Tuesday, June 21, 2016

Orlando shooter transcripts released

The man's a mystery.  Just what could have motivated him is still sending our best and brightest to the cubicles, trying to figure out why he did what he did.   I haven't been able to find the full and complete transcript yet.  So far, I've heard two things that, if true, would be interesting.  First, I've heard that his references to Allah were still changed to 'God'.  On one level, that might not mean a thing.  But on another, it could mean quite a bit.

The second is that at no point in all of his calling did he reference gays, the gay community, homosexuality, or anything else.  What he seemed to reference was his devotion to Islam, ISIS, and shooting in retaliation for America's actions in Iraq and Syria.  If true, that would be interesting because, with what little I've been able to piece together since so much of our time is spent trying to avoid linking Islamic terrorists with Islam, there seems to be a trend.

At least a few of the more notorious attacks by individuals who were coincidentally Muslim involved areas and communities with which they were known, if not well known.  The Fort Hood shooter, the San Bernardino terrorists, the man who beheaded a coworker, and apparently this.  If the stories hold true, it seems that he frequented this bar for some years, and was known by others to be a semi-regular.  If that holds up, then it keeps with other cases, where the attackers didn't just go to some random location, but actually targeted places where they were known, and even liked.

We could look into that in more detail of course.  But right now, the Left is trying desperately to maintain the anti-Christian West narrative, so looking at little things like what could prevent future attacks has to take a back seat.


  1. You'd think that if one of Mateen's primary motivations to kill and injure almost 100 people was as a "self-hating" homosexual, as many now seem to imply, that he would at least have directly mentioned homosexuality or homosexuals in his phone rantings during the attack and internet postings prior to the attack. He didn't do it with his 911 contact or contacts with the police during the attack. Has anyone looked in detail at his social postings and reported on it? Does he mention hating homosexuals in his any of his social postings, especially recently? If there is evidence that he has, then why did he not mention it on the day of the attack in his contact with 911 and the police? Am I missing something?

    The need of some to push the dominant narrative, absent the presence of facts to back it up, is powerful in this culture. As soon as it was discovered that Mateen may have had some sort of homosexual inclination, many began to immediately speculate on the "self-hating" meme.

    Mateen said he was acting in the name of ISIS. Numerous times. I didn't hear or read any mention of homosexuality. And yet many forward this idea as if it has some basis, even serves as the primary basis, in actual fact. But does it? I'm not hearing it or seeing it.

  2. As I said, the man's a mystery. Actually, in all seriousness, this is a very bad time. When people are willing to accept that squares are round, shout out those who disagree, and begin to ponder eliminating the right to challenge the idea of round squares, I have a feeling we've passed some point of no return. Not one that will return easily that is. It's worth noting that this narrative that has been pushed, that it's American Conservative bigotry that is the real problem, shows where the bigotry actually is and just who the dominant media analysts truly hate (or at least don't fear).

  3. The fact that an American Bishop, I think it is in Tampa, would seemingly first mention the culpability of Christianity, as a part of the hate-and-bigotry-is-responsible meme, when Mateen was a Muslim and far more likely to get his life philosophy from Islam, rather than from Christianity, indicates that this issue extends within the Church herself. His distorted views didn't come from Christianity, so why make it the basis of the critique?

    Under normal circumstances, I would say that there has to be, and always seems to have been, a self-correction that occurs when a culture goes too far in one direction. But, and I hate to say this, my exposure to most millenials is that they are simply not open to any other alternate point of view. They seem incapable of it. Many have been raised and exposed to such a one-diminsional view of life that the notion of other points of view as reasonable isn't even possible for them. If you disagree with them, it must be motivated by "hate."

    As I am a member of the middle generation between the WWII generation and the millenials, has there ever been more distance across three generations in a society than we are seeing in America today? There must be a way out of this, but, right now, I don't see it.

  4. If it was only that Bishop, I think it wouldn't be so bad. But I've seen a string of stories about various Catholic Churches and leaders reaching out to the LGBTQ community in light of this 'hate' and 'intolerance' in our 'culture of violence'. I'm not sure, but this may be the most any civilization has ever tried to avoid calling an enemy an enemy. And it does have something to do with the generations post-WWII. A level of refusal to think or conceded we might be wrong. That everyone else is wrong, of course. But me? Hardly. I think many today start with the premise that obviously I'm right, and merely work backwards to find all the evidence that validates that idea.


Let me know your thoughts