Radical Islamic terrorism finds its way to an Orlando nightclub

The nightclub happened to be an LGBT club. The terrorist was a homophobe. But he was primarily an Islamic terrorist.

His particular "choice" of venue to commit his heinous, barbarous acts was a gay club because he had a hatred for homosexuals. But this just changed the flavour of his act - the basis of it was Islamic extremism, coupled with an obviously precarious psychopathological state. His ex-wife has referred to him as bi-polar.

Several muslims have united in solidarity with the victims, and this in itself is a positive thing which shows there is still hope for this world. The majority of muslims in the US probably do not hate gays, and they certainly are not violent terrorists.

But a spade should be called a spade. This was an act of terrorism committed by an Islamic radicalist who had links to other radicalists, and who was previously investigated by the FBI. And yes, there is a problem of radical Islamist terrorism in America and Europe. Not calling it what it is will not solve the problem. It was not fundamentally a hate crime (although it does have aspects of one), and it is not at its core a gun-control problem (although this too does have a bearing on the problem in the US).

The deadliest shooting in US history was committed by a homegrown Islamic radical, born in the US to Afghan parents. Fact. Had made it a point before committing the act to let the police know of his allegiance to IS. Whatever "allegiance" means is immaterial. He himself chose to make this an Islamic terrorist act.

Gun control, education and less privileges for ALL religions are the best ways to prevent these tragedies.

This is the exact combination of poisons that gun-control lobbyists have been warning us about. A person with a mental illness focuses on a particular group s/he can righteously hate, and then finds another group that helps to justify and feed that hate. THEN, that person, with every legal right to do so, buys a military-style weapon and snuffs out as many innocent lives as possible.

This isn't about "radical islam". This is about incompetent, easily-bought politicians who are more concerned about appeasing the vocal minority and getting re-elected - and thus lining their pockets yet again - by voting down logical gun laws such as banning assault weapons and not allowing certain suspects or criminals to legally gain access to guns of any kind, let alone "AK15-style" weapons.

Meanwhile, in other news - how do we explain THIS guy?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/12/us/california-west-hollywood-suspect-aresenal/

For fuck's sake. Hate is hate. And guns are too easy to get.

[QUOTE] [b]magicalfreddiemercury wrote:[/b]

This is the exact combination of poisons that gun-control lobbyists have been warning us about. A person with a mental illness focuses on a particular group s/he can righteously hate, and then finds another group that helps to justify and feed that hate. THEN, that person, with every legal right to do so, buys a military-style weapon and snuffs out as many innocent lives as possible.

This isn't about "radical islam". This is about incompetent, easily-bought politicians who are more concerned about appeasing the vocal minority and getting re-elected - and thus lining their pockets yet again - by voting down logical gun laws such as banning assault weapons and not allowing certain suspects or criminals to legally gain access to guns of any kind, let alone "AK15-style" weapons.

Meanwhile, in other news - how do we explain THIS guy?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/12/us/california-west-hollywood-suspect-aresenal/

For fuck's sake. Hate is hate. And guns are too easy to get. [/QUOTE]

We all know what they will say: he is mentally ill...

[QUOTE] [b]magicalfreddiemercury wrote:[/b]

This is the exact combination of poisons that gun-control lobbyists have been warning us about. A person with a mental illness focuses on a particular group s/he can righteously hate, and then finds another group that helps to justify and feed that hate. THEN, that person, with every legal right to do so, buys a military-style weapon and snuffs out as many innocent lives as possible.

This isn't about "radical islam". This is about incompetent, easily-bought politicians who are more concerned about appeasing the vocal minority and getting re-elected - and thus lining their pockets yet again - by voting down logical gun laws such as banning assault weapons and not allowing certain suspects or criminals to legally gain access to guns of any kind, let alone "AK15-style" weapons.

Meanwhile, in other news - how do we explain THIS guy?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/12/us/california-west-hollywood-suspect-aresenal/

For fuck's sake. Hate is hate. And guns are too easy to get. [/QUOTE]

Had he not procured his guns legally, he could have got them in other ways. If he really wanted to pull this off - and, let's face it, to do something like this you have to be absolutely convinced that you want to do it, or else you've got to be totally off your rocker - he would have found ways of getting weapons.

Gun laws in France and Belgium are strict, yet it didn't stop terrorists from commiting acts of violence and murder using guns (and homemade bombs).

In this case it is true that it was through the existing gun laws that this terrorist was able to obtain his guns. But this is merely the method of procurement. It is not the cause of the incident. This man did what he did because he was a psychologically disturbed individual who found meaning in radical Islam and who decided to kill many people in the name of his extreme version of the religion.

