvious disappear. For all I know half the ISIS fighters in Syria are secretly gay, in which case, so what with respect to what should be done about US security? It's the spread of the ideology of radical Islam that is the problem, that should be dealt with.

 

[russ_watters]

The evidence, if anything, indicates motives *in addition to*, not "rather than".

Mateen's (repeated) statement does not go away:
"I pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr al Baghdadi may God protect him [Arabic], on behalf of the Islamic State,”

Maybe Mateen was bullied in school, or maybe his father was detached. I don't know. None of it makes the obvious disappear. For all I know half the ISIS fighters in Syria are secretly gay, in which case, so what with respect to what should be done about US security? It's the spread of the ideology of radical Islam that is the problem, that should be dealt with.

Right. So again, where the rubber meets the road is that the FBI's opportunities to stop him happened because of his professed Islamic terrorist beliefs.

That he ALSO may have been a closet homosexual may have contributed to his target choice (Pulse vs Disney) but doesn't provide any help in improving the FBI's chances of stopping the next Islamic terrorist attack. It also doesn't make another anti-gay attack more likely than another anti-america attack. In effect, the sub-target is the arbitrary component and focus needs to remain on the primary motive/target to have a chance to stop the next one.

 

[jim hardy]

As long as you're idly speculating, chew on this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...do-shooting-faces-Australian-visa-review.html
Islamic preacher who called for gays to be 'executed' and lectured in Orlando weeks before nightclub massacre flees Australia after Malcolm Turnbull announced an 'urgent' review of his visa

...
It is not clear whether Port St Lucie-based Omar Mateen attended Shia preacher Sekaleshfar's event in Orlando earlier this year. Sekaleshfar has not been linked to the Pulse nightclub massacre.
Previous versions of Sekaleshfar's speech have been posted online, showing him say that gay people should die.

'Death is the sentence. There's nothing to be embarrassed about this. Death is the sentence,' Sekaleshfar says in one sermon, dated in 2013.

'We have to have that compassion for people. With homosexuals, it's the same. Out of compassion, let's get rid of them now.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Donald-accuses-Muslims-hiding-something.html

However, after that conversation, Malik spoke with members of the congregation included Mateen - who admitted to watching the same hate preacher that Abu-Salha was inspired by, Anwar al-Awlaki.

When Malik asked Mateen what he thought of the cleric, Mateen allegedly said, 'they are powerful'.

Alarmed, Malik got back in touch with the FBI.

'After speaking with Omar, I contacted the FBI again to let them know that Omar had been watching Awlaki’s tapes.

...
He added: 'My last conversation with Omar was by phone in mid-May[of tbis year-jh]. He called me while he was at the beach with his son to tell me about a vacation he’d taken with his father to Orlando the previous weekend. He’d been impressed by the local mosque.'

if you're going to throw up circumstantial speculations at least be "fair and balanced" . .

 

[StatGuy2000]

The evidence, if anything, indicates motives *in addition to*, not "rather than".

Mateen's (repeated) statement does not go away:
"I pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr al Baghdadi may God protect him [Arabic], on behalf of the Islamic State,”

Maybe Mateen was bullied in school, or maybe his father was detached. I don't know. None of it makes the obvious disappear. For all I know half the ISIS fighters in Syria are secretly gay, in which case, so what with respect to what should be done about US security? It's the spread of the ideology of radical Islam that is the problem, that should be dealt with.

I find it rather curious to me that we automatically take the statement of Mateen alone pledging his allegiance to ISIS at face value. As if he has to be honest when he makes this statement. Again, we may never know his true motivations when he chose to carry out his attack on the Pulse nightclub, but I find it so puzzling why the fact that this was an anti-gay attack so resisted in this thread (at least by you & russ_watters)? Especially when the evidence at hand points in that direction?

 

[StatGuy2000]

Right. So again, where the rubber meets the road is that the FBI's opportunities to stop him happened because of his professed Islamic terrorist beliefs.

That he ALSO may have been a closet homosexual may have contributed to his target choice (Pulse vs Disney) but doesn't provide any help in improving the FBI's chances of stopping the next Islamic terrorist attack. It also doesn't make another anti-gay attack more likely than another anti-america attack. In effect, the sub-target is the arbitrary component and focus needs to remain on the primary motive/target to have a chance to stop the next one.

