@limeygent I have a question for you. It's not intended to create or cause an argument. It's just a means of balancing opinion. It's (thankfully) a hypothetical question.
If someone breaks into your house and you shoot him dead, have you prevented a crime or committed one?
As per the law in his home country he has prevented.
He has the right to possess the weapons and a right to protect his home and family
So, even in the scenario I described, has he prevented a crime or committed one? Note, I didn't say whether the intruder was armed, neither did I say whether there was anyone else at home.
The point being, obviously, it's a ridiculous position to have a situation where an unarmed intruder, can be killed, but, apparently, this is not a crime.
What is ridiculous about it? What part of "Intruder" do you not get?
What is ridiculous about it, is that, in this case, the intruder is unarmed. He/she is sober and clean. And it seems "apprpriate" to kill that person.
I "get" intruder. As you can see, I introduce the scenario.
You see what happened there? It was nothing personal but I deliberately intruded on your 'theory' in an abrupt manner - and you felt the need to defend yourself. Did you consider if I was clean and sober first?
I might be wrong, but don't the Canadians have just about as many guns per head as the US, yet their gun death figures are way less. Suggests it's a cultural thing. Though I could do some research instead of just guessing, I suppose.
My Swiss mate had a couple of assault rifles in his house when I lasted visited. My understanding is that every citizen has enough weaponry in their homes to repel an invasion but gun crime is relatively rare.
They keep their guns once they finish national service I think. I'd love to love there
You will never solve America's gun problem by banning or controlling guns - the words horse and bolted come to mind. It's the ammunition that would be far easier to control. There's no reason why any person or family needs to have more than a handful of bullets at any given time, if the self-defence angle is to be invoked. Doesn't take many to stop an intruder or a threat. Then make ammo sellers regulate themselves - you are legally responsible for any ammo you sell. If someone you sell ammo to goes on a murder spree, then you need to defend your justification for profiting off murder - what checks did you do? Were you 100% sure the person was responsible enough to own ammo? In fact if was up to me I'd make gun clubs responsible for selling ammo, if you wanted to buy ammo you needed to join a gun club and prove to the membership and quartermaster that you are a responsible gun owner, including regular range practice and attendance.
An interesting aside to your post. I used to work for a state purchasing co-op and I was unable to source blanks (used in starter-guns in track) since ammunition manufacturers were busy cranking out the real stuff.
I might be wrong, but don't the Canadians have just about as many guns per head as the US, yet their gun death figures are way less. Suggests it's a cultural thing. Though I could do some research instead of just guessing, I suppose.
My Swiss mate had a couple of assault rifles in his house when I lasted visited. My understanding is that every citizen has enough weaponry in their homes to repel an invasion but gun crime is relatively rare.
From report on BBC news:"A federal law that would "deny the transfer of firearms or the issuance of firearms and explosives licences to known or suspected dangerous terrorists" failed in the US Senate in December 2015."
So someone on the FBI's terrorist watch list could perfectly legally walk in off the street and walk out with an assault rifle. The right of gun ownership of someone suspected by the state to be involved in terrorist related activities is more important to US politicians than being seen to be on the side of gun control.
What a state of affairs they've got themselves in over this.
From report on BBC news:"A federal law that would "deny the transfer of firearms or the issuance of firearms and explosives licences to known or suspected dangerous terrorists" failed in the US Senate in December 2015."
So someone on the FBI's terrorist watch list could perfectly legally walk in off the street and walk out with an assault rifle. The right of gun ownership of someone suspected by the state to be involved in terrorist related activities is more important to US politicians than being seen to be on the side of gun control.
What a state of affairs they've got themselves in over this.
To be fair, he wasn't actively on a "watchlist." He'd been looked in to in 2013 for some comments he made about being a terrorist, but those were dismissed as being an angry reaction to a colleague teasing him for being muslim.
More on that here, including the loopholes for buying guns he could have exploited:
In 2014 he was interviewed after it turned out he went to the same mosque as an American suicide bomber in Syria. Nothing came of it.
