Anonymous wrote:This is such bad news for ISIS. Do you know how much paperwork is involved in revoking the allegiance of someone posthumously?

Seriously, though. This man was not radicalized in the name of the Islamic religion. He went to the nightclub regularly for three years, drinking while there. You know who doesn't drink at nightclubs? Devout Muslims don't.

The FBI was confused by his claims to belong to several groups that were at odds with each other. Now it makes sense: He didn't know is Hezzbollah from his ISIS and wasn't inspired by any religion. He just claimed that to distract himself and/or project the image of who he wanted people to see him as, not as he really was.

He was a mentally deranged, murderous monster who was also homophobic and gay.

This will not "change the story," though. The story is out there and set and each side will use it to push their own narrative.

Agree with all of this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I tend to think he was just a bad person and homophobic, rather than a "real" member of ISIS. Apparently he was an equal opportunity supporter of ISIS, al Qaeda, etc.

Maybe he was a conflicted gay, but I tend to think he was exploring venues in preparation of a crime, casing the joint. I don't think it really matters either way.

Casing the joint for three years?

Yes, and joining a gay dating app. That would require real dedication to studying his prey. Oh come on, dude was gay!

I think it adds a lot of nuance to the story, but I don't think it will matter to the people who are hell-bent on making it about either "Islamic terrorism" or gun violence. This massacre is exactly the kind of situation where nuance in leadership is an asset...and there are absolutely no easy answers. And there is a real question of how much it matters to understand the psychology of the perpetrator.

The narrative that's starting to make sense to me is that Omar Mateen was exploring his sexuality, but he lived in a family and culture where being gay is simply unacceptable. Wanting to fit in, he started to turn to that culture more...and maybe started to feel a sense of belonging by identifying with the most radical elements of it. Upon hearing the dog-whistle requests for lone-wolf action during Ramadan, and probably still feeling internally conflicted, he decided to carry out a massacre that he felt might earn him martyrdom and redeem his "sinful" behavior/feelings. Being a "lone-wolf" without material ties to ISIL, it was the lax gun laws in this country that allowed him to so easily obtain the weapons he used for his attack.

To me, key problems here are:

- Marginalization of LGBTQ people in many religious communities, including Muslim ones. Impossible to say whether he would have felt differently if American society at large were more accepting of LGBTQ people even if his Muslim community weren't...but that's not how things are so we will never know. I think embracing tolerance, instead of further divisiveness, would help solve this problem.

- Easy access to information from ISIL leaders. I think this is self-explanatory. But I don't know the solution here, since I am not willing to accept the extent of the limitations on the First Amendment that would be required to prevent this.

- Easy access to weapons without sufficient constraints on who can buy them. As a country, we already accept limitations to the Second Amendment (I don't see a lot of people clamoring for individual rights to own nuclear weapons even though the letter of the law says, "bear arms" not "guns"). So I think that maybe limiting the types of weapons, and certainly imposing better background checks and weapons tracking would help. I'm conflicted in this case about the "no fly list" question, since that's a fairly broad list and I'm a pretty big fan of "due process". I have far less problem with restricting the rights of convicted violent criminals or people who have a court-ordered restraining order against them to own guns...but Mateen, I believe, fell into neither category.

Finally, I'm coming around to maybe venues like night clubs should consider metal detectors. I really hate the idea of a police state, and I would be really uncomfortable with metal detectors in all public places (e.g. Tyson's Mall), but maybe a night club is exactly the right place to have them.

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't change anything?

What was his motivation? Hatred of homosexuals? Hatred of himself? Hatred of United States?

These are all attributable to Islamic Radicalism. Think about it. Look at all the people in that club. Did they hate homosexuals? They weren't killing each other.

Lately, there has been a lot of news reports about the attacks of ISIS on gays.

Sorry, all the pointers go to radical Islam. Maybe, if he were a homosexual, he thought he would get to paradise by killing other homosexuals.

Granted, there are plenty of people who are "uncomfortable" with the gay lifestyle. There are some who claim to hate gays. I don't hear them calling for their murders. Who does call for their murders? Raidcal Islamists.

He is said to have celebrated 9/11. He is said to have had close friends who joined the radicals. He went twice to Saudi Arabia to worship-or whatever. His dad has had anti-American statements attributed to him. He pledged allegiance to ISIS and glorified the Boston bombers.

He had stated to the FBI that he was involved with many groups that all hated each other. He didn't know enough about radical Islam to even get his stories straight.