If your concern is the FBI's chances of stopping the next Islamic terrorist attack, then focusing the discussion on the Orlando shooting may be more counter-productive.

I also would like to point to the following article in Reason magazine about the actual vs perceived risks of a terrorist attack in the US.

http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/06/how-scared-of-terrorism-should

The article above was published in 2011, but I do not feel that the true risks have shifted all that much since that time.

 

[russ_watters]

If your concern is the FBI's chances of stopping the next Islamic terrorist attack, then focusing the discussion on the Orlando shooting may be more counter-productive.

We're discussing the Orlando attack because it just happened. But clearly I'm not overly focused on it, since I just posted a review of how it compares to other attacks and fits into the big picture. There are lessons to learn from it. My concern is that politics is driving people (not just you: this is a common complaint we Republicans have against the Obama administration) to take their eye off the ball. Improperly shifting focus causes people to miss things.

I also would like to point to the following article in Reason magazine about the actual vs perceived risks of a terrorist attack in the US.

http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/06/how-scared-of-terrorism-should

The article above was published in 2011, but I do not feel that the true risks have shifted all that much since that time.

That is off topic, but yes I'm aware that the overall risk is low and yes your perception that the risk hasn't changed much since 2011 is wrong.

The frequency of successful attacks has roughly doubled in the past 5 years vs the previous 5 years and the severity has increased even more. List:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States

If we assume that 9/11 was a 1-off, the risk today is at least the highest since the plane hijacking days of the '70s and '80s and is likely still increasing. Specifically, it appears to me that mass shootings are becoming a tactic of choice for terrorists and it is a significant risk because we are not well equipped to deal with it.

 

[StatGuy2000]

We're discussing the Orlando attack because it just happened. But clearly I'm not overly focused on it, since I just posted a review of how it compares to other attacks and fits into the big picture. There are lessons to learn from it. My concern is that politics is driving people (not just you: this is a common complaint we Republicans have against the Obama administration) to take their eye off the ball. Improperly shifting focus causes people to miss things.

Law enforcement can always glean lessons from any act of crime that occurs -- the question is what those lessons are, and how easily can whatever lessons can be gleaned be applied to prevent a future attack.

You state that your concern is that politics is driving people to take their "eye off the ball". My concerns are different. Much of the mainstream news media, and discussions on many forums, is how this is another example of "Islamic terrorism", an act of "radical Islam", how violent Muslims are, etc, etc, etc. My concern is that all this chatter is creating a further climate of fear, which spawns a climate of intolerance and scapegoating of an entire group of people, from a presidential candidate (Trump) calling on banning all Muslims from entering the US, to Muslim Americans reporting how they are being treated with suspicion by their neighbours.

If you think this is idle speculation, keep in mind that I'm a Japanese-Canadian/American. In case you're not aware of this, both the Japanese American and Japanese Canadian communities were treated with hostility and suspicion due to what happened to Pearl Harbor on the lead-up to World War II. The entire Japanese American and Canadian communities were forced from their homes & businesses and sent into internment camps, due to fears that somehow these people represented a "threat" to the US or Canada, that somehow these people cannot be trusted to be loyal to the US or Canada.

Given that past history, our society should be wary and cautious about where such discussions can take us.

That is off topic, but yes I'm aware that the overall risk is low and yes your perception that the risk hasn't changed much since 2011 is wrong.

The frequency of successful attacks has roughly doubled in the past 5 years vs the previous 5 years and the severity has increased even more. List:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States

If we assume that 9/11 was a 1-off, the risk today is at least the highest since the plane hijacking days of the '70s and '80s and is likely still increasing.

What you list in the Wikipedia article are specific incidents of terrorist attacks in the US (whether successful or not). But we need to look at this in a broader perspective of risks we face.

