Category Archives: Near Easterners
Israelis Have Managed to Drive Hundreds of Millions of Their Nearest Neighbors to Near Homicidal Hatred of Them
Barack Thatcher: Robert, I am not criticizing the Palestinians.
I’m just saying logically, assuming the Jews aren’t going anywhere could protect them by taking them out of the range of Israeli missiles; taking them into the Gulf nations or wherever.
The problem is that it’s about hatred of the Jews (whether right or wrong), not a pragmatic defense of the Jews.
The Jews aren’t going anywhere.
I was just saying why not actually look for a pragmatic solution for this instead of idealistically holding out and waiting to right the wrongs of 40 years ago?
It was 70 years ago.
Israel does not generally shoot missiles or even drop bombs on Palestinian areas in the Gaza and West Bank. Sometimes they bomb some Hamas training camp in response to a rocket attack. The rocket attacks these days are never even done by Hamas. They are done by more radical groups, and Hamas does not approve of shooting rockets at Israel. But Israel says its Hamas’ fault whenever some nignog shoots a rocket!
When the battles in Syria carry over into the Golan via stray bullets, mortars or whatever, the Israelis will shell or bomb the Syrian Army in response! Israel says it is the Syrian government’s fault whenever the shooting war accidentally carries over to Gaza. Syria just has to sit there and let Israel shoot missiles and drop bombs on it all the time because if they shoot one bullet in response, Israel says they will level Syria. They bomb Lebanon all the time too, and they constantly fly jets over Lebanon to harass the Lebanese. Lebanon cannot do anything about it because if they shoot one bullet, Israel says they will turn Lebanon into Carthage. Lebanese hate Israel so much that to this day, Israel and Lebanon are still officially at war. No peace treaty or armistice was ever signed and of course Lebanon has no relations with Israel at all.
The Israelis are scum. I have nothing but the most sheer utmost hate for them. I wish they would just disappear of the planet. Israel is one of the most evil nations on Earth. I cheer whenever some Arab kills some of them. They deserve it.
They’re bullies. They’re not victims at all. They are the biggest bullies in the whole planet, and they scream all the time that they are the biggest victims on the planet. Bullies always do this. Bullies always say they are victims and they blame the person they are bullying, claiming that the victim attacked the bully first when that never happens. The bully attacks the victim, and then when the victim fights back, the bully screams, “You are an evil aggressor maniac attacking poor peaceful me for no reason.”
And then they retaliate against the victim even more because it drives bullies insane with hate whenever their victims start fighting back. I am not sure why that is, but maybe they see it as a “slave rebellion” of some sort. Look at how harsh slave rebellions (rebellions of the victims) were put down by slaveholders (the bullies). Israel follows the exact same bully-victim paradigm that plays out in the day to day world among individuals.
Now I could pretty much care less about Jews in the Diaspora because to me they’re not the problem. Those scumbags squatting in Palestine are the problem. Sure some Diaspora Jews strongly support Israel, but most secular American Jews can hardly care less about the place. I have known many Jews and I had a Jewish girlfriend for many years. She and a number of other Jews acted like Israel was a huge headache that they wished would go away. They also said that Israel was full of Orthodox Jews, and you have no idea how many hate secular Jews have for those Ultra-Orthodox ones. They hate them! I do not know if the feeling is mutual. Most people are not aware of this intra-Jewish strife.
So the Jews who are the issue are the ones over in Palestine. These ones here are not squatting in Palestine, so I have no issues with them. I also do not really care about many of the criticisms of Diaspora Jews laid out by anti-Semites. The main arguments of the antisemites seem to rightwing or even reactionary in nature. A lot of antisemitism is coming from White racism or White Supremacism/White Nationalism.
I could care less what Jews think of White Gentiles and I doubt if Jews are the enemies of the Whites. Frankly, I would rather be ruled by the Jewish rich than by the US Gentile rich. See that Trump Administration? That’s what the Gentile rich act like in this country. The Jewish rich are not exactly wonderful people and the New York Times Jews make me ill, but I would much rather be ruled by Mr. Sulzberger than Mr.Trump. For an elite group, rich Jews are markedly leftwing. In fact, rich Jews may be one of the most progressive groups of rich elites on Earth.
The Israelis are the worst bullies on Earth. Everyone in the region absolutely hates them. All the Sunnis factions and all the Shia factions hate them, and some of those Shia factions are barely even Muslims. Hell, even the Druze hate them! The Druze in Syria, the Golan and Lebanon despise Israel.
