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

[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