A colleague said Mateen often talked of his hatred for Jews, LGTBQ+, blacks, and women, which makes him...well American if we're being brutally honest. As does the fact he was born in America.
A really strange, complex picture of him is starting to emerge. Keep in mind it is still very early in an investigation, but it's said he professes his loyalty to ISIS leader Al-Baghdadi and also the Tsarneav brothers, who carried out the Boston Marathon bombing in his 911 call. There are rumors he has, in the past, claimed he has ties to Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah. ISIS is of course a spin off of Al-Qaeda in Iraq and Syria, and there is no love lost there. Hezbollah is currently fighting ISIS, and Al-Qaeda, as they are Shia.
There have been reports floating around the internet for the last day or so that he frequented Pulse. I'd been waiting to post something until a reputable news source picked it up (no offense Gawker, okay, a little offense), but the Orlando Sentinel and now Al-Jazeera and The Guardian have run with the story. There are also reports that he was on Grindr:
Again, it's all very early, but going on what we know so far, it seems this was more a hate crime than anything, perpetrated by a very confused man.
I am absolutely in favor of all kinds of restrictions surrounding guns, including banning warfare weapon from being sold in the US, but the problem with even things like background checks is that it wouldn't have prevented him from getting weapons because he had not committed a crime (or at least been accused of one--there are statements from his ex-wife that he beat her).
I realised that this particular person wouldn't have shown up as being on the FBI's watch list anyway. It was more my flabber being ghasted that you COULD be formally suspected of being a terrorist yet STILL not be barred from buying semi-automatic, military grade weapons. In fact he'd have likely been subject to more checks at an airport than in a gun shop if he was on their watch list.
I love America and could happily see myself living in parts of it given the opportunity. But by Christ it has some seriously fecked up politics there.
I'm going to guess it will take a few weeks, if not months, for the full details to come out. That said, this morning I noticed that the BBC Breakfast were also underlining Mateen's prior to visits to Pulse, as well as his presence on gaying dating apps. The Washington Post have also interviewed former school friends, as well as two men who had been contacted by Mateen via the gay dating apps; perhaps there is another dimension to what he did.
One thing that I think is worth discussing though, is the worldwide reaction to this attack. As an example, the vigil in Soho (Old Compton Street) last night:
Having been working in Soho for a few weeks now, I've already got a favourite pub - The Duke of Wellington, just off Wardour Street. As a matter of routine I will visit here at about 1:15 of an afternoon, relax for 30 minutes with a pint of London Pride, before returning to the office and grabbing a salad en route. It's a lovely routine, and made perfect by the choice of pub; an incredibly friendly and relaxing place that's also a nice break from the hussle-and-bussle of Soho itself. It's a gay bar though, and I'm well aware that I'm often the only straight guy there. (Other patrons generally being with their partner, or having small items that suggest that they belong to the LGBT community; wristbands, badges etc.)
Yesterday's lunch had quite a surreal incident at one point, following a car backfiring outside on the road. For a good 20 seconds the place just went quiet, with anxious looks at each other whilst people looked out of windows to see what was going on. I've seen similar reactions on Oxford Street itself in the past month, but to see that mentality inside a pub that I've come to view as "a little save haven" from the hussle-and-bussle of Soho.. well, it was quite sad.
So let me get this straight, he killed all those in the club because he was potentially sexually confused?
Wow I'm glad not everyone who has ever been curious or confused does that...
It's all turning pretty odd.
There's not a great deal of certainties at this point, but it does look to be apparent that he visited this particular club previously and had met men using gay dating apps.
That said, his call to 911 was allegedly a pledge of allegiance to ISIS; but as SDAddick has pointed out, ISIS aren't particularly best friends with the likes of Al Qaeda - whom he previously spoke about having links with. He also posted a Facebook video in the last week declaring God will punish homosexuals.
It's not beyond the realms of possibility that he was simply a young Muslim man who was confused by his own sexuality, and the pressure of these two conflicting powers in his life did push him over the edge.. which is, as you say, a very odd situation.
