Mass killing in Orlando gay nightclub

[Martinus]

Maybe Congress will sense the urgency and vote this week to ban people on terrorist watch lists from buying guns. Right? *crickets*

Wouldn't that be unconstitutional?

[Martinus]

My views about Islam would probably be a lot of different, if more Muslims were like Maajid Nawaz:

Admit It: These Terrorists Are Muslims

There's a lot of special pleading about Orlando from Muslims and liberals. It's time to do away with that. If not, we give the issue away to Trump.

LONDON — The atrocious attack in Orlando, Florida, was an act of ISIS-inspired jihadist terrorism that targeted gays. It must concern us all.

Before any of our assumed multiple identities, we are human beings first and foremost. You don't have to be black to condemn racism, nor Jewish to condemn anti-Semitism, nor Muslim to condemn anti-Muslim bigotry, and you certainly don't have to be gay to condemn the evil that just descended upon Orlando.

A puerile response by some of my fellow Muslims is to ask "why should we apologize for something that has nothing to do with us." But this entirely misses the point.

Just as we Muslims expect solidarity from wider society against anti-Muslim bigotry and racism, likewise we must reciprocate solidarity towards victims of Islamist extremism. Just as we encourage others to actively denounce racism wherever they see it, so too must we actively denounce Islamist theocratic views wherever we find them.

Enough with the special pleading. Enough with the denial. Enough with the obfuscation.

The killer of Orlando was a homophobic Muslim extremist, inspired by an ideological take on my own religion, Islam. In just the first seven days of this holy month of Ramadan, various jihadists have carried out attacks in Tel Aviv, Baghdad, Damascus, Idlib, Beirut Orlando and now Paris.

This global jihadist insurgency threatens every corner of the world and has killed more Muslims than members any other faith. So why pretend it does not exist? Why shy away from calling it by name?

So far do many of us liberals go in denying the problem, that we're happy to stigmatize other vulnerable minorities in the process. "He was not a Muslim, he was nothing but a mad lunatic," we cry in exasperation. As if those with mental health issues are somehow automatically predisposed to murder, or immune to manipulation and exploitation by cynical Islamists and jihadists.

Then there's that other old tactic to try and avoid discussing the Islamist ideology. "He wasn't from the Muslim community," we proclaim. "He was acting in isolation, a lone wolf."

Apart from the fact that research highlights how incredibly rare it is for jihadists to act in a vacuum, we need look no further than the Orlando attacker Omar Mateen's father, who praised the Taliban as "warriors" to realize this avoidance tactic for what it is. Clearly Omar Mateen had moved in an atmosphere that glorified jihadist ideology.

But it must be foreign policy in Afghanistan," we naively protest. Albeit better than China's, Russia's, Saudi Arabia's, Iran's and most other undemocratic countries in the world, yes our foreign and domestic policies have their flaws. But what did gays in the Pulse nightclub have to do with any of that? Or the gays that ISIS regularly throws off the tallest buildings in Syria, for that matter?

It is time that we liberals took the fabled red pill and accepted reality. Just as this clearly has something to do with outdated gun laws, and just as those laws need reform, this also has something to do with Islam, which also needs reform today. No other stance makes any sense.

Poll after poll of British Muslims has revealed statistically significant levels of homophobic opinion. A 2009 poll by Gallup found that 0 percent of Britain's Muslims believed homosexual acts to be morally acceptable. Despite polling methodology, what previous polls have shown us time and again is more of the same. In a 2013 Pew poll Muslims overwhelmingly say that homosexual behavior is morally wrong, including three-quarters or more in 33 of the 36 countries where the question was asked.

The latest ICM poll from April 2016 asked a slightly different question about whether being gay should be legal. Over half of British Muslims surveyed said they supported making homosexual acts illegal. It did not used to be like this, so what happened?