A lot of Middle Eastern Christians are not wild about Islam, but a lot of them hate Israel too. This idiot Ted Cruz gave a speech to the Christian Arab Association of America. Perhaps he said something about Muslims. Those Christians might not be real wild about Muslims but they do not usually hate them as much as your average Trumpster Republican. I have known Christian Arabs from Palestine, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Iran. Most of them did not have much to say against Muslims, but they all (except for some Lebanese Maronites) hated Israel in a huge way.
Cruz made some mention of Israel saying something like our great friends in Israel, and the whole place turned into a mob scene. They stood up and booed him for whole minutes, and they nearly chased him off the stage to where he would have had to end the speech prematurely. Cruz had ignorantly thought that since Arab Christians were not wild about Muslims that they must like Jews like most US evangelicals, but he was sorely mistaken.
My local store got taken over by Syrian Christians and they hate Israel. I mean they hate hate hate hate hate hate hate them. They don’t say anything bad about Muslims and in fact they work alongside Yemeni Muslims right now. And those are Christians! If the Christians hate Israel that much, can you imagine how much Muslims must hate them. There are quite a few Commie atheist Arabs, especially Palestinians, Iraqis and Lebanese. I used to know some of them. They probably hate Israel more than anyone!Most of them were Arab nationalists and Arab nationalists hate Israel as much as the Islamists. I used to know an Iranian Assyrian Christian woman. In fact, I dated her for a bit. She basically hated Muslims for good reason. But she hated Israel just as much! She hated Israel. And she didn’t like Jews too much either. She was a bit of an antisemite. I knew a Syrian Christian once who was a wild, raving antisemite. I mean he sounded like a Nazi.
Even non-Arab Muslims hate Israel. I have heard that Turks really despise them and for some reason, I have heard that a lot of Greeks hate Israel too, maybe because there are Greek Orthodox Christians over there. Inside Israel itself, even the Arab Christians do not like Israel. The Greek Orthodox Priest of Jerusalem named Father Hanna used to praise Hamas and cheer for suicide bombings. I knew a Pakistani woman whose hatred of Israel was off the charts and he was an extreme antisemite to boot.
No Iranians like Israel. Even the secular Iranian nationalists who despise Arabs and Islam and claim to be Zoroastrians if they are religious at all have an extreme hatred of Israel. And a lot of them don’t like Jews either – the ones I knew were serious antisemites. I knew an Moroccan Muslim woman, relatively secular, who was always posting stuff about the Palestinians.
I knew an Egyptian Muslim man who told me that there would have to be another war to take out Israel once and for all. During the Arab Spring, at one point a huge mob attacked the Israeli Embassy in Cairo. The Israelis were spirited out of there soon enough, but the riot went on for most of the day, and at the end, the embassy had been burnt to the ground. And I was told that many of those attacking the embassy were secular Arab Spring anti-Mubarak types, not radical Muslims at all.
Nobody likes those people! They’ve acted like such scumbags since they set up shop there that they are managed to earn the near-homicidal hatred of almost all of the hundreds of millions of neighbors for quite a few miles around.
But I think that White nationalism is such an extreme and brutal movement that even with the nicest of White nationalists, sooner or later, some really nasty racist talk is going to come out. There’s probably no way for them not to do it. It’s probably nearly a rule.
Let’s face it, the White nationalists are most racist of even all the racists. I did not know much about them when I first ran into them on the Net and I believed all their lies. They told me that they didn’t hate any non-Whites at all. Instead, they were lovers. They simply loved their own race and meant no ill will towards others. They simply wished to live with the people they loved. They told me that they were not racists at all really. Instead, they were cynical “race realists” who had reluctantly come around to basic differences between the races. They were not White Supremacists at all. They did not think Whites were superior to other races. They were careful to point out that White nationalists and White Supremacists were two different things and most White nationalists were not White Supremacists.
I soon realized that these were all lies. All White nationalists are White Supremacists. Sure not all White Supremacists are White nationalists, but nowadays a lot of them are. The longer you lurk around these White nationalist websites, the more you realize that these are exactly the same people that we used to call White Supremacists back in the day. Even on the mildest White nationalist sites like American Renaissance, there are references to folks we used to call White Supremacists, whom they see as heroes. David Duke is a hero; he was a KKK leader. There are frequent references to the 14 words. The links between the mild, polite face sites like Amren and the deeper and darker hardcore sites like Stormfront, VNN, and many of the Alt Right sites are much deeper than you think. They’re sort of all linked up together as far as I can see.