Anonymous wrote:It won't change Trump's or Hilary's talking points because the discourse will not shift from terrorism. Terror drives votes and media interest. If the media admits Mateen was just a self-hating homophobe, the narrative becomes much less interesting. The media, Trump, and HRC have a vested interest in keeping the narrative about radical Islam. It's drives the ratings and the votes.

What? It obviously helps the Democrats that banning Muslims and monitoring mosques is off base. Helps the gun control cause I think.

This is such bad news for ISIS. Do you know how much paperwork is involved in revoking the allegiance of someone posthumously?

Seriously, though. This man was not radicalized in the name of the Islamic religion. He went to the nightclub regularly for three years, drinking while there. You know who doesn't drink at nightclubs? Devout Muslims don't.

The FBI was confused by his claims to belong to several groups that were at odds with each other. Now it makes sense: He didn't know is Hezzbollah from his ISIS and wasn't inspired by any religion. He just claimed that to distract himself and/or project the image of who he wanted people to see him as, not as he really was.

He was a mentally deranged, murderous monster who was also homophobic and gay.

This will not "change the story," though. The story is out there and set and each side will use it to push their own narrative.

It doesn't change anything?

What was his motivation? Hatred of homosexuals? Hatred of himself? Hatred of United States?

These are all attributable to Islamic Radicalism. Think about it. Look at all the people in that club. Did they hate homosexuals? They weren't killing each other.

Lately, there has been a lot of news reports about the attacks of ISIS on gays.

Sorry, all the pointers go to radical Islam. Maybe, if he were a homosexual, he thought he would get to paradise by killing other homosexuals.

Granted, there are plenty of people who are "uncomfortable" with the gay lifestyle. There are some who claim to hate gays. I don't hear them calling for their murders. Who does call for their murders? Raidcal Islamists.

He is said to have celebrated 9/11. He is said to have had close friends who joined the radicals. He went twice to Saudi Arabia to worship-or whatever. His dad has had anti-American statements attributed to him. He pledged allegiance to ISIS and glorified the Boston bombers.

Anonymous wrote:Not a preference.

Isn't it a preference for some people? I never got this. Being gay is not okay because it's something you can't control. It's okay because it's okay.

It won't change Trump's or Hilary's talking points because the discourse will not shift from terrorism. Terror drives votes and media interest. If the media admits Mateen was just a self-hating homophobe, the narrative becomes much less interesting. The media, Trump, and HRC have a vested interest in keeping the narrative about radical Islam. It's drives the ratings and the votes.

Anonymous wrote:I tend to think he was just a bad person and homophobic, rather than a "real" member of ISIS. Apparently he was an equal opportunity supporter of ISIS, al Qaeda, etc.

Maybe he was a conflicted gay, but I tend to think he was exploring venues in preparation of a crime, casing the joint. I don't think it really matters either way.

Casing the joint for three years?

I tend to think he was just a bad person and homophobic, rather than a "real" member of ISIS. Apparently he was an equal opportunity supporter of ISIS, al Qaeda, etc.

Maybe he was a conflicted gay, but I tend to think he was exploring venues in preparation of a crime, casing the joint. I don't think it really matters either way.

There is more and more coming about about the wife, who keeps changing her story. I would keep abreast of that.

Not a preference.

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

I assume this has come up but I didn't see a thread devoted to the topic. If the murderer was not killing due to his sympathies or allegiance (?) to ISIL but because of his own conflicted feelings, how does that change things? Was it a hate crime and not inspired by perverted interpretations of Islam? If this ends up being confirmed as I suspect it will be, how will ISIL feel about this? Just a missed opportunity to throw a guy off building (if you don't get the reference ISIS has thrown many suspected homosexuals off of buildings)? Or are they equal opportunity murderous barbarians? My primary question is, if we do learn the mass murderer carried out his plan because he is ashamed of his homosexuality and not because he is a radicalized terrorist, how will that impact Hillary and Trump's response to the tragedy? If it is a hate crime and domestic terrorism and not linked to a terrorist organization, will the focus be mainly on banning semi-automatic weapons? How does this change the story?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/12/drag-queen-orlando-gunman-omar-mateen-was-my-friend.html
http://www.tmz.com/2016/06/14/omar-mateen-gay-ex-wife-fiance-talks-orlando/

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/14/omar-mateen-gay-men-terrorism-pulse-jackd-sexuality