Liberals who claim that this has nothing to do with Islam today are being as unhelpful and as ignorant as conservatives who claim that this represents all of Islam. The problem so obviously has something to do with Islam. That something is Islamism, or the desire to impose any version of Islam over any society. Jihadism is the attempt to do so by force. This ideology of Islamism has been rising almost unchecked among Muslims for decades. It is a theocratic ideology, and theocracy should no longer have any place in the world today.

But it is as if we liberals will stoop to anything to avoid discussing ideology. We will initiate state sanctioned presidential kill lists and launch unaccountable targeted assassinations. Yet, no amount of drone strikes under Obama—at a rate that far exceeds Bush—will ever solve the problem. We cannot shoot our way out of an ideology. We cannot arrest our way out of an insurgency. Yes, law and war have their own place, but they will never solve the problem.

In the long run, only reducing the local appeal of this ideology will solve the problem.  Whereas Islam today requires reform, the Islamist ideology must be intellectually terminated. To do so requires first acknowledging it exists, isolating it from Muslims, devising a strategy to challenge it, and then backing the voices that do.

As I argued in a TV debate with Fareed Zakaria, the danger of not doing so is twofold. Within the Muslim context, it is a betrayal of those liberal reforming Muslims who risk everything daily. These are feminist Muslims, gay Muslims, ex-Muslims, dissenting liberal and secular Muslim voices, persecuted minority sects among Muslims, the Ismailis, the Ahmedis and the Shia—all these different minorities within the minority of the Muslim community—they are immediately betrayed by our silence.

By shutting down the conversation about Islamist extremism we deprive them of the lexicon to deploy against those who are attempting to silence their progressive efforts within their own communities. We surrender their identity of Islam to the extremists.

The second danger is in the non-Muslim context. What happens if we don't name the Islamist ideology and distinguish it from Islam? We leave a void for the vast majority of Americans—who are unaware of the nuances in this debate—to be filled by Donald Trump and the Populist Right. They will go on to blame all versions of Islam and every Muslim, and their frustration at not being able to talk about the problem will give in to rage, as it has done. By refusing to discuss it, we only increase the hysteria. Like "he who must not be named"—the Voldemort Effect, I call it—we increase the fear.

So this is my appeal to President Obama, Hillary Clinton and to all liberals and Muslims, for humanity's sake let's stop playing politics with evil. Just as this so obviously has something to do with lax gun laws, it so clearly has something to do with Islam. Hillary Clinton nearly conceded as much after these recent attacks. But liberals must own this debate, not merely appear to be defensively reacting to Trump's agenda.

This September will mark 15 years since the 9/11 attacks, and we still haven't devised a strategy to address Islamist extremism, let alone identified voices who can do so globally. Not al-Qaeda, not ISIS, nor any other theocratic jihadist group that may emerge in the future, but a strategy that recognizes we are in the middle of a Cold War against theocracy. If we refuse to isolate, name and shame Islamist extremism, from fear of increasing anti-Muslim bigotry, we only increase anti-Muslim bigotry. If the rise of Trump has not convinced us of this yet, then nothing will.

[Brazen]

Have you seen this already, Mart?

Guardian columnist Owen Jones walks out of a live interview on Sky News on Sunday. Presenter Mark Longhurst says the Orlando gunman targeted 'human beings' in general. Fellow panelist Julia Hartley-Brewer says the LGBT community has 'no ownership of horror'. But Jones says the shooting was 'an intentional attack on LGBT people'

https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2016/jun/13/owen-jones-walks-out-sky-news-orlando-lgbt-video

Full version and transcript on NS here:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2016/06/watch-owen-jones-walks-sky-news-debate-whether-orlando-was-homophobic-attack

[Martinus]

Have you seen this already, Mart?