It is bordering on deluded that folks are willing to blame gun laws and mental illness, all the while ignoring the elephant in the room. The killer made it a point of saying that what he was doing was an act of terror in support of ISIS. His having a mental illness, and the guns laws being what they are, do not preclude the killer from having chosen to admit before the act that such act was meant as a radical Islamist prounouncement.

Had this killer not been born in a family of Muslims with ties to the Taliban, it is very likely that his mental illness and his gun license would not have led to this. It is of course possible that he would have still lost it completely and killed someone. But that is only an assumption which is just as valid as the assumption that he'd not have killed anyone.

We can only analyse what we know - a man with a mental illness who owned guns legally and who, because of his radical beliefs and hatred of gays, decided to kill 50 people and injured just as many. He was reported to have shouted Allahu Akbar as he was shooting people mercilessly.

Had he shouted Jesus is King, and had he had a history of association with radical Christian fundamentalists, then it would have been entirely justified to call the act an example of Christian fundamentalist terrorism, all the while conceding that mental illness played a big role.

Correlation does not imply causation. US guns laws are related to the "easier" procurement of guns. US gun laws did not cause the massacare. The person involved, spurred by mental illness, hatred of gays, but most prominently (and consciously emphasised by him) his radical Islamist tendencies, caused the massacare.

What in your view does an act of radical Islamist terrorism need to involve to be rightfully called as so?

This man didn't just wake up one day and decide to kill people and blame it on Islam, just for the fun of it, or just because he was sick and needed a scapegoat. He had a history of being associated with radical Islamists, and was investigated by the FBI because of this. His family were staunch supporters of the Taliban - his dad hosts/hosted a pro-Taliban TV programme, and you can find some of his ramblings on YouTube, in favour of the Taliban. Let's not forget that the Taliban are Islamic fundementalists who have killed Afghan men, women and children alike. Do you think this had no effect on the mind of Omar Mateen?

Ignoring this extremely clear link with Islamic fundamentalism and radical terrorism amounts to being slightly obtuse, in my view.

double post

[QUOTE] [b]Costa86 wrote:[/b]
In this case it is true that it was through the existing gun laws that this terrorist was able to obtain his guns. But this is merely the method of procurement. It is not the cause of the incident. This man did what he did because he was a psychologically disturbed individual who found meaning in radical Islam and who decided to kill many people in the name of his extreme version of the religion. [/QUOTE]

Yes. That's what I said above. Add to all of that the ease with which he could get his hands on these weapons and there's the perfect storm. That's the point. Would he have found another way to access them? Possibly. I'll even say probably. But he did it this way - legally - because it was easy. By making it so easy, lawmakers - who are in the pocket of the NRA - as well as those who support those lawmakers, are as guilty of this crime as the prick who pulled the trigger.

Above all else, this was a hate crime. This man hated the LGBT community. He expressed that hate and, on his own, found a way to demonstrate it. His last-minute pledge of allegiance to ISIS seems, at this point, to have been an afterthought, a convenient way for him to justify his despicable actions and to feel relevant. Religion, in my opinion, tends to have that affect on people. Hell, he could have been a follower of this guy -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUOBFjRGvPI

Bottom line - was he insane? It seems he did have a mental illness. Was he radicalized? I suppose part of me wonders if there's a difference between insanity and radicalization. Was he funded or directed by some international organization? So far, that seems unlikely. Further investigation might prove otherwise. If it does, I'd have no problem calling it radical islamic terrorism. However, my position will remain regarding the ease with which he accessed those weapons. He was on the FBI's radar after all.

EDIT - the link above no longer works because Youtube took the video down citing hate speech (kudos to them). Here's part of it, though it's mixed in with someone's response since it's the only way I can see to share it -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mCLeKWXBbw

By the way, I don't think anyone's denying militant radical islamism and ISIS are terrible and huge problems, Costa86, regardless if ISIS was the main reason for this man to commit his crime or not. I don't quite see what point you're trying to make of this.

[QUOTE] [b]Oscar J wrote:[/b]

By the way, I don't think anyone's denying militant radical islamism and ISIS are terrible and huge problems, Costa86, regardless if ISIS was the main reason for this man to commit his crime or not. I don't quite see what point you're trying to make of this. [/QUOTE]

Nobody is denying ISIS are terrible, but yes there is a concerted effort to disguise the fact that this is a problem which involves factions of Islam. Islam is a religion of peace and all that. Leaders like Obama, Cameron, etc., who do not speak the truth about the problem of Islamic extremism, or who try to disconnect this from Islam as a religion. Islamic extremism is part of Islam just like Christian fundamentalism is part of Christianity.

And re magical's post above Oscar's, that Omar Mateen's decision to pledge allegiance to ISIS was an afterthought - it wasn't, he had been investigated very seriously by the FBI for his links to radical islamists.