I point you to the following blog by an academic librarian from Princeton:

https://blogs.princeton.edu/librarian/2015/12/calculating-my-odds/

I won't go into details of the specific calculations (the blog outlines it well), but the blogger quotes the following:

"...That’s a large percentage, but of a tiny number of events, and by these standards my odds increase significantly and I have a 0.00000013% chance of being killed in a mass shooting, and a 5.89389322e-8% chance of being killed by a Muslim terrorist. So despite all the fearmongering, there have been 2 Islamist terrorism incidents in the U.S. this year, giving us individually an insignificant chance of having been killed in one."

So my point is that the risks that you or I will be a victim of a terrorist attack is extremely, extremely low. So low that the fearmongering that we hear is unwarranted.

 

[russ_watters]

My concerns are different. Much of the mainstream news media, and discussions on many forums, is how this is another example of "Islamic terrorism", an act of "radical islam"...

Which by all reasonable accounts, it was, so that is the on-point topic of discussion.

Yes, in my opinion the discussion has been better focused than in previous attacks. The suspicious side of me says that this is because the media and FBI immediatly jumped on the "terrorism" aspect before Obama had a chance to put his spin on it, but either way I definitely don't have any complaint with how they've portrayed/handled it. That is in stark contrast to previous attackes; in particular the Ft. Hood Shooting. In this case, most of the focus shifting has come from elsewhere (caveat being the not necessarily well focused gun control aspect). I've seen some of the usual next-week follow-ups arguing grammar (what does "Islamic extremism" imply?) instead of talking about the issue, for example.

...how violent Muslims are...My concern is that all this chatter is creating a further climate of fear...

Sure, I get that that's a real concern. But it shouldn't be all or nothing and we shouldn't let it handcuff useful discussion. It is wrong to say "all Muslims are violent" but it is also wrong to ignore the Islamic extremist component of this attack. Reasonable people should be able to discuss the issue without succombing to either bias/fear and as you've probably noticed, here at PF we are pretty intolerant of the "all Muslims are violent" argument. So it isn't something that should be of much concern in this discussion.

What you list in the Wikipedia article are specific incidents of terrorist attacks in the US (whether successful or not).

Sorry, I'm not sure if I could have linked to the specific section, but I did specifically state I was referring to successful attacks. It has its own list.

But we need to look at this in a broader perspective of risks we face...
So my point is that the risks that you or I will be a victim of a terrorist attack is extremely low. So low that the fearmongering that we hear is unwarranted.

If you hear unwarranted fearmongering in this thread, by all means point it out. All my shift of focus in #121 did was to look at how this incident fits in with other similar attacks and how we can prevent future ones. You aren't suggesting that since the risk is low we should not be attempting to prevent future attacks, are you? Two wrongs do not make a right.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I find it rather curious to me that we automatically take the statement of Mateen alone pledging his allegiance to ISIS at face value.

For those of you who have seen Back To School, "Whoever did write this doesn't know the first thing about Kurt Vonnegut!"

 

[johnnyrev]

I want to make it clear from the outset that I am not trying to proselytize, convince, convert, persuade, or otherwise in any way. But please read to the end, or at least scroll down to the end.

I would disagree with that, especially among the most politically vocal Christian populations; evangelicals and born again Christians.

This is a tough one for me as a former Baptist pastor and seminarian. I can't see anywhere after extensive Bible study where homosexuality is supported in their first century historical context. However, I believe most of the violent passages are written from a nationalist perspective and only certain passages are used to support Christology in the New Testament, and I see the apostles moderate their views over the courses of their lives. You can see the church do the same over history, except in Evangelical America.

I do understand this, but the way I see it, religion can be used so peacefully. Religion can be used to justify giving to the poor and loving everyone. In my eyes, when you take something that can be used to justify peace and love and use it to justify violence and hate, it is wrong. Yes, I am the first to admit that the bible, torah and quran are violent, but if you look at other parts, they can be quite nice... However, when you choose to read the hate parts instead of the love parts you are using the concept of religion incorrectly, and vice versa. IMO, religion is about peace, and the people who do these kinds of thing are using religion incorrectly and in a sick way.

Jesus demonstrated this goodness and love as much as he preached an apocalyptic message, but I have studied comparative religions and sects and cults derived from the same, and all have been used to justify anything you can think of, including violence.