It’s not true that the only love their own race and don’t hate any non-Whites. They may well love their own race but they certainly also hate non-Whites. Not necessarily all non-Whites though, as Amren and Jared Taylor speak highly of Northeast Asians, and Taylor likes Jews and thinks Jews are White.
But they all have an extreme hatred for Blacks and a lot don’t like Hispanics much either. They don’t seem to care about Southeast Asians, South Asian Indians, or the Caucasoids of Central Asia. In fact, there was an Iranian forum at Stormfront for a while. They only dislike Turks, Arabs, etc. in that they are Muslims, otherwise they could care less about them.
Some of them are vicious Nordicists who hate all Mediterranean Whites, but that’s not the majority and it’s not even common on pro-Med Stormfront. Some of them are even sympathetic to American Indians. At any rate, they don’t have much hatred for them. They care next to nothing about Aborigines and they never talk about Polynesians, Micronesians, Melanesians or Papuans. Those people might as well not even exist.
The only people who hate Polynesians (sea niggers) and Aborigines (Lucys) are Australian White nationalists, and they are not common.
Some Canadian White nationalists hate Amerindians (prairie niggers), but there are not many White nationalists in Canada.
Latin American White nationalists don’t even hate Indians all that much, whom they regard as annoying and verbally violent at worst. As one said, “You give an Indian a six-pack and a handful of tortillas and he’s good for the night. That’s not so with Blacks.” White nationalists down south mostly hate Jews and Blacks. They also have a much more sensible view of who is White. Latin American White nationalists say that anyone who is at least 75-85% White is White in Latin America.
I do not know much about White nationalists in Europe except that they are very worried about Muslims and the one thing many of them hate more than anything else is Gypsies. This is especially true in Eastern Europe. Gypsies are seen as the “thieving niggers” of Europe.
What seems to tie all of the White nationalists together seems to be a hatred for Blacks.
After that, I would say probably a hatred of Jews. Blacks first, then Jews. They barely care about much of anyone other than that. But yeah, they’re haters all right. In fact, I had bought their line that they hated no one and I was stunned at some of the wild hateful statements they started making after a while. I almost fell out of my chair. The civil White nationalist type is mostly a front. There’s pretty much a Stormfronter behind most of those masks.
We’re not racists, we’re just race realists. This is another one of their lines. Well it’s not true. And anyway, almost all race realists are racists, and often nasty ones at that. Nonracist race realists exist, but they are not common and they seem to be swimming against a tide.
This one from six years ago is getting posted around a lot lately. Most of you have not read it.
A friend of mine went over to the Skadi Forum (basically Nordicists or Germanicists) and read an essay on Pan-Aryanism. I don’t know what sort of Pan-Aryanism they referred to, but I doubt it was the kind that I subscribe to. They were upset that the essay opposed race-mixing. Well, I’m a Pan-Aryanist, and I don’t oppose race-mixing.
Pan-Aryanism just means taking pride in your racial family. Just as the Blacks, various Asians, Amerindians, Arabs, East Indians, Hispanics, etc. take pride in their various racial families, such as they may be. Most folks you meet in the US, who are “Priders” of this sort, while often strongly ethnocentric, are not opposed to race-mixing or inter-ethnic breeding. So support for race-mixing can and does go hand in hand with ethnocentrism, even extreme ethnocentrism. In fact, that has probably been the tribal human norm for a very long time now.
The Pan-Aryanism that I subscribe to is found on the Pan-Aryanist Forum (now members-only I think). They say that all natives of Europe are White. Also that there are White Turks (35%), White Arabs and White Berbers. Also a few Whites in North India, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
They also hold that all Georgians, Armenians, the Caucasus and Iranians are White.
I just like it for their expanded definition of White. It would be like, say if you were Black, and some small group of Blacks decided that they were the only real pure Blacks. And they ruled out maybe 50% of Blacks as being some sort of inferior or mongrelized scum race. So the Pan-Africanists (the Black analogue of Pan-Aryanism) would be about uniting all of the Blacks into one Black Race and screw all the superior-inferior stuff. If you were Black, you would go along with that I am sure. In fact, if you are Black, I think you already do.