Guardian columnist Owen Jones walks out of a live interview on Sky News on Sunday. Presenter Mark Longhurst says the Orlando gunman targeted 'human beings' in general. Fellow panelist Julia Hartley-Brewer says the LGBT community has 'no ownership of horror'. But Jones says the shooting was 'an intentional attack on LGBT people'

https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2016/jun/13/owen-jones-walks-out-sky-news-orlando-lgbt-video

Full version and transcript on NS here:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2016/06/watch-owen-jones-walks-sky-news-debate-whether-orlando-was-homophobic-attack

Yeah, Sheilbh mentioned that earlier in the thread. It's a bit of a quagmire, as he is also apparently being attacked from the right as well, because he refused to acknowledge that the attack was also islamic.

If you ignore the tragedy, it is actually quite ironic how this attack has left almost every political side wrong footed - I guess only classic liberals have no problem responding to it properly.

[Martinus]

I don't get it. Was he gay or homophobic or muslim?

d. All the above

Yeah, and I fail to see why him being gay actually changes anything about the analysis.

Surely if you are gay and then you are raised in a murderous homophobic backward ideology/cult and told that being gay is wrong and deserve death, then your murderous homophobic backward behaviour is a direct result of your ideology/cult, not your sexuality.

It reminds me of the argument used by some anti-semites claiming that Hitler was, allegedly, half-Jewish. Even if it is true, so what?

[Martinus]

Incidentally, I have been reading comments under Maajid Nawaz's post with this article on Facebook. Admittedly it's anecdotal, but they seem to be divided into four broad groups:

- people thanking him
- people saying the attack had nothing to do with Islam
- people calling him Uncle Tom
- people saying that the attack was a conspiracy of US government to make Muslims look bad

Interestingly, if you look at commenters' names, those belonging to the first group seem to have Western names, largely, while those belong to the last two groups have Arabic or Persian sounding names. The second group is mixed.

That is not very promising, to be honest.

[dps]

I don't get it. Was he gay or homophobic or muslim?

d. All the above

Yeah, and I fail to see why him being gay actually changes anything about the analysis.

Nor do I.  I'm seeing news reports that he had scouted Disney World as a possible target.  If so, pretty clearly being an Islamic extremist had more to do with him carrying out a terrorist attack than any gay angle.  Being a self-loathing gay man may or may not have been a factor in his ultimate choice of target, but I'd guess that he was likely going to carry out an attack of some sort anyway.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

That something is Islamism, or the desire to impose any version of Islam over any society. Jihadism is the attempt to do so by force. This ideology of Islamism has been rising almost unchecked among Muslims for decades. It is a theocratic ideology, and theocracy should no longer have any place in the world today.

given that this has been part of islam since mohammed did his thing she's basically proposing to take the islam out of islam. Good idea but higly unlikely to happen.

the Islamist ideology must be intellectually terminated. To do so requires first acknowledging it exists, isolating it from Muslims

to get rid of islamism is to get rid of islam. for by her definition islamism is what her prophet did.

[Valmy]

And to make sure not just right wing nutters are called out, here's a statement from the Planned Parenthood Black Community:

Islam doesn't foment the violence alleged gunman Omar Mateen enacted, toxic masculinity & a global culture of imperialist homophobia does.

Toxic masculinity enables rapists & rape culture, violent heterosexism & attacks on reproductive freedom.

Admittedly, the difference is that Glenn Beck, as far as I understand, is not currently funded with US taxpayers' money.

Well to be fair PP is not being funded for its keen analysis of current events. That is a rather disheartening angle. I guess if you murder gay people it is not about you and you being a monster. You are just a victim and pawn of insidious forces. And somehow this has something to do with reproductive rights.

Incidentally, I have been reading comments under Maajid Nawaz's post with this article on Facebook. Admittedly it's anecdotal, but they seem to be divided into four broad groups:

- people thanking him
- people saying the attack had nothing to do with Islam
- people calling him Uncle Tom
- people saying that the attack was a conspiracy of US government to make Muslims look bad

Interestingly, if you look at commenters' names, those belonging to the first group seem to have Western names, largely, while those belong to the last two groups have Arabic or Persian sounding names. The second group is mixed.