[

Do Christians apologize every time someone from the Westboro Baptist church does something appalling? Or when 'christians' have killed doctors that perform abortions and have bombed clinics?

No, they blame them alone for their evil. Let me say, I am sorry that the church in America has let such people develop into such madness on our watch.

You bet Christians shun Westboro and renounce the abortion clinic violence, have you ever heard a sermon suggest otherwise ?

I have never heard such a sermon. I have left churches and even the pastorate where fellow churches were preaching politics more about rooting out their "undesirables" than what I believed the message of Jesus was.

With few exceptions, modern even fundamentalist Christians leave the wrath to God. What separates Islamic fundamentalism is they presume to do the wrath on God's behalf.

Most Evangelicals and the Religious Right in America attempt to work out the "wrath of God" through politics. It has backfired on them numerous times: the recent SCOTUS decision on gay marriage is a prime example.

There was one last year - first since the '90s I think. That is indeed the most prominent example of Christian perpetrated terrorism I can think of. Even setting aside that it's support base is much narrower, it is by its nature more focused and limited.

Many militias and the white supremacists are formed around a warped grasp of Christianity. The KKK may be unknowingly based upon "Anglo-Israelitism," or the belief that Whites are the "lost tribe of Israel," which isn't lost but was just formed by two tribes merging, if they actually read the Bibles they hold so high above their heads.

Just as this was a mass murder by an attacker of islamic creed, it was an attack targeting the LGBT community.

As I said earlier, I can't find support for homosexuality in the Bible in its historical context. I spent years thinking it was wrong, but never was violent toward gays.

However, just before the incident in Orlando, my dear daughter came out to me as bi.

How could I stop loving her? How was this going to affect my core beliefs? No way could I abandon her, throw her out of my life. She is my youngest, my baby girl, first in her senior class, headed for valedictorian, gifted in science and mathematics.

Then Orlando happened. I could see her in the face of that girl who went to Pulse with her two friends, but came out alone.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Sure, I get that that's a real concern. But it shouldn't be all or nothing and we shouldn't let it handcuff useful discussion. It is wrong to say "all Muslims are violent" but it is also wrong to ignore the Islamic extremist component of this attack. Reasonable people should be able to discuss the issue without succombing to either bias/fear and as you've probably noticed, here at PF we are pretty intolerant of the "all Muslims are violent" argument. So it isn't something that should be of much concern in this discussion.

In general, I agree with you that we should not succumb to either bias/fear, nor should we ignore the very real threats that exist of violent, socio-political and religious extremism in general, and Islamic extremism in particular. And I do recognize that here at PF the discussion has been generally quite good, although every once in a while (not from you, btw) I do get hints of what I (perhaps mistakenly?) perceive as intolerance.

Sorry, I'm not sure if I could have linked to the specific section, but I did specifically state I was referring to successful attacks. It has its own list.

I did see that list, although in terms of risk, I don't really make that much of a distinction, since the only difference between a successful and an unsuccessful attack is the end result.

If you hear unwarranted fearmongering in this thread, by all means point it out. All my shift of focus in #121 did was to look at how this incident fits in with other similar attacks and how we can prevent future ones. You aren't suggesting that since the risk is low we should not be attempting to prevent future attacks, are you? Two wrongs do not make a right.

Absolutely not -- we should of course be doing all that we can on numerous fronts to prevent future attacks (with the caveat that we should be smart about how to do so, and not resort to actions that infringe on civil liberties). You have no arguments from me on this.

What I am stating is that we should not overstate the risk of attacks, which is the danger that well-meaning people could find themselves in, especially after a tragic event like what has occurred in Orlando. And that when discussing and assessing the risks of terrorism, that we should apply the principles of rationality and reason whenever possible. It is something I aspire to when discussing difficult topics such as this, although I admit that I have on occasion have failed at this -- can I say here that I'm only human?

BTW, I should note that PF for the most part does a pretty job of keeping the discussion to a rational level, and I am heartened that the discussion here has been quite civilized (in stark contrast to other forums I've participated in, where the discussion quickly degenerated to the online equivalent of shouting matches).