It’s all about being part of a family. In the last few years anyway, my race is my family. I simply want to extend the rather limited idea of my family to take in a lot more extended relatives. Why? Because I like having a great big family!
The other races: the NE Asians, SE Asians, Aborigines, Papuans, Oceanians, Amerindians, Africans, mestizos, mulattos, well, a lot of them are perfectly fine people. Often better than my racial family on an individual basis. But it’s the difference between friends (or lovers) and family. They can never be part of my family. They can only be friends, or at best lovers.
I expand the Net Pan-Aryanist definition thus such that most anyone who looks like they could have come from Europe is White.
All native Europeans
All Europoid Russians
All Assyrians and Kurds
All Georgians, Armenians, Azeris, Caucasus
Many Afghans (especially Pashtuns)
Some Indians (mostly NW Indians)
All of the other Caucasian or quasi-Caucasian types are non-White Caucasians. They might be part of the family, but they are sort of like 2nd or 3rd cousins, so far apart they are almost more friends than family.
As far as the real Net Pan-Aryanists, they are a bunch of assholes. Sure they are against mixing, but they allow European Whites to mix with 100’s of millions of more humans! And most of them are a bunch of Nazis too. Bastards.
I believe the 12% Asiatic figure for Anatolian Turks is correct. The Turks are mostly native Anatolians, closely related to Kurds, Armenians and the original Ashkenazim from Northern Iraq.
I work pretty closely with some Turkic academics, mostly in Turkey but also in Russia and Uzbekistan. I have also seen photos of one of these Turkish professors with his class. Suffice to say that the Turks are very much White people. I was actually shocked at how White they looked because we have this idea that Turks are somehow non-Whites. I would say that they look a lot like Ashkenazi Jews or Italians, that is, rather Mediterranean or even Near Eastern looking but not as dark or as Near Eastern as a lot of Arabs.
These is an odd Asiatic element that is there is small doses. You can’t see it much except sometimes in the eyes a bit. I have seen many photos of Turkish women in particular who just look like regular European White women. Some are blond or even red-haired. I met a Turkish woman who had blond hair and blue eyes. She told me her ancestors were Georgian Christians. I have heard that the Turkish genome now is 35% Slavic, apparently from White slaves captured during the Ottoman Era.
If Italians, Jews, Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks are White, then so are Anatolian Turks. I would say that Kurds and Iranians look more Middle Eastern, but Assyrians look very much like Turks, and it would be hard to tell a Turk from a Greek.
Turkish culture is conservative, and Turkish men strike me as very masculine, even tough or hard.
Turkish women seem very traditionally feminine, and they are also more conservative than the men. I would imagine that a Turkish woman might be quite devoted to you, and I doubt if she would cheat.
The Turkish women I have met were quite educated and often very intelligent. In fact I was shocked at how intellectual they were. Maybe that is an areal thing, but if you ever meet an Arab woman, you might be surprised at how educated, intelligent and even intellectual she is. In that part of the world – Europe, the Near East and the Middle East, intellectualism is not despised as it is in the US.
They have some traditional attitudes about men. I met a few on the Net, and some of them liked me. But a couple found out that I was not employed, and they were appalled. Their attitude was that I was not much of a man. “A man is supposed to work,” they told me.
Matt: I always assumed that the inhabitants of Anatolia were basically just Islamicized Greeks and other descendants of the indigenous inhabitants. But I was reading a history of the Byzantine empire, and apparently the Turks did at one point efficiently ethnically cleanse Anatolia of Greeks and others. This was in medieval times. We aren’t even talking about the post World War I unpleasantness. I always understood that Turks qua Turks were closely related to Mongolians, Siberians, even Native Americans, but yeah, a lot of them look totally European. So where do they think that came from? What does the genome say?
The Turkic Turks, an Asiatic people who brought their language with them from the Altai over 2,000 years, only make up a small % of the Turkish genome. The Turkish genome is only 7% made up of this Asiatic Turkic core. The Asiatic Turks brought language and religion but not much else. Apparently not many people. The natives were simply native Anatolian Christians who were Islamicized religiously and Turkified linguistically by the invading Asiatic Turks. Nevertheless, over 90% of the genome is made up of Anatolians, Greeks, Slavs and other Whites.
If you look at Turkish genes, they line up very well with Ashkenazi Jews, Kurds and Armenians, the three groups of people the Turks hate the most. It’s really one race – Turkic-Armenian-Kurdish-Ashkenazi Jewish. They’re all one people, but they speak different languages and some have different religions so the Turks hate all the rest of them.