That is not very promising, to be honest.

Well you can see why I am so happy about social media and twitter being a powerful force in my nation's politics.

[garbon]

I don't get it. Was he gay or homophobic or muslim?

d. All the above

Yeah, and I fail to see why him being gay actually changes anything about the analysis.

Nor do I.  I'm seeing news reports that he had scouted Disney World as a possible target.  If so, pretty clearly being an Islamic extremist had more to do with him carrying out a terrorist attack than any gay angle.  Being a self-loathing gay man may or may not have been a factor in his ultimate choice of target, but I'd guess that he was likely going to carry out an attack of some sort anyway.

I'm confused. So his wife knew that he was scouting out locations?

Also, interesting analysis there. Being a self loathing gay man may or may not have been a factor in choice of target, so we are free to ignore that?

[11B4V]

sin
noun
1.
an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.
"a sin in the eyes of God"
synonyms:   immoral act, wrong, wrongdoing, act of evil/wickedness, transgression, crime, offense, misdeed, misdemeanor;

Yes, Grumbler we all know what words mean, so please stop being stupid.

Apparently not, so fuck off

[Malthus]

You are missing the point that Otto and others have made - we have had this discussing so many times before that I almost feel like I should put it in my signature - from perspective of, for example, gay people, it's not just violent or extremist Muslims are a problem. Most Muslims, for example, believe that homosexuality should be criminalised - they do not seem to soften their views that much after years of living here. So allowing people who think that, and also happen to breed at a much higher rate than the Western average, is a time bomb.

In large swaths of the third world - Muslim or not - homophobia, often violent, is the norm: take for example Jamaica (I'm more familiar with that situation, as Jamaicans are a significant community in Toronto). It's alleged to be the "most homophobic country in the world" culturally and legally; not sure about that, but its culture is plenty homophobic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Jamaica

Very few Muslims in Jamaica, though: it is majority protestant Christian.

I'm not convinced that homophobia is inherent in Protestant Christianity or Jamaicans though, or that people from that religion or those places cannot be assimilated into Western attitudes associated with modernity and progress. Nor am I convinced that all Protestant Christians, or all Jamaicans, are the same. 

Ditto with Muslims. Muslims come from a variety of social classes and places. I know tons of middle class Iranians, and homophobia simply isn't a part of that particular culture, particularly in the second generation (as a generality, they have their faults, but those faults are those of their class generally: narcissism, materialism, etc.). If I was gay, I'd certainly rather have middle class Iranian Muslims around, than lower class Jamaican Protestants.   

[Richard Hakluyt]

Tolerance of difference seems to be strongly correlated with financial ease and comfort. It thus becomes important that all muslim states are either poor or run by kleptocratic elites (even worse than our ones).

[DGuller]

Russians are virulently homophobic as well in my experience, and largely stay that way in US.  I think pretty much any non-Western nation is filled with majority of people who would quietly not mind such an attack.  Though I guess the rates of acceptance of host culture may differ depending on the country of origin.

[Berkut]

Trump calls shooter "an Afghan", blames American Muslims for failing to “turn in the people who they know are bad", warns against “tremendous flow” of Syrian refugees, suggests President Obama sympathetic to Islamic terrorists

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/us/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-speeches.html

“They’re trying to take over our children and convince them how wonderful ISIS is and how wonderful Islam is. And we don’t know what’s happening.”

I think he is right, especially on the point of there being not sufficient self policing among Muslims. Unlike your typical mass shooter situation (where the usual community feedback is "oh he was such a quiet guy"), you are getting feedback from all quarters here saying "oh, I guess we all knew he would do something like this". That's inexcusable. And I agree with Trump that it should be made a crime not to report reasonable suspicion like that to the police.

So Trump says several things that are *factually* lies, and your response is "I think he is right".

Gotcha.