American mass shooting thread

[SALTIRE]

Just heard about that, I do like Owen - go yirsel' mate!

 

[Bluebird_Dai]

The comments on that video are embarrassing to say the least.

 

[silkyman]

Why were they being so aggressive there? This was obviously a homophobic attack. Religiously motivated, probably, but the target was pretty clear.

 

[silkyman]

@igorvolsky Is calling out US politicians who are funded by the NRA, voted against laws to restrict gun ownership to people on watch lists, and are 'sending their prayers' to the victims.

 

[blade1889]

Wtf is that, not sure how Owen held his tongue so well to be honest

 

[Dave-Vale]

The way they belittled him and tried to talk down to him was pathetic. I'm not surprised he walked off. I really like Owen and agree with almost everything he says. The way he spoke a few weeks back at the protests in London (the ones the BBC refused to report on) was fantastic and you could see his genuine passion and belief in his socialist ideas.

What do you expect from the Murdoch gutter press though? They only want us to hate Islam so Murdoch and his rich mates protect their oil interests out in the Middle East.

I bet Fox News has really gone to town on this.

 

[NorfolkWomble]

I don't think it has anything to do with them wanting to hate Islam, more them not wanting to admit that this was an attack on LGBT people by a Muslim. Coverage in places like the Huffington Post has blamed the American right, the Christian right, the Pope and ISIS, but what about the Muslim right? The Imam in the Orlando mosque stating that gay's deserve to die. That is as big if not the main contributor to these kind of things.

 

[Max]

I don't think it has anything to do with them wanting to hate Islam, more them not wanting to admit that this was an attack on LGBT people by a Muslim. Coverage in places like the Huffington Post has blamed the American right, the Christian right, the Pope and ISIS, but what about the Muslim right? The Imam in the Orlando mosque stating that gay's deserve to die. That is as big if not the main contributor to these kind of things.

I think the denial by the host (and also by Julia Hartley-Brewer) was because they were both trying to say the LGBT venue was incidental. Sky News clearly wanted this to be portrayed as a natural extension of the Paris terror attacks. People at the Bataclan 'were just trying to have a good night out', and therefore they would like to say this is the same. The effect being that it presents this as part of a larger culture war between Islam and the West. ISIS are a threat to everyone, to you, viewer of Sky News, because they will target ANYONE. It doesn't matter who you are etc.

And this worked for the Paris terror attacks, because that is how it seemed. But the difference they refused to acknowledge is that gay people are the targets of radical Islamism in a very specific way. It astounds me that the other two on the panel pretended not to be able to see this.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

I think the response as a whole (not just, I have to say, in the media) has been interesting. It seems very muted in comparison to Paris. The slaughter of scores of innocent people in the worst terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11 didn't even merit a mention on the Mail's front page. They preferred to stoke up fear about how many Turks might imminently be arriving on our shores (they used the remaining space to advertise the fact that they were flogging some crappy pearl earrings). The Express, similarly, relegated the story to the bit they usually reserve for some bollocks about Princess Di. I suppose we can draw our own conclusions...

Even where the coverage has been better, there does remain something a bit troubling about the way that homophobic nature of the crime and the sexuality of the victims has been minimised or erased. I think Jones was quite right to be upset - I don't see how anyone can really fail to grasp that a gay nightclub is quite a deliberate choice of venue (it's also historically a place where the gay community has gone to feel safe because society as a whole hasn't been welcoming). Yes, it's a human tragedy and yes, anyone can be a potential victim of a terrorist attack but, in a global context where LGBT people still routinely face violence and oppression, it seems almost irresponsible not to acknowledge the homophobic nature of the attack.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

yeah i was unfortunately within eyesight of the mail at work today and i was surprised it didn't make the front page. i think parallels can be drawn with the whole black lives matter movement. in that whenever they came out and said 'black lives matter' it was redirected into 'all lives matter'. which is obviously true, saying black lives matter doesn't mean the others don't. what it does mean is that the issues facing african-americans are again ignored. which is similar to discourse on this attack. by dismissing it as an attack on our freedom and pretending it isn't an attack on homosexuals, you are ignoring the very real danger homosexuals face in the west. it's a ridiculous form of cloying, patronising bigotry that misses the fucking point pretty spectacularly

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

I think the response as a whole (not just, I have to say, in the media) has been interesting. It seems very muted in comparison to Paris. The slaughter of scores of innocent people in the worst terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11 didn't even merit a mention on the Mail's front page. They preferred to stoke up fear about how many Turks might imminently be arriving on our shores (they used the remaining space to advertise the fact that they were flogging some crappy pearl earrings). The Express, similarly, relegated the story to the bit they usually reserve for some bollocks about Princess Di. I suppose we can draw our own conclusions...