I realised that this particular person wouldn't have shown up as being on the FBI's watch list anyway. It was more my flabber being ghasted that you COULD be formally suspected of being a terrorist yet STILL not be barred from buying semi-automatic, military grade weapons. In fact he'd have likely been subject to more checks at an airport than in a gun shop if he was on their watch list.
I love America and could happily see myself living in parts of it given the opportunity. But by Christ it has some seriously fecked up politics there.
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly, it's a mess. I sort of used your comments as a springboard to some larger points, but I completely agree, the fact that people on an FBI watchlist can still buy guns it ridiculous. President Obama made this exact point a couple weeks ago.
I'm going to guess it will take a few weeks, if not months, for the full details to come out. That said, this morning I noticed that the BBC Breakfast were also underlining Mateen's prior to visits to Pulse, as well as his presence on gaying dating apps. The Washington Post have also interviewed former school friends, as well as two men who had been contacted by Mateen via the gay dating apps; perhaps there is another dimension to what he did.
One thing that I think is worth discussing though, is the worldwide reaction to this attack. As an example, the vigil in Soho (Old Compton Street) last night:
Having been working in Soho for a few weeks now, I've already got a favourite pub - The Duke of Wellington, just off Wardour Street. As a matter of routine I will visit here at about 1:15 of an afternoon, relax for 30 minutes with a pint of London Pride, before returning to the office and grabbing a salad en route. It's a lovely routine, and made perfect by the choice of pub; an incredibly friendly and relaxing place that's also a nice break from the hussle-and-bussle of Soho itself. It's a gay bar though, and I'm well aware that I'm often the only straight guy there. (Other patrons generally being with their partner, or having small items that suggest that they belong to the LGBT community; wristbands, badges etc.)
Yesterday's lunch had quite a surreal incident at one point, following a car backfiring outside on the road. For a good 20 seconds the place just went quiet, with anxious looks at each other whilst people looked out of windows to see what was going on. I've seen similar reactions on Oxford Street itself in the past month, but to see that mentality inside a pub that I've come to view as "a little save haven" from the hussle-and-bussle of Soho.. well, it was quite sad.
The signs of support have been incredibly touching, and what I really appreciate, as a long time ally of the LGTBQ+ community, is that they have focused on the fact that this was an attack on that community, and not just that, but an attack on a safe haven within that community.
Thank you for sharing LuckyRed. I can only imagine everyone's nerves are on edge at the moment, which is heartbreaking. Again, attacking people in their safe haven adds yet another layer of cruelty.
@Dazzler21 I think LR sums it up nicely, but I suspect this young man was confused about many things beyond just his sexuality. I tend to be very, very, very hesitant to bring up mental illness in such cases, because unfortunately, the only time we as a society in America talk about mental illness is in the wake of such incidents. As someone who lives with a mental illness, it's incredibly insulting, and it's often a smokescreen to prevent us having a conversation about gun control. All of that said, and at the risk of playing armchair psychiatrist (another pet peeve), it wouldn't surprise me if the days and weeks to come we discover that Mateen had clear signs of mental illness.
Unfortunately, this won't create or further a conversation about mental health in America, I'm currently in the midst of a ten week wait to see a doctor, but I do think it will become clear that he didn't have concrete ties to terrorism.
Lastly, and in the spirit of LuckyRed's post, I'm going to copy and paste my status from Facebook yesterday. It's quite grim, but 3-4 days ago a political commentator named Andrew Sullivan (a long time "Log Cabin" Republican) was on Anderson Cooper's (an openly gay news anchor's) show discussing the AIDS epidemic of the '80s and '90s. The shift in attitude from that, which killed hundreds-of-thousands, to Sunday morning, which killed 50, shows a real progress in our attitudes, even if it doesn't feel that way right now.
