Tags
2016 election, Donald Trump, gun control, Hillary Clinton, homeland security, homophobia, Im-Politic, Islamic terrorism, LGBT, Muslims, Obama, Orlando, Orlando attacks, radical Islam, terrorism
We’re still learning about many of the specifics surrounding the horrific Orlando shootings early this morning, but some facts are now clear, and warrant some preliminary thoughts and observations.
First, we now have confirmation from the FBI of a link between killer Omar Mateen and Islamic terrorism. Until a press conference held in Orlando by Florida state and local officials and Bureau agents, the media had been filled with reports – some claiming to be from eyewitnesses – that Mateen had shouted “Allahu Akbar,” a phrase often heard during attacks and on other occasions from ISIS and other Islamic terrorists and extremists. Other connections were mentioned in the press as well.
But these accounts were simply reports – and especially in the immediate aftermath of an event, reports can be completely inaccurate or misleading. Even ISIS’ claim of responsibility for this atrocity isn’t necessarily definitive proof of a radical Islam angle. Such announcements can be made simply for propaganda purposes.
At the press conference, though, at a little after 3:15 in the afternoon local time, FBI agent Ron Hopper stated that during his call to 9-11 before the attack, Mateen made comments that were “general to the Islamic State.”
Second, it’s now a little after 4 PM, EST, and there’s been nothing from President Obama or the White House on this now unmistakable Islamic terrorist connection. Yet just before 2 in the afternoon, Mr. Obama felt comfortable blaming inadequate gun control in part for the shooting. Based on what was known at the time, I don’t blame him for not rushing to judgment on ISIS et al. But in my view, he does deserve blame for seizing on the opportunity to advance a political view that is anything but obviously central to this incident.
He also deserves blame for waiting so long to go back before the nation and discussing the Islam issue – specially Orlando’s implications for his policy of open-arms welcomes for Middle East refugees, and for his determination (expressed most recently last week) to vilify Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s insistence that Islam and its adherents pose special problems for homeland security that require special approaches.
Third, ever since Trump became the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, it’s been clear to me that his rise to the presidency could be little more than one major domestic or Europe terrorist attack away. Now we have the attack. It will be fascinating to see what the polls tell us about its effect on his candidacy. (Keeping in mind of course how flawed they remain as measures of public opinion.)
Similarly, his likely Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, has enthusiastically heaped Obama-like scorn on Trump’s emphasis on the extremist Muslim threat to homeland security. Today, she’s already beaten the president to the punch in linking the Orlando attack to “international terror groups.” But her failure to refer to Islam signals her continuing unwillingness to acknowledge its prominence in global terrorism and therefore a homeland security issue – now more than ever at least partly for fear of seeming to vindicate Trump.
Fourth, it’s a tragic fact of history that shocking violence against persecuted groups has often been needed to turn public opinion significantly towards greater tolerance. The Holocaust, for example, greatly weakened (but did not end) anti-Semitism around the world. Violence against black Americans in the Deep South during the 1960s powerfully advanced the cause of civil rights. We can only hope that the Orlando shootings help rid the United States, and the rest of the world, of homophobia. For denying or even downplaying this attack’s nature as an assault on gays and the broader LGBT community is as unacceptable as denying or downplaying the attack as an act of Islamic terrorism. And that goes for Donald Trump, too.
RealityChek 
Just saw this.
Apparently Mateen went to a gun store where he tried to buy body armor; he was refused. He then got on his phone and talked with someone (in a foreign language). He turned back to the gun store staff and wanted to buy a lot of ammo. Again, refused.
The gun store then called the FBI. (FBI refusing a lead on someone acting very suspicious? Sound familiar *cough cough Florida high school shooting cough cough*?)
And that call, as reported by the gun store personnel, sounds awfully suspicious too.
Alan,
The one thing I agree with you on here is that, ever since he successfully exploited the Paris nightclub massacre last year at just the time when his fellow Republican candidates were beginning to make some headway with their criticisms of him, and remained on top of the polls ever since, I thought Trump could ride the fear factor a long way. But it appears the attack in Orlando was that of a(nother) “self-radicalized” loner — this time acting out of self-loathing for possibly being gay himself — who only “pledged” to ISIS (while also previously expressing contradictory supports for their mortal enemies in al Nusra and Hezbollah) when in the act of the actual attack (!). Such a declaration of belief has about as much presumption of commitment and of validity as one of Trump’s own randomly-issued, unthinking, ignorant, id-fueled tweets he indulgently tosses out about this or that whenever it strikes his fancy. It is disgraceful but expected to see his terminal-case enablers in the (former) Republican Party hierarchy piling on the Muslim angle because, well, that’s what they do — and didn’t Trump insinuate AGAIN yesterday that our president “is one?”. Mateen himself could not have been prevented from “immigrating” under Trump’s proposed Muslim ban as that would have meant pre-emptorily severing his birthplace in Queens from the rest of the U.S. And, as he obtained his guns legally, it seems that the ONLY action that could have reasonably been expected to have been able to prevent this atrocity was just such a ban on the sale of military-issue weapons that President Obama and Hillary Clinton have long advocated and which is long overdue in our presumably civilized, modern country.
