More on Omar Mateen

Erik Sieven writes:

It might be right to say that the Orlando attack was no Islamist attack. But I don´t buy into the argument, that it can´t be so because Maheen supported different groups like Hezbollah and IS which fight each other.

For example when a Russian with a swastika tattoo yells “Heil Hitler” and “Russia first” and attacks a foreigner in Russia, do you say “no he can´t be a Nazi because he both supports Russian nationalism and Nazis, and those were enemies”. No, of course you say he is Nazi, a dumb one on top, because Nazis hated Russia (well there aren’t really non-dumb Nazis).

Maheen might have been a Islamist, and only because he is too dumb to at least tell apart different Islamist groups he says he supports does´t change anything.

He wasn’t an Islamist. He was barely even a Muslim, and everyone says he was not a practicing Muslim anyway.

Look, global jihadists hate homosexuals and feel that they need to be killed. When you say that Mateen was a global jihadist, then you say that he believed that homosexuals were so evil that they needed to be killed. But this is not what he believed. Why? Because Mr. Mateen was quite gay himself!

Mateen also liked to drink. He spent most of his time in nightclubs and gay bars. That’s not what a global jihadist does. Global jihadists think drinking is a serious crime and think that nightclubs and bars, especially gay bars, ought to be attacked. Or at least those in Muslim countries should be attacked. Now if you say Mateen was a global jihadist, then you say that he attacked this place because it was a nightclub that served alcohol and he believed that those things are evil. But that’s not what he believed at all. Mateen loved to drink and he spent most of his time in nightclubs and bars.

The idea that this boozing, barhopping gay man was some sort of an Islamist is madness. He was not an Islamist. He was barely even a Muslim. That is, he was a Muslim in name only, as secular as they come.

I would say that this was gay on gay crime. Or maybe an extreme case of gay panic on Mateen’s part. I think he was just another mass shooter like James Holmes or Cho.

5 Comments

Filed under Crime, Florida, Homosexuality, Islam, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, Sex, South, USA

5 responses to “More on Omar Mateen

  1. Halal Butcher of Lhasa

    Bob,
    I think you’ve the wrong impression jihadists are puritans. No,they aren’t. As I said(agreed upon by you),Sunni Islam is Arab power under the veneer of a religion. Its well known many islamists make merry,be it alcohol drinking,sodomy,bestiality…. just like non-muslims.The Arab world is fucked up(by the west,by themselves and by the west upon their own invitation), so to fight back, both physically and psychologically, they invoke the name of Islam.
    http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/137353/sodomy-sake-islam-raymond-ibrahim
    Just like the Crusader Templar knights weren’t exactly righteous and they had also been accused of sodomy, the accusation that precipitated in their purge by the Vatican.
    http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/the-sad-history-of-the-knights-templar

    • I dunno, global jihadists take the position that drinking should be punished, and homosexuality is punished by the death penalty. This is enforced in the Nusra and ISIS areas that this boozing, butt-fucking so-called Islamist supported. No supporter of ISIS or Nusra would ever hang out in nightclubs, drink heavily or engage in lots of gay sex.

      Supporting Hezbollah is interesting, but supporters of Hezbollah do not believe in global jihad and kill the infidels. They reject that message entirely, and Hezbollah supporters never go on infidel-killing jihads. It’s not done. There are actually many Christian villages in the Hezbollah area of South Lebanon and Hezbollah lets them do whatever they want. You can walk into a bar in the Hezbollah controlled areas of South Lebanon and order a beer, no problem.

      • Halal Butcher of Lhasa

        Bob,
        2 days ago,I tried to post something on Islamic Reform but could get it uploaded, I post here again:
        …………………………………………
        (The followings were posted at another site sometime ago)
        Bismillah irrahman irrahim.Does islam need reform? Let’s examine 2 ‘categories’ of reform:
        –Traditional reforms with historical examples
        –‘Racialised’ reform
        ……..
        Lets take a look at all the traditional ‘reforms’,tagged or not:
        Type I
        The Protestant Reformation
        Type II
        Christianity as reformed judaism
        Buddhism as reformed Hinduism
        Type III
        Reformed sect of Judaism(started by Moses Mendelsohn)
        Type IV
        The glacial change of the RC church to the present.

        Type I is not exactly a reform.It’s a reaction against a centralized feudal theocracy.Protestants all tell you it’s was restoration to the scriptural origin of the faith.

        Type II is risky(particularly if engineered from outside). Involved formation of new relgions. However if one view it in the scope of 1000s of years, it’s the way to go. Religions keep coming and going.

        Type III was practically secularization. Not the original intent of Moses Mendelsohn(grand father of the composer) who was an orthodox jew.

        Type IV was a slow reformation without the tag

        The world of (arab sunni) islam in many ways is similar to medieval Europe with no separation of state and relgion, powerful clergy and religious wars but it’s senseless to initiate ‘fast’ ‘reform’ if one wants to avoid destruction like the 30 yrs war.
        (Lo and Behold, the Holy Prophet is infallible so ‘secularisation’ like banning polygamy is blasphemous.)

        So the only sensible way is Type IV route. However it’s too slow for the present fast changing world
        ……………………………………………
        Now the ‘racialized’ Reform
        What are ‘Races’? Some say it has to do with genetics while some say it’s ‘social construct’; however to the average person, ‘race’ is perception and above all,VISUAL IMPACT. The burqa, mass prayers outside mosques, halal label/signs,arabic script, the skin tones of the average muslims.., have already conveyed a racial identity to the muslim in my opinion
        Now should they lobby to be recognized as a separate race and for whose sake?
        Pros:
        a. If the muslims are a separate race like the jews, the less religious muslims can comfortably become secular or even agnostic and atheist, just like Freud and Marx are still considered jewish by board segments of jewry
        b. Racial discrimination still carry a more negative tag than other form of prejudice
        c. Now religious struggle can now hoist the banner of national liberation against foreign aggression. Boko Haram/IS boys are just freedom fighters against foreign fascism.
        d. So muslims can tell the kufirs, look, we are a 1.5 billion+ race, DON’T FCUK WITH US.
        Cons: I can’t name any except it might heighten muslims vs kufirs tension immediately
        Other possibilities:
        a)The Shiites might also declare themselves a race different from that of sunnis.
        b) Some muslim scientists could declare their finds that Koran recital can trigger mutation or racial change.
        c)Under the banner of ‘We muslims aren’t racist’ and racial harmony:
        i) The secular muslims can now seek peace with kufirs chanting M.L.King fashion:”I’ve a dream…” or “I’ve been to the Al-Aqsa(Temple Mount) top..”
        ii) Traditionally muslim women don’t marry non-muslim men, now under the new racial setting they could; inter-racial marriage no big deal, right?
        d)The homo muslims who fight for gay rights under the banner of ‘Gay Jihad’ can dilute the religious controversy and might even give jihad a good name, at least to the liberals
        No pun intended,there really is a number of serious sites on ‘gay jihad’: http://www.well.com/user/queerjhd/

  2. Erik Sieven

    nice to get cited in a blog post:-)
    I also think that Maheen was no real Islamist. However the question remains whether he was somehow inspired by recent IS attacks. When he hated gays, or maybe gays from Puero Rico why didn´t he just attack one single gay person, e.g. the man from Puerto Rico he was angry about in the first place? Or why didn´t he just swallow his anger like 99% of humanity do it day after day?
    No it had to be such a big thing, with hostages, shooting the police etc. etc.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s