Was Omar Mateen? Or is one quickly being classed as a jihadist because he's a muslim and the other not bcos he's not a muslim? Both were doing or going to do the exact same thing. What I'm getting at is, do we consider every nutjob who carries out a mass killing as a jihadist simply bcos he's a muslim? Do we soundbite the word "terrorism" based on whether someone has a religion. Have you read the case report on that guy who went mental in the London Underground?
ffs, he said just before the slaughter and the shoot out with the police that he was killing in the name of his god and that he was dedicating his actions to Isis and the caliphate. I'd say based on that he was a lone jihadist, also very strong evidence of that according to the FBI. I'd say anyone who commits murder/mass murder in the name of islam or isis is as much of a lunatic as one of the others to have slaughtered high school students etc, but all I'll say to finish with because we don't agree is that jihadism and radicalism results in mass murder and is a form of terrorism as opposed to ****s who decide to kill based on their own gripe, chip on the shoulder, kink or whatever and there will be many more like the Pulse Nightclub from others that hate in the name and form of their warped perception of Islam.
So if someone who's mentally ill says he's going to kill people in the name of Islam or ISIS that makes him a jihadist It doesn't occur to you that someone who's mentally ill might just be crazy enough to affiliate himself to the one thing he can associate with - in this case his religion. Surely you realise a jihadist is someone who's driven by extremist religious beliefs. A jihadist is not someone who's mental illness drives him to extreme actions and decides to associate it to a religious belief or cause. It's the fact that you're failing to understand the difference is where we disagree. He's mentally ill mate, if Omar wasn't a muslim, he'd have found another cause to pin his brutal attack on. If he wasn't a muslim, he'd be James Howell, that's the point. They both have one thing in common, their root cause is their mental illness. I asked the question if you read up on the case about the nutter who went mental in the London Underground? Another nutjob who had a persecution complex. He had a history of mental illness - his psychosis involved the belief that he was being persecuted for being a Muslim, and stalked by MI5 and MI6. If he wasn't a muslim, he'd still have knifed that bloke in Leytonstone, but he'd have been talking about aliens or lizards being after him instead. That's why he's in Broadmoor secure psychiatric hospital and why Security Services have said we have to understand that an act of violence by a mentally ill person is not necessarily driven by religious ideology, but that the mental illness can be taken advantage of by those willing to manipulate it. Make no mistake about it, radical religious extremists are very sane, acutely so, despite their actions.
Islamic terrorism is very real trebs and its the likes of you and me that get blown to pieces in the name of their version of religion. Putting all mass murderers under one heading is a big mistake in this day and age. A "jihadist" from a couple miles down the road from me was caught in an FBI sting last year trying to purchase ricin, enough to kill thousands in confined spaces, he wasn't mentally I'll, he is just pure evil and a terrorist from the same jihadi stable as Mateen.
I don't disagree with most of that (except saying they're the same as Mateen). There are muslim terrorists no doubt about it. Ideology and politics mixed together for a violent cause where everyone is fair game.
Does anyone know the specific mental illness he suffered from? The Yanks find it all too easy to label all mass shooters in this general way as it deflects from the gun issue. Most Mental Illnesses do not lead to the harm of others but much more likely to self harm. It would also add weight if not, to the jihadist question. If he's schizophrenic and hearing God in his head any claims of association he makes can be viewed with scepticism no matter how much his actions might please the group he claims affiliation to....unless of course that group took direct advantage of his illness through contact. If he's had a breakdown due to conflicting emotions between his sexuality and environmental factors such as the expressed views of his father when growing up that are exacerbated by online propaganda during the breakdown...again this is different to and more complicated than just plain old indoctrination... Is he no matter what the illness the type that Isis wanted to attract when they called for lone wolf attacks? Absolutely. As is there method of online propaganda...it's to target the vulnerable and disassociated. Security forces have to defend the same no matter what but there's a distinct difference between this and the organised terrorist cells in France and Belgium.
It has now been reported, by multiple sources, that Omar Mateen was himself gay. He frequently visited the same club that he committed the massacre in, and he attempted to initiate dates on a famous gay-dating app. Additionally, he was born and raised in America. His wife, father and community have all claimed that he was not religious in the slightest. Multiple eyewitness reports indicate that he would get drunk at the very club he committed the massacre in, and would have to be kicked out because of his unruly behavior. Colleagues and acquaintances have mentioned that he was a loner, a social introvert, and prone to make violent statements and threats against other people. His wife left him because he beat her and was physically abusive. Yet, the media continues to ask questions about 'radical Islam' and about Islam's stance on homosexuality. He wasn't a 'radical Muslim'. He was a mentally deranged psychopathic American closet homosexual who was battling with his sexual identity. Instead of concentrating on his mental issues, and on the easy gun laws that our country is notorious for, politicians and media pundits wish to cast all of that aside, and choose the easier target of questioning his faith, and of Islam's stance on sexual issues. Not written by me, read this somewhere else.
Sorry Zingy, it's first time I've heard of this. If you've got stats about domestic violence and a certain percentage of them being muslim - let us know. I know maybe a dozen or so muslim men, going by the stories they tell me, if anything their wives are more likely to beat them up! They're scared of upsetting them
Everyone has wife beaters. Let's not worry about wife beaters here. This chump in the words of Michael McIntyre was a ball tickler... couldn't handle the shame and made up **** about getting orders from isis as he sat there surveying the results of his rage. Assault rifles.... **** sake. Seems to me we should not be hearing much more mouth from trump on this one... talk about total fail. If he gets more support after this you know amurika is ****ed.
I played 5 a side with a guy who turned out to be a wife beater. The current time was nice as pie and quiet but he knocked his missus about... so there's wanders everywhere.
Addendum to this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-is-not-about-owen-jones-despite-what-his-ha/ So now JHB, basically Katie Hopkins with an A level, is taking the martyr stance: stop being the victim or I'll be the bigger victim. Completely misses the point though that anyone watching could see: despite trying to make it all about Jones' hissy fit, he is right in that you and Longhurst spent ten minutes trying to turn what was a bleedin' obvious slaughter of gay people into the sexuality of those being irrelevant, as in what happened in Paris. Just a tad like saying the Holocaust was not an attack on Jews, but more a general thing about people with religion. Now I wonder, on Britain's equivalent to Fox News, why there'd be such a determination to turn an anti-gay attack into a an anti-muslim attack whilst still trying to keep Wayne and Waynetta and Alf Garnett onside? One would think there was an important election type thing coming up soon it was important to have a menace at the gate that we need to vote out. Hmmm.
Sorry, I think you misinterpreted or I worded it in a bad way. I was just saying this in relation to the previous comments and news stories linking his violent past and the homophobia to his religion...which is why I also said the same could be said about christians and basically all humans...i.e. religion is irrelevant to what sort of person he was like. I know a few people (even in my own family) who have suffered domestic abuse at the hands of maybe christians or non religious people. This guy was a nut job, simple as that. Wife beater or no wife beater. Muslim or no muslim.