TRIGGER WARNING: This is not the pick-me-up you probably need right now, instead it's a conversation about an oft-forgotten plague. But if you want to see a silver lining in the tragedy in Orlando, consider this, "Pulse" was named for the founder's brother who died of AIDS in 1991. He was one of hundreds-of-thousands who went largely unmourned and unnoticed. In the last two days, a large chunk of this country has mourned 50 members of the LGTBQ community taken from us too early. It's not pleasant to compare death with death, and even if it doesn't feel like it right now, there has been progress.
@LuckyReds about the car backfiring, don't forget there was a nailbomb let off at the admiral Duncan pub in Soho, must have been quite a few years ago now.
A very good, and important article that gets into previous "warning sign" behaviors of Omar Mateen.
As has been discussed previously, he was on an FBI "Watchlist," including being under surveillance and having an undercover officer approach him, in 2013 after making incendiary remarks to a colleague, claiming he had links to terrorism. He was looking into again in 2014 because he went to the same mosque as a Florida man who drove a truck of explosives into a marketplace in Syria. Again, it was concluded that he did not pose a threat based on these two pieces of evidence, and he was then able to go out and buy two guns legally, including an AR 15 assault weapon used in battle zones.
But he did in fact break the law and commit a crime of violence, and as the article argues, a hate crime of sorts, in that he assaulted his ex-wife. And a lot has been written about how this is a huge red flag for larger violence, and oh yes, a crime unto itself, lest we think that simply beating your spouse isn't reason enough to act. And yet all we'll hear about is "if only the FBI had kept him on that watch list a little longer..."
1) The FBI were loath to intervene in Mateen's case because he was a muslim of non european ethnicity .. racial/ethnic/religious profiling is to be avoided at all costs .. not only black lives matter, but all non WASP lives must be SEEN to matter.
2) The FBI knew that Mateen was a timebomb that would explode sooner rather than later. After the event, as soon as it was made public that he was a muslim, there would be public outcries for more anti terrorist measures and for more powers to be given to the FBI, NSA, CIA and the other plethora of acronymic law enforcement agencies .. homeland security rules ... OK
1) The FBI were loath to intervene in Mateen's case because he was a muslim of non european ethnicity .. racial/ethnic/religious profiling is to be avoided at all costs .. not only black lives matter, but all non WASP lives must be SEEN to matter.
2) The FBI knew that Mateen was a timebomb that would explode sooner rather than later. After the event, as soon as it was made public that he was a muslim, there would be public outcries for more ante terrorist measures and for more powers to be given to the FBI, NSA, CIA and the other plethora of acronymic law enforcement agencies .. homeland security rules ... OK
I think Obama has been trying to make it more a hate crime against LGBT than a Islamic terrorist incident. Obama and Clinton both know the Islam angle plays more to Trump than it does to them.
1) The FBI were loath to intervene in Mateen's case because he was a muslim of non european ethnicity .. racial/ethnic/religious profiling is to be avoided at all costs .. not only black lives matter, but all non WASP lives must be SEEN to matter.
2) The FBI knew that Mateen was a timebomb that would explode sooner rather than later. After the event, as soon as it was made public that he was a muslim, there would be public outcries for more ante terrorist measures and for more powers to be given to the FBI, NSA, CIA and the other plethora of acronymic law enforcement agencies .. homeland security rules ... OK
I think Obama has been trying to make it more a hate crime against LGBT than a Islamic terrorist incident. Obama and Clinton both know the Islam angle plays more to Trump than it does to them.
exactly .. so many americans believe that Obama is at best a closet muslim, at worst a practicing one .. Obama is playing right into Trump's hands here .. this incident, the fear of extremism amongst middle americans could well swing the presidency in Trump's direction
1) The FBI were loath to intervene in Mateen's case because he was a muslim of non european ethnicity .. racial/ethnic/religious profiling is to be avoided at all costs .. not only black lives matter, but all non WASP lives must be SEEN to matter.