ISIS is a very different type of terrorist organisation than terrorist organisations such as the IRA etc. It's even less centralised than Al Qaeda. He doesn't even have had to be funded by ISIS, and he probably wasn't. But he chose ISIS and Al Qaeda as the groups to pledge allegiance to - he mentioned both organisations in his three calls to the police as the shooting was underway.

Yes, there is a problem within Muslim groups of extremism. No, not all Muslims are involved, it's a tiny minority. But this has to be acknowledged and we need to stop hiding behind words and innuendos. Islam has a problem within it.

It's now emerged that Omar Mateen scouted Disney World earlier this year, as a possible location where to commit this terrorist act. This only reinforces my point that this man's choice of a gay bar as a location for his act of terrorism was only a secondary factor. His hatred of gays just helped him choose the location. He had already decided that he wanted some place to kill as many people as possible in the name of Allah. Allahu Akbar, he shouted, as he shot dead 49 people. All this poorly thought out rhetoric of "hate is hate", and other miscellaneous, weak, bullshit 21st century politically correct talk, falls flat on its face.

This wasn't a hate crime, and it wasn't primarily caused because of gun laws. These are all complicating and associated factors, but are not at the root of the cause. The act was primarily caused by mental illness coupled with the religion of the mentally ill, Islam. Stop lying to yourselves folks. Had he been born in a Buddhist community, he'd be locked up in his bedroom punching the wall. He wouldn't have used his religion as the vessel by which to commit the worst shooting in US history.

And yet our leaders refuse to acknowledge that we have a big problem of radical Islam - and therefore a problem in Muslim communities - lest they offend some weak, overly sensitive, politically correct populace. Can these people be any more pathetic?

[QUOTE] [b]Sebastian wrote:[/b]

Gun control, education and less privileges for ALL religions are the best ways to prevent these tragedies.[/QUOTE]

If only it were that simple.

Not taxing churches means they don't get a say in legislation.

We don't want the opposite.

The system we have now is the lesser of the two evils.

[QUOTE] [b]magicalfreddiemercury wrote:[/b]

This isn't about "radical islam". This is about incompetent, easily-bought politicians who are more concerned about appeasing the vocal minority and getting re-elected - and thus lining their pockets yet again - by voting down logical gun laws such as banning assault weapons and not allowing certain suspects or criminals to legally gain access to guns of any kind, let alone "AK15-style" weapons.
[/QUOTE]

It's actually both - plenty of media sources are saying he has ties to ISIS.

But part of me still thinks that may be a media ploy to give Trump a "see, it's all about radical Islam" moment.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/donald-trumps-exploitation-of-orlando

Either way, he sure took advantage of it, in a way that should surprise absolutely nobody.


What's most interesting about this is the countless Christians who taking a break from homophobia to pray for the families of the victims.

Not to mention those who are against Muslims yet entirely in favour of extremist Muslims getting their hands on automatic weapons with ease.

The US is such a deporable mess.

[QUOTE] [b]Costa86 wrote:[/b]

Had he shouted Jesus is King, and had he had a history of association with radical Christian fundamentalists, then it would have been entirely justified to call the act an example of Christian fundamentalist terrorism, all the while conceding that mental illness played a big role.[/QUOTE]

No, they would just say he was mentally ill.

The words "Christian terrorist" have never been put together by American media, and they never will.

It would destroy the entire narrative of terrorists being brown people that "aren't us" that keep the majority of Americans afraid and consuming useless crap to keep the entire system going. Any first year marketing student will tell you that fear is the easiest and most effective way to keep people's brains obedient and wallets open.

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]Costa86 wrote:[/b]

Had he shouted Jesus is King, and had he had a history of association with radical Christian fundamentalists, then it would have been entirely justified to call the act an example of Christian fundamentalist terrorism, all the while conceding that mental illness played a big role.[/QUOTE]

No, they would just say he was mentally ill.

The words "Christian terrorist" have never been put together by American media, and they never will.

It would destroy the entire narrative of terrorists being brown people that "aren't us" that keep the majority of Americans afraid and consuming useless crap to keep the entire system going. Any first year marketing student will tell you that fear is the easiest and most effective way to keep people's brains obedient and wallets open.
[/QUOTE]

What you say - i.e. that terrorists are brown people who are different from us - is not what is supported by the mainstream media or by mainstream politicians. On the contrary, they want to persuade us that we are all alike - Muslims, Christians, etc. And yes, for the most part, we are alike. But right now, in 2016, the problem we have is in Muslims communities.

The mainstream media does not try to instill fear - it actually tries to hide the truth. Your points stands not, simply because it tallies not with the status quo of reporting and generally advertised opinion.