Myles, First, I hope all’s been well, and second, thanks for taking the time to write.
I do think, however, that your comments overlook much of what is known about homegrown terrorism. And you describe various recent terrorism-related developments in terms that I find baffling.
For example, you seem to doubt that there is a “Muslim angle” in (any?) homegrown terrorist attacks (over what time-frame I’m not certain); that the Republican “pile on” regarding this issue is unjustified; and that (similar to President Obama’s views) Mateen’s connection with Islamic extremism was last-minute, and therefore incidental to his actions.
The first proposition seems to overlook the San Bernardino shootings, the 2015 Chattanooga and 2014 Fort Hood and Little Rock military-related attacks, the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, and many other incidents. Have there been acts of domestic terrorism not related to Islamic extremism? Of course. But the latter fact by no means erases the former.
As for Trump’s “exploitation” of the 2015 Paris attacks – isn’t it relevant that the San Bernardino shootings took place just over two weeks later? That sounds like accusing economists who warned about the housing bubble of “exploiting” the shortly ensuing financial crisis.
As for Mateen himself, it can’t possibly be simple coincidence that he pledged allegiance to ISIS (and to similar groups), just as it can’t possibly be important that he identified with terrorist groups that are at each other’s throats (for reasons completely unrelated to their overriding hostility to the United States). In addition, although we still have a great deal to learn about Mateen, it’s already being reported that he shouted condemnations of the American war in Afghanistan during the Pulse attack; that he was well acquainted with a U.S.-born suicide bomber who fought with Al Nusra in Syria; and that he was investigating other targets before the nightclub attack on Pulse. Moreover, he grew up in a household headed by a supporter of the Taliban.
Nor would the emerging gay self-loathing issue offset these links to Islam, as it’s easy to see how its harsh view of homosexuality would feed the self-loathing and turn it violent.
I agree that the Muslim ban would not have stopped Mateen – or the San Bernardino couple, or other other U.S.-born perpetrators of the above attacks. But two “Muslim-focused” initiatives can greatly reduce the number of future repeats. The first involves more extensive, and ongoing surveillance of the domestic Muslim community. Yes, the vast majority are law-abiding Americans. But as my post noted, even President Obama has complained about inadequate pushback against violent extremism by the world’s Muslim communities – including, presumably, America’s Muslims. (He certainly didn’t exempt them.) Isn’t it reasonable to suppose that the pushback is inadequate because there’s substantial overlap between the extreme variants of Islam and the faith’s mainstream (which includes the Wahhabi fundamentalism that rules Saudi Arabia and strongly influences much of the Sunni world)?
The second involves much more restrictive policies regarding immigration from Muslim-majority countries, and a suspension of Middle East refugee admissions. For if the domestic community is problematic, then there’s no justification for enlarging it. The refugee admissions are especially unacceptable, given that adequate vetting procedures for migrants from war-torn or failed states simply isn’t possible, and given that (as reported in the Washington Post in April) some of the Brussels and Paris attackers had successfully impersonated refugees.
I also agree that further gun control measures are needed. But there’s little reason to believe that they will matter much in the anti-terrorism fight. After all, both France and Belgium restrict gun ownership very tightly. These policies did nothing to prevent the Charlie Hebdo attack, the larger Paris attacks last November, or the Brussels attacks this past April. Moreover, these European incidents demonstrate that bombs can be as destructive as semi-automatic weapons. So did the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995. And bombs were the weapon of choice for the World Trade Center attack of 1993 – also carried out by Islamic extremists.
thank u for this Alan ! your brother, Steven Tonelson and his partner Shaun Young, out here in Los Angeles on L. A. Gay Pride 2016, Sunday evening June 12th.
My pleasure of course. The least I could do.
the LGBT community doesn’t want tolerance, they want full throat-ed acceptance and affirmation of their lifestyle … they already have tolerance … nice try though …
Regarding this point, there’s no question that LGBTs have made great legal progress in recent years. But you seem to be overlooking the disproportionate number of hate crimes directed at LGBTs (according to the FBI), the various forms of legal discrimination they do face (on top of those raised by the admittedly bizarre bathrooms issue), and the proliferation of new measures along these lines at the state and local level. I suspect that, if the shoe were on the other foot, you’d be less satisfied with the advance of tolerance that clearly has been achieved.