2) The FBI knew that Mateen was a timebomb that would explode sooner rather than later. After the event, as soon as it was made public that he was a muslim, there would be public outcries for more ante terrorist measures and for more powers to be given to the FBI, NSA, CIA and the other plethora of acronymic law enforcement agencies .. homeland security rules ... OK
I think Obama has been trying to make it more a hate crime against LGBT than a Islamic terrorist incident. Obama and Clinton both know the Islam angle plays more to Trump than it does to them.
He has, though with American politics being what they are what the President is trying/wanting to do and what the FBI and other such agencies are actually doing can often be entirely different things. This goes right back to when Hoover founded the organisation.
1) The FBI were loath to intervene in Mateen's case because he was a muslim of non european ethnicity .. racial/ethnic/religious profiling is to be avoided at all costs .. not only black lives matter, but all non WASP lives must be SEEN to matter.
2) The FBI knew that Mateen was a timebomb that would explode sooner rather than later. After the event, as soon as it was made public that he was a muslim, there would be public outcries for more ante terrorist measures and for more powers to be given to the FBI, NSA, CIA and the other plethora of acronymic law enforcement agencies .. homeland security rules ... OK
I think Obama has been trying to make it more a hate crime against LGBT than a Islamic terrorist incident. Obama and Clinton both know the Islam angle plays more to Trump than it does to them.
He has, though with American politics being what they are what the President is trying/wanting to do and what the FBI and other such agencies are actually doing can often be entirely different things. This goes right back to when Hoover founded the organisation.
A good point, the president has little to no control over the FBI, particularly in who they interview, put on watchlists, etc. The president has control over roughly what he wants the Department of Justice to do, but even then those are pretty concepts. Going back to when it was founded, it could be argued that Hoover had more power than some of the presidents he served under.
@Lincsaddick Don't google "Newtown hoax" as it will only fan the flames. In response to your points:
1) The FBI really doesn't give a shit about being seen to racially profile. That is a concept that is starting to emerge in the larger American societal discourse, but the FBI conducts its business largely behind closed doors. Also, see below:
2) Mateen made angry comments to someone at work and was put under surveillance, including having undercover agents meet with him in an attempt to draw him out (this is in 2013). This was all because of comments he made to a colleague. Nothing came of that. The 2014 investigation was simply because he went to the same mosque as someone who ended up in Syria. It's estimated that the number of Americans who have joined ISIS is in the tens, a very, very small minority, and there is no sign that there are mosques or communities radicalizing young men and women and sending them to Syria/Iraq, those who have been caught have been radicalized via the internet.
As far as this being a hate crime versus terrorism, the evidence we have so far points strongly to the fact that this is a hate crime. The only reason why we're having this debate is because the perpetrator is Muslim. But he specifically targeted a minority community with whom he had a hatred for (and may also have been a part of). If he were a right wing Christian, this would be a hate crime first while people like me would be saying "we should also be calling this terrorism."
As mentioned in previous posts, from what he know now his ties to terrorist groups are seemingly nonexistent, and he has in past claimed relations with Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah, sworn enemies of each other, and apparently ISIS in his 911 call, sworn enemies of Hezbollah and frenemies at best of Al-Qaeda. Thus, the terrorism ties make little sense, while it clear this is a man who hates LGTBQ+ people.
Agree with @SDAddick. If we're drawing imaginary lines around terrorism and hate crimes, then this ends up on the hate crime bucket. He was targeting a specific group not becuase of his religion, but because of hatred of that group.
I think what differentiates it from terrorism as we understand it, is that there was no real political agenda. His mentions of ISIS, Boston Bombers seem to be intended to cover his real issue. For whatever reason, and much has been speculated, this was pure hatred of the gay community.
Forgive me for being naive but was the guy driven to this due to aassive conflict between his religion and being "in the closet"? Oh and being crazy, radicalised and with access to guns as well
@limeygent I have a question for you. It's not intended to create or cause an argument. It's just a means of balancing opinion. It's (thankfully) a hypothetical question.
If someone breaks into your house and you shoot him dead, have you prevented a crime or committed one?
As per the law in his home country he has prevented.