 

[mheslep]

I find it rather curious to me that we automatically take the statement of Mateen alone pledging his allegiance to ISIS at face value. As if he has to be honest when he makes this statement. Again, we may never know his true motivations when he chose to carry out his attack on the Pulse nightclub, but I find it so puzzling why the fact that this was an anti-gay attack so resisted in this thread (at least by you & russ_watters)?

No, I don't take Mateen's statement as proof, but it is evidence which can not be dismissed, as is rest of his background. No, I'm not resistant at all to the notion that Mateen also had anti-gay motivations, as I said above. Why you and others insist on dismissing his 911 statements, insist that his motivation was only anti-gay is the puzzle.

 

[mheslep]

but either way I definitely don't have any complaint with how they've portrayed/handled it.

The attempt by the AG to redact out references to ISIS in Mateen's call (later reversed) irritated me.

 

[mheslep]

..So my point is that the risks that you or I will be a victim of a terrorist attack is extremely, extremely low. So low that the fearmongering that we hear is unwarranted.

The odds that one might be a victim of terrorist attack in the US seems to me wildly off point. Since 9/11, the routine of life when it comes in contact with the US security apparatus has changed dramatically. See the invasive and delay causing security checks by the TSA at the airport. Security regulation and cost escalation has occurred on all kinds of other infrastructure, power plants, dams, rail roads, large buildings. Viewing the 4th of July fireworks celebration in DC from the Mall was once as simple as blanket and a patch of grass, now is more like screening at the airport. Many large metropolitan police departments now have terror squads. DHS, an entirely new department of the federal government was created and more money spent. The NSA was inspired to collect the from-to information on all telephone calls and emails in the US. The FBI has investigations on ISIS suspects in all 50 states, when IMO it should be chasing the like of bank robbers.

Now, I dislike all of this security and ideally would like all of the new apparatus to be buried in a deep hole. But the situation is not ideal, the need for all of this intrusion is not simple fear mongering.

 

[jim hardy]

fact that this was an anti-gay attack so resisted in this thread (at least by you & russ_watters)? Especially when the evidence at hand points in that direction?

this is getting tiresome

It is far from an established fact
and evidence at hand does not point that direction only the yammering of propaganda mongers points that way

But IF its motivation was anti-homosexual the evidence suggests it was rooted in islamic sharia law which states that public displays of homosexuality should be punished by death,
see Farrokh Sekaleshfar's eloquent citations of same at youtube,

and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...do-shooting-faces-Australian-visa-review.html

The father of the Pulse nightclub shooter, Seddique Mateen, has said his son was enraged after seeing two men kissing in front of his wife and son during a visit to Miami a couple of months ago.

Speaking to NBC, Mr Mateen condemned his son's shooting - but shocked many as he said: 'God himself will punish those involved in homosexuality. This [killing] is not for the servants.'

It is not clear whether Port St Lucie-based Omar Mateen attended Shia preacher Sekaleshfar's event in Orlando earlier this year. Sekaleshfar has not been linked to the Pulse nightclub massacre.

Previous versions of Sekaleshfar's speech have been posted online, showing him say that gay people should die.

'Death is the sentence. There's nothing to be embarrassed about this. Death is the sentence,' Sekaleshfar says in one sermon, dated in 2013.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...do-shooting-faces-Australian-visa-review.htmlNow let's think about that father for a minute
he runs a tv show that broadcasts political stuff to Afghanistan
maybe somebody who speaks Afghan can say whether he appears quite 'hinged'
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5MBQ9UhS01swTh860m_tvQ

and he is the self-appointed president of "Provisional government of Afghanistan"

He is reported a devout muslim

and something of an activist

my guess would be he was a holy terror to live with
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-omar-mateen-family-details-20160619-story.html

From a distance the family of Orlando mass murderer Omar Mateen might appear little different from millions of others in the mosaic of multicultural America.

Fleeing turmoil in their native Afghanistan after the Russian invasion in 1979, Seddique and Shahla Mateen first settled in New York, where their four children were born, before moving to Florida's Treasure Coast to find work, raise their kids and build community.

But behind the walls of the homes in Martin and St. Lucie counties in which the Mateens lived was a complex family dynamic that included domestic violence, years of adolescent misbehavior and eccentric cultural role playing that could provide insight into what led Mateen to commit the single deadliest shooting in U.S. history.

