More on that Univision interview: http://www.vox.com/2016/6/22/1200290...nos-hate-crime
Supposedly Mateen was worried he caught HIV in a threesome with two Puerto Rican dudes.
More on that Univision interview: http://www.vox.com/2016/6/22/1200290...nos-hate-crime
Supposedly Mateen was worried he caught HIV in a threesome with two Puerto Rican dudes.
A preacher for a church in Sacramento who gave a sermon that stated that the only disappointment was that more gays weren't killed at Pulse was just told the lease for their building will not be renewed in March of next year, and since they don't condone hate speech, they will let them out of their lease with no penalty if the get the fuck out now.
The dude from the Univision interview offers literally zero proof, and you schmucks are gobbling it all up. The fuck is wrong with you? We have 911 tapes where the shooter plainly stated his allegiance to ISIS, but you will believe some random anonymous dude at the drop of a hat in order to believe that this wasn't Islamic terrorism. I am baffled and dismayed.
I could pledge my allegiance to ISIS right now on this forum and it wouldn't mean a goddamn thing because I've never had any sort of contact with them whatsoever to back that up. Maybe he did meet some ISIS sympathizers, maybe he didn't, but clearly he wasn't deeply enmeshed with ISIS nor was this attack planned by ISIS as an entity. calling 911 and pledging allegiance to ISIS is not the same thing as working with them as part of a terror cell or receiving funding and aid from them to help carry out the attack.
mostly I think he was just closeted gay, mentally ill, self-hating, and fed up with U.S. foreign policy (heavy emphasis on the mentally ill aspect). he was a terrorist in the sense that anyone who engages in mass shooting is a terrorist, but not in the sense that he was part of an actual terrorist group. he was ISIS-inspired perhaps, but more than anything I think he just used their name because they're the most obvious terrorist organization to pledge allegiance to at this time before you go on a rampage. 10 years ago he would have "pledged allegiance" to Al Qaeda.
If you paid attention, there's a reason why we think the ISIS thing is just him trying to stir up more shit, including the fact he also claimed allegiance with another terrorist organization that is anti isis, and his father being pro hezzabolah or however it's spelled which hates ISIS as much as the western world. There's a bunch of other things as well, but since the shooter is dead, we can only speculate one way or the other, but knowing those things, it looks a lot like he's using ISIS to hide his shame in coming down with the gays.
While I agree that this interview seems to fit too perfectly with people's expectations and would like more proof regarding this guy, we have way more than enough evidence to say this wasn't Islamic terrorism. And we have minor evidence to suggest this was about gay frustrations.
I'm openly skeptical of this particular interview.
I'm not particularly skeptical of the idea that Mateen was a repressed closeted gay man, and that it at least partially motivated his choice of target his decision to go on a shooting spree. He's clearly a terrorist, and he's clearly a Muslim, so if that's what it takes for this to be "Islamic terrorism" then have at it. His likely self-hating gayness has to make you at least somewhat consider that "pledging allegiance to ISIS" may have been a cover though, doesn't it?
Or, more likely, it's both - radical Islamic propaganda combined with self-loathing because of his sexuality mixed together to motivate this attack.
it's almost as though sometimes there are multiple factors driving an individual's behavior
Crazy talk!
With that said, I don't know if I would call this terrorism, but to be fair that word has become so muddled, I think many have their own idea on what "terrorism" means. To me, it would be terrorism if he was doing it to support ISIS, but everything suggests he was frustrated BECAUSE of his religion. So why would he support it? Why would he want more people stuck in his position by spreading ISIS ideals? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If this really was a release of frustration with ISIS as a cover, then that definitely isn't terrorism to me. idk. I am iffy on it, and as we get more actual facts I could easily be swayed one way or another.
There's no contradiction here, if he hates his religion, he could hardly do better than to stir the pot against it, in this hypothesis, him taking the mantle of a ISIS supporter furthers his own goal of damaging the religion that repressed him by turning more public sentiment against it; or forcing the moderates to be more accepting of LGBT people as a response to that backlash.So why would he support it?
The only thing we have suggesting the guy was gay is hearsay and some very circumstantial evidence. Until something more concrete comes out, like txts or emails from the man himself, I'm content to take him at his word when he said he was acting on behalf of ISIS, even though not "officially" connected. ISIS routinely throws gays from rooftops - are we supposed to believe they're doing it in part because they're repressed? It's a ludicrous notion, and disgusting wishful thinking that distracts people from the obvious reality. His actions were caused by his belief in Islam, until proven otherwise.
In that scenario I'd still classify it as Islamic Terrorism because religion was still the primary motivation, just not in the direction we're accustomed to.
Beyond that it mostly becomes a philosophical argument about at what point someone pretending to be a thing actually becomes that thing.
No, his actions were not "caused by his belief in Islam until proven otherwise." Saying something doesn't make it so, and why is your hypothesis the one that is assumed to be true until proven otherwise? And furthermore if you think that the repressive attitudes toward homosexuality in large swaths of the country are utterly irrelevant here, I have a bridge to sell you. Christianity has as much to do with this as Islam. Gay marriage may be legal but that has only made attitudes worse in some areas, especially in the deep south - so much resentment. We have multiple accounts of him attending Pulse for years and attempting to hook up with other guys and we have multiple accounts of very erratic behavior bordering on psychosis. To ignore those factors in lieu of "nah he definitely did it because Islam" is ignorant at best and anti-Muslim rhetoric at worst. yes, his faith played a role in the shooting - but it was one role among many.
If I didn't know better I'd say you're bordering on dangerously anti-Muslim prejudicial territory with your attitude here. As though you believe that Islam itself is the reason he killed those gays. But that can't possibly be correct - we live in a day and age when people are intelligent enough to forego stereotyping and judging billions of people based on which God they follow. So I must be wrong.
Wittgenstein would be proud