He has the right to possess the weapons and a right to protect his home and family
So, even in the scenario I described, has he prevented a crime or committed one? Note, I didn't say whether the intruder was armed, neither did I say whether there was anyone else at home.
The point being, obviously, it's a ridiculous position to have a situation where an unarmed intruder, can be killed, but, apparently, this is not a crime.
What is ridiculous about it? What part of "Intruder" do you not get?
What is ridiculous about it, is that, in this case, the intruder is unarmed. He/she is sober and clean. And it seems "apprpriate" to kill that person.
I "get" intruder. As you can see, I introduce the scenario.
How could you know these things though.
The Tony Martin case shows pretty clearly when you are crossing the line.
I guess in some cases you don't. It's a risk you take. Do you do nothing where the risk is that you could be harmed by the intruder, or do you start
So let me get this straight, he killed all those in the club because he was potentially sexually confused?
Wow I'm glad not everyone who has ever been curious or confused does that...
It's all turning pretty odd.
I'm not sure if we'll ever know enough to prove it definitively but it looks like one of the the biggest cases of cognitive dissonance in history. A man with homosexual tendencies, if not outrightly gay, has to confront the fact that the scriptures he follows tell him that's an inappropriate way of life. For a while he tries to get on with his life, but he's looking for something more. When he gets in with a crowd who take a much more fundamentalist view of those scriptures, he has to confront things. What can he do? He can't just accept himself for what he is. He could as many gay people do keep quiet and settle for a life of repression. He could, as some do, blame himself and chose to end his own life. What Omar did, which is completely in line with his new friends' thinking was to blame other gay people and the society they come from. On a personal level he hated the gays because he was one of them. Coming out as gay would have been impossible; he placed under intolerable strain from a religion that preached hatred, "If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone" Quran 4.16. That same religion though did give him a way out, ""Whoever is found conducting himself in the manner of the people of Lot, kill the doer and the receiver. " al-Tirmidhi, Sunan 1:152. And that is what he did. Such are the dangers of believing in strange medieval cults for whom any sexuality that is at variance from their view of normal, is a greater sin than murder.
Comments
She's very accommodating.
So someone on the FBI's terrorist watch list could perfectly legally walk in off the street and walk out with an assault rifle. The right of gun ownership of someone suspected by the state to be involved in terrorist related activities is more important to US politicians than being seen to be on the side of gun control.
What a state of affairs they've got themselves in over this.
More on that here, including the loopholes for buying guns he could have exploited:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/closing-the-terror-gun-loophole-might-not-have-stopped-the-orlando-massacre/486863/?utm_source=atlfb
In 2014 he was interviewed after it turned out he went to the same mosque as an American suicide bomber in Syria. Nothing came of it.
A colleague said Mateen often talked of his hatred for Jews, LGTBQ+, blacks, and women, which makes him...well American if we're being brutally honest. As does the fact he was born in America.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/12/omar-mateen-orlando-nightclub-attack-shooter-named
A really strange, complex picture of him is starting to emerge. Keep in mind it is still very early in an investigation, but it's said he professes his loyalty to ISIS leader Al-Baghdadi and also the Tsarneav brothers, who carried out the Boston Marathon bombing in his 911 call. There are rumors he has, in the past, claimed he has ties to Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah. ISIS is of course a spin off of Al-Qaeda in Iraq and Syria, and there is no love lost there. Hezbollah is currently fighting ISIS, and Al-Qaeda, as they are Shia.
There have been reports floating around the internet for the last day or so that he frequented Pulse. I'd been waiting to post something until a reputable news source picked it up (no offense Gawker, okay, a little offense), but the Orlando Sentinel and now Al-Jazeera and The Guardian have run with the story. There are also reports that he was on Grindr:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/06/orlando-attacker-omar-mateen-visited-pulse-gay-club-160614112632336.html
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/14/orlando-shooter-omar-mateen-was-a-regular-at-nightclub
Again, it's all very early, but going on what we know so far, it seems this was more a hate crime than anything, perpetrated by a very confused man.