From Global Research.
The Americans are getting more and more insane by the day over there in Syria, and it looks like the neocon dream is starting to come true. What is going on here is that the US’s pals, ISIS, Al Qaeda and all of the other groups who more more less share their same philosophy, are starting to get badly beaten on the battlefield. In particular, the situation in Aleppo looks very bad.
That is why John Kerry, Turkey,Saudi Arabia and Qatar just poured weapons into Al Qaeda’s hands and assembled 10-15,000 fighters to flood into Eastern Aleppo. Every day, more and more Al Qaeda type jihadis come in from Turkey.
Not long ago, the Saudis flooded Syria with 3,500 Al Qaeda type jihadis from Turkey. A similar large force of Al Qaeda types is in the Jordanian border where they have been moved from their training camps in Jordan. It is at these camps that US military advisors train Al Qaeda type jihadis for war on Syria.
The weapons come from Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the US. The weapons from Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are given to them by the US, whereupon they are then flooded into the Syrian battlefield. So ISIS and the Al Qaeda type groups are all using US weaponry. In addition, the CIA runs large quantities of weapons in via Turkey to its favorite jihadists. It doesn’t really matter who the CIA gives the weapons to. The weapons all end up in something that amounts to an arms bazaar inside Syria where they are distributed to any group that has the money to buy them. It is in this way that the CIA supplies Al Qaeda and ISIS with much of their weapons.
So our Al Qaeda pals are getting beaten on the battlefield by Syria, Hezbollah, Iran and Russia. The US is panicking because its Al Qaeda buddies are losing the war. If Aleppo falls to the Syrian regime, the war may be nearly over for the rebels. Nevertheless, it will probably continue on for as long as the US, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar continue to pour men and weaponry into the conflict. They can feed this thing for many years.
By The New Atlas
Global Research, August 22, 2016
The New Atlas 22 August 2016
Tensions amid Syria’s conflict has escalated with warnings by the United States that it would use force against Syrian aircraft operating over their own territory. The US claims to have aircraft operating over Syrian territory and ground forces below, mainly in and around northeastern Syria near the city of Al-Hasakah.
CNN in its article, “Top US commander warns Russia, Syria,” would report that:
In the most direct public warning to Moscow and Damascus to date, the new US commander of American troops in Iraq and Syria is vowing to defend US special operations forces in northern Syria if regime warplanes and artillery again attack in areas where troops are located.
Unlike Russian and Iranian forces operating in Syria, US forces have not been authorized by Damascus to enter Syrian territory. US operations in Syria violate Syria’s territorial integrity and constitutes as violation of international law.
And while US military and political leaders attempt to portray this most recent confrontation as a matter of US self defense, in reality it is the fulfillment of longstanding US policy papers that have called for the establishment of so-called safe havens and no-fly-zones (NFZ’s) over parts of Syria as an intermediary step toward regime change, the stated objective of the US government in Syria.
In 2012, the following year of the Syrian conflict’s beginning, a Brookings Institution paper titled, “Assessing Options for Regime Change,” would state:
An alternative is for diplomatic efforts to focus first on how to end the violence and how to gain humanitarian access, as is being done under [Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan’s] leadership. This may lead to the creation of safe-havens and humanitarian corridors, which would have to be backed by limited military power. This would, of course, fall short of U.S. goals for Syria and could preserve Asad in power. From that starting point, however, it is possible that a broad coalition with the appropriate international mandate could add further coercive action to its efforts.
Here, US policymakers are admitting that the use of “humanitarian” concerns is a cynical steppingstone toward more direct military intervention. The unfortunately reality of this strategy, as seen in Libya, is that US “humanitarian wars” end up costing a vastly larger toll in innocent human life than the alleged abuses cited to initiate the war in the first place.
This plan of using humanitarian concerns to incrementally establish a foothold in Syrian territory through safe-havens and NFZ’s would constantly evolve, be updated and revisited throughout the entire duration of the Syrian conflict.
America’s True Intentions in Syria
More recently, The Brookings Institution’s “Order From Chaos” blog published a post titled, “What to do when containing the Syrian crisis has failed.” Brookings policymakers discuss in it once again the prospects of establishing what would effectively be NFZ’s:
We must also be clever about employing various options for no-fly zones: We cannot shoot down an airplane without knowing if it’s Russian or Syrian, but we can identify those aircraft after the fact and destroy Syrian planes on the ground if they were found to have barrel-bombed a neighborhood, for example. These kinds of operations are complicated, no doubt, and especially with Russian aircraft in the area—but I think we have made a mistake in tying ourselves in knots over the issue, since there are options we can pursue.