"Kids learn a lot from modeling," said Caryn Watsky, a counseling psychologist at Florida International University in Miami. "So if there was a history of domestic violence, for example, and that becomes a model for a way to solve problems, that can become a part of the family culture."...
...Omar Mateen was also exposed to violence at home. In 2002, when he was 16, his mother, who listed her occupation as teacher, was charged with domestic battery after she pinched and pulled the hair of her husband when Seddique Mateen threatened to kill her, records show. Those charges were later dropped.
<<<<Omar learned to beat wives somewhere now, didn't he ? jh>>>>
After the terror attacks of Sept 11, 2001, Omar Mateen, then 14 and attending an alternative school for students with behavioral problems, claimed that Osama bin Laden was his uncle, an acquaintance recalled.

The school called Mateen's father, and the last thing the classmate remembers is looking out the classroom door and seeing Mateen's father slap his son in the face.

Yet, as the FBI looked into Omar Mateen's various Facebook accounts and reports that he may have frequented the gay nightspot where he opened fire, public records and his father's apparent appetite for attention may also provide insight into how a young man with a history of failure in school, marriage and the workplace turned into a killer.

Omar learned at home to beat wives . He was apparently not spared the rod himself.

Abusive or absent fathers really hurt their kids, search on "Father Hunger"
the worst abuse is mental, shaming , withholding approval, belittlement
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...5/father-absence-father-deficit-father-hunger

mental health disorders (father absent children are consistently overrepresented on a wide range of mental health problems, particularly anxiety, depression and suicide)

-life chances (as adults, fatherless children are more likely to experience unemployment, have low incomes, remain on social assistance, and experience homelessness)

-future relationships (father absent children tend to enter partnerships earlier, are more likely to divorce or dissolve their cohabiting unions, and are more likely to have children outside marriage or outside any partnership)

How healthy was Omar's relationship with Seddique?

http://www.salon.com/2016/06/16/com...l_of_internalized_homophobia_is_all_too_real/

Patrons remember him not as violent but kind of pathetic, a gloomy character prone to long rants about his father—that is, when he wasn’t offering to buy other men drinks.
...

Seddique Mateen, the shooter’s father, denies that his son’s sexuality had anything to do with the crime, nor does he believe that his son had homosexual leanings. “He wasn’t gay,” he told the Advocate. “I know 90 percent, 95 percent.” Mateen’s ex-wife, Sitora Yusufiy, disputes that claim, stating that his father not only suspected that his son was gay but routinely berated him for it, yelling at Omar repeatedly in front of Dias. Seddique, though, looks at the bloodshed as the ultimate proof of his son’s heterosexuality. “If he was gay, why would he do something like this?” Mateen asked an interview with http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/orlando-shooter-omar-mateen-was-gay-former-classma/nrfwW/.

So Mr Statguy

we've got a kid from a violent muslim household with an eccentric tyrant father

who regularly prayed at the mosque

who doubtless suffering feelings of low worth from his life failures and his father's repeated vehement disapproval in front of family

who likely (though unproven as yet) accompanied his dad to Orlando to hear that Sekalashar speak about "death to those who make public display of homosexuality "
and who shortly thereafter shoots up a gay bar where public display of homosexuality was the coin of the realm...

Statistics says to me it's more likely he thought the act would redeem him in the eyes of both his dad and allah than the eyes of of Southern Baptists..

To lay this at the feet of Baptists and Republicans is lunacy. Or disingenuousness .

So i posit, with far more basis than your hypothesis

His Father's Islamic Homophobia killed those people, not the National Rifle Association.

 

[mheslep]

Its worth asking the question, why was the want to be President of Afghanistan let into the country in the 70s? Would the same action be taken today? The US issues some 10 million visas per year, can the delusional be asked to step out of line?

 

[Evo]

I think until more information comes out, we are at a standstill and the thread is now going in circles. The thread will be closed until new information comes out to avoid devolving into a shouting match. I want to thank everyone for maintaining a decent and enlightening thread.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Sia just came out with a tribute song to the shooting and it's pretty fantastic