I am absolutely in favor of all kinds of restrictions surrounding guns, including banning warfare weapon from being sold in the US, but the problem with even things like background checks is that it wouldn't have prevented him from getting weapons because he had not committed a crime (or at least been accused of one--there are statements from his ex-wife that he beat her).
I love America and could happily see myself living in parts of it given the opportunity. But by Christ it has some seriously fecked up politics there.
I'm going to guess it will take a few weeks, if not months, for the full details to come out. That said, this morning I noticed that the BBC Breakfast were also underlining Mateen's prior to visits to Pulse, as well as his presence on gaying dating apps. The Washington Post have also interviewed former school friends, as well as two men who had been contacted by Mateen via the gay dating apps; perhaps there is another dimension to what he did.
One thing that I think is worth discussing though, is the worldwide reaction to this attack. As an example, the vigil in Soho (Old Compton Street) last night:
Having been working in Soho for a few weeks now, I've already got a favourite pub - The Duke of Wellington, just off Wardour Street. As a matter of routine I will visit here at about 1:15 of an afternoon, relax for 30 minutes with a pint of London Pride, before returning to the office and grabbing a salad en route. It's a lovely routine, and made perfect by the choice of pub; an incredibly friendly and relaxing place that's also a nice break from the hussle-and-bussle of Soho itself. It's a gay bar though, and I'm well aware that I'm often the only straight guy there. (Other patrons generally being with their partner, or having small items that suggest that they belong to the LGBT community; wristbands, badges etc.)
Yesterday's lunch had quite a surreal incident at one point, following a car backfiring outside on the road. For a good 20 seconds the place just went quiet, with anxious looks at each other whilst people looked out of windows to see what was going on. I've seen similar reactions on Oxford Street itself in the past month, but to see that mentality inside a pub that I've come to view as "a little save haven" from the hussle-and-bussle of Soho.. well, it was quite sad.
Wow I'm glad not everyone who has ever been curious or confused does that...
It's all turning pretty odd.
That said, his call to 911 was allegedly a pledge of allegiance to ISIS; but as SDAddick has pointed out, ISIS aren't particularly best friends with the likes of Al Qaeda - whom he previously spoke about having links with. He also posted a Facebook video in the last week declaring God will punish homosexuals.
It's not beyond the realms of possibility that he was simply a young Muslim man who was confused by his own sexuality, and the pressure of these two conflicting powers in his life did push him over the edge.. which is, as you say, a very odd situation.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/06/13/more-than-just-another-gay-club-pulse-was-founded-in-her-brothers-memory-and-named-for-his-beating-heart/
Thank you for sharing LuckyRed. I can only imagine everyone's nerves are on edge at the moment, which is heartbreaking. Again, attacking people in their safe haven adds yet another layer of cruelty.
@Dazzler21 I think LR sums it up nicely, but I suspect this young man was confused about many things beyond just his sexuality. I tend to be very, very, very hesitant to bring up mental illness in such cases, because unfortunately, the only time we as a society in America talk about mental illness is in the wake of such incidents. As someone who lives with a mental illness, it's incredibly insulting, and it's often a smokescreen to prevent us having a conversation about gun control. All of that said, and at the risk of playing armchair psychiatrist (another pet peeve), it wouldn't surprise me if the days and weeks to come we discover that Mateen had clear signs of mental illness.
Unfortunately, this won't create or further a conversation about mental health in America, I'm currently in the midst of a ten week wait to see a doctor, but I do think it will become clear that he didn't have concrete ties to terrorism.
Lastly, and in the spirit of LuckyRed's post, I'm going to copy and paste my status from Facebook yesterday. It's quite grim, but 3-4 days ago a political commentator named Andrew Sullivan (a long time "Log Cabin" Republican) was on Anderson Cooper's (an openly gay news anchor's) show discussing the AIDS epidemic of the '80s and '90s. The shift in attitude from that, which killed hundreds-of-thousands, to Sunday morning, which killed 50, shows a real progress in our attitudes, even if it doesn't feel that way right now.