Brookings policymakers also revisit the notion of establishing “safe-havens” claiming:
…we should push the debate about what creating safe havens really means. I don’t think we should start declaring safe havens, but rather try to help them emerge. The Kurds are making gains in Syria’s northeast, for instance, as are some forces on the southern front—so, if the United States, in cooperation with its allies, accelerates and intensifies its involvement on the ground in those areas, safe havens can essentially emerge. An important advantage of this approach is that it doesn’t require putting American credibility on the line, but does help local allies build up and reinforces successes on the ground.
Here, Brookings specifically mentions Syria’s northeast. It should be noted that none of this is being discussed by US policymakers in the context of fighting terrorist organizations like the self-titled Islamic State or listed terrorist organization Jubhat Al-Nusra. Instead, it is clearly within the context of seizing Syrian territory toward the end goal of regime change, with the Islamic State and Al-Nusra merely pretexts for US forces entering and operating within Syrian territory.
Similar attempts to create such safe-havens are in motion in Syria’s south, with British special forces now allegedly operating on the ground to incrementally “accelerate and intensify” Western involvement on the ground.
It is the literal fulfillment of the plans recently laid out by Brookings policymakers.
Displacing US Forces from the Game Board
With US-supported militants being pushed back in and around Syria’s northern city of Aleppo and prospects of Western-backed militants succeeding elsewhere throughout the country increasingly unlikely, the creation of safe-havens and NFZ’s over parts of Syria directly by Western forces remains a last but desperate option.
Displacing US and British forces on the battlefield with an expansion of forces from among Syria’s allies could finally see these last game pieces in play by the West pushed off the board entirely.
Diplomatic efforts appear to be underway with Syria’s Kurds in particular to encourage them away from what will be a self-destructive geopolitical move made only to Washington’s benefit. Providing alternatives to Western training and support for Kurds and other local forces in the northeast in a genuine fight against the Islamic State and other foreign-backed militant groups operating in Syria could also help eliminate clashes the US may use to cynically escalate the conflict into a direct confrontation with either Syria or Russia (or both).
US strategy in Syria is based on 5 year old plans that even 5 years ago were difficult if not impossible to implement, fraught with risk and even should they succeed, left a long and difficult road ahead of US ambitions in Syria and throughout the region. 5 years later, however, these difficulties and risks have only increased. That the US is still exploring this last and poorest option indicates a bankrupt foreign policy wielded by an increasingly unbalanced world power.
Careful diplomacy and expert strategic maneuvering by Syria and its allies will be required to avert Syria’s conflict from plunging deeper into tragedy, and ironically, may also help the US from tilting over further out of balance.
The New Atlas is a media platform providing geopolitical analysis and op-eds. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.
The original source of this article is The New Atlas
Copyright © The New Atlas, The New Atlas, 2016
Mr. Lindsay, an update on certain aspects of this article might just be in order, perhaps? It appears to be much more interesting from a psychological standpoint than we had originally been led on to believe.
“The teen gunman who killed nine people in a shooting rampage in Munich on Friday was a mentally troubled individual who had extensively researched spree killings and had no apparent links to ISIS, police said.”
Yes this had nothing to do with Islam. It has about as much to do with Islam as the Cho and James Holmes shootings did. This is like the Aurora shooting. Was that about Islam? Neither was this.
Also he was a Shia Iranian. Iranians are not involved in the global jihad “kill the infidels” thing. That is exclusively Sunni. At least at this moment, the Shia do not believe in aggressive jihad to conquer non-Muslim lands and make them Muslim. Also the Shia have no connection to ISIS or Al Qaeda or any of these groups carrying out terror attacks on the infidels. In fact, the Shia are the victims of the global jihad types, as these types kill and persecute the Shia everywhere they find them.
Furthermore, he wasn’t even 1% religious. He chose the anniversary of and the Anders Brevik mass shooting in Norway and regarded Brevik as some sort of hero. He wanted to redo the Brevik shooting and indeed, like Brevik, he went after mostly young people. His room was full of books about mass shooters as he had been researching the subject extensively.
He’s just another “school shooter” type.