TRIGGER WARNING: This is not the pick-me-up you probably need right now, instead it's a conversation about an oft-forgotten plague. But if you want to see a silver lining in the tragedy in Orlando, consider this, "Pulse" was named for the founder's brother who died of AIDS in 1991. He was one of hundreds-of-thousands who went largely unmourned and unnoticed. In the last two days, a large chunk of this country has mourned 50 members of the LGTBQ community taken from us too early. It's not pleasant to compare death with death, and even if it doesn't feel like it right now, there has been progress.
That would suggest his sister may have known too, or at the least, this wasn't spontaneous.
A very good, and important article that gets into previous "warning sign" behaviors of Omar Mateen.
As has been discussed previously, he was on an FBI "Watchlist," including being under surveillance and having an undercover officer approach him, in 2013 after making incendiary remarks to a colleague, claiming he had links to terrorism. He was looking into again in 2014 because he went to the same mosque as a Florida man who drove a truck of explosives into a marketplace in Syria. Again, it was concluded that he did not pose a threat based on these two pieces of evidence, and he was then able to go out and buy two guns legally, including an AR 15 assault weapon used in battle zones.
But he did in fact break the law and commit a crime of violence, and as the article argues, a hate crime of sorts, in that he assaulted his ex-wife. And a lot has been written about how this is a huge red flag for larger violence, and oh yes, a crime unto itself, lest we think that simply beating your spouse isn't reason enough to act. And yet all we'll hear about is "if only the FBI had kept him on that watch list a little longer..."
1) The FBI were loath to intervene in Mateen's case because he was a muslim of non european ethnicity .. racial/ethnic/religious profiling is to be avoided at all costs .. not only black lives matter, but all non WASP lives must be SEEN to matter.
2) The FBI knew that Mateen was a timebomb that would explode sooner rather than later. After the event, as soon as it was made public that he was a muslim, there would be public outcries for more anti terrorist measures and for more powers to be given to the FBI, NSA, CIA and the other plethora of acronymic law enforcement agencies .. homeland security rules ... OK
@Lincsaddick Don't google "Newtown hoax" as it will only fan the flames. In response to your points:
1) The FBI really doesn't give a shit about being seen to racially profile. That is a concept that is starting to emerge in the larger American societal discourse, but the FBI conducts its business largely behind closed doors. Also, see below:
2) Mateen made angry comments to someone at work and was put under surveillance, including having undercover agents meet with him in an attempt to draw him out (this is in 2013). This was all because of comments he made to a colleague. Nothing came of that. The 2014 investigation was simply because he went to the same mosque as someone who ended up in Syria. It's estimated that the number of Americans who have joined ISIS is in the tens, a very, very small minority, and there is no sign that there are mosques or communities radicalizing young men and women and sending them to Syria/Iraq, those who have been caught have been radicalized via the internet.
As far as this being a hate crime versus terrorism, the evidence we have so far points strongly to the fact that this is a hate crime. The only reason why we're having this debate is because the perpetrator is Muslim. But he specifically targeted a minority community with whom he had a hatred for (and may also have been a part of). If he were a right wing Christian, this would be a hate crime first while people like me would be saying "we should also be calling this terrorism."
As mentioned in previous posts, from what he know now his ties to terrorist groups are seemingly nonexistent, and he has in past claimed relations with Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah, sworn enemies of each other, and apparently ISIS in his 911 call, sworn enemies of Hezbollah and frenemies at best of Al-Qaeda. Thus, the terrorism ties make little sense, while it clear this is a man who hates LGTBQ+ people.
I think what differentiates it from terrorism as we understand it, is that there was no real political agenda. His mentions of ISIS, Boston Bombers seem to be intended to cover his real issue. For whatever reason, and much has been speculated, this was pure hatred of the gay community.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/us/politics/noor-zahi-salman-omar-mateen.html?_r=0