Even where the coverage has been better, there does remain something a bit troubling about the way that homophobic nature of the crime and the sexuality of the victims has been minimised or erased. I think Jones was quite right to be upset - I don't see how anyone can really fail to grasp that a gay nightclub is quite a deliberate choice of venue (it's also historically a place where the gay community has gone to feel safe because society as a whole hasn't been welcoming). Yes, it's a human tragedy and yes, anyone can be a potential victim of a terrorist attack but, in a global context where LGBT people still routinely face violence and oppression, it seems almost irresponsible not to acknowledge the homophobic nature of the attack.

The media's been slightly caught between two (equally reactionary) positions - the "this is an attack on all our freedoms" and writing the guy off as "a nutter" - the normal response to mass shootings in America, particularly those explicitly targeted against marginalised groups (e.g. the Charleston Church shooting almost one year ago).

Julia Hartley-Brewer actually explicitly states those as the only two valid positions in the video.

So no-one knows whether to join the parade of law-makers with track-records of voting against LGBT issues now claiming LGBT rights are a "Western Value" or to treat the whole thing as an event as capricious and unpredictable as the weather. It doesn't help that the words we use; "terrorism" and "hate-crime" are almost impossible to strip from their predefined contexts. But it's fucking disgusting to see these vultures squabbling over what their prepackaged media narrative is before the bodies of victims of a horrible atrocity are even cold.

[It was also a Latinx night at the club and it seems to be the case that the majority of victims are queer PoC; the perpetrator is known to have held antiblack as well as homophobic views - that angle has been totally erased because it doesn't fit either of those narratives.]

 

[TheArtfulDodger]

There's also the 'it's just another American mass shooting' aspect of this, it has lost its shock power now but undoubtedly it has to be seen as a homophobic attack more than anything else. I suppose this fella might have been political but clearly the motivation was hatred rather than a coordinated political statement, the way he declared allegiance to Isis is actually pretty damning, don't the real McCoy declare support of the leader?

 

[Max]

I think the response as a whole (not just, I have to say, in the media) has been interesting. It seems very muted in comparison to Paris. The slaughter of scores of innocent people in the worst terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11 didn't even merit a mention on the Mail's front page. They preferred to stoke up fear about how many Turks might imminently be arriving on our shores (they used the remaining space to advertise the fact that they were flogging some crappy pearl earrings). The Express, similarly, relegated the story to the bit they usually reserve for some bollocks about Princess Di. I suppose we can draw our own conclusions...

Even where the coverage has been better, there does remain something a bit troubling about the way that homophobic nature of the crime and the sexuality of the victims has been minimised or erased. I think Jones was quite right to be upset - I don't see how anyone can really fail to grasp that a gay nightclub is quite a deliberate choice of venue (it's also historically a place where the gay community has gone to feel safe because society as a whole hasn't been welcoming). Yes, it's a human tragedy and yes, anyone can be a potential victim of a terrorist attack but, in a global context where LGBT people still routinely face violence and oppression, it seems almost irresponsible not to acknowledge the homophobic nature of the attack.

First of all, have found everyone's replies on this topic v interesting and thoughtful.

The thing about the Daily Mail I have pondered. Traditionally I have always taken the view that 'Daily Mail's gonna be the Daily Mail' and pursue its own agenda (in this case Turkey) ahead of anything else. This is undoubtedly true, but I think what's more depressing about the Mail is that it's the tail that wags the dog: the readers' priorities reinforce the paper's editorial output as much as vice versa. The Mail is often noted for providing its readership, ie a particular section of Middle England, with what it wants. This being the case, I think what upsets me more is that the Daily Mail's readership are actually more animated by the dim, distant, unrealistic threat of Turkish migration to the UK than they are about what happened in Orlando. Without sounding too grandiose about it, it reflects the actual weight placed on these stories by a lot of people in this country.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

maybe an unpopular opinion but i really feel for the shooter's father in this too. imagine your child doing something like this? seeing him just now on the sofa on his own, arrayed in front of the media with tears in his eyes really hit me. that's his son dead. not just dead but the most hated man in the world right now. how do u deal with that

 

[Captain Scumbag]

Any idiot could deduce from the choice of the venue that it was a homophobic attack, so I'm not sure why JHB and Mark Longhurst were so reluctant to concede that point. The most generous interpretation is that Owen got under their skin by being Owen (e.g. telling Longhurst he didn't understand because he's not gay), but I watched the whole thing live and sensed a determination to frame the story broadly – i.e. as an attack on the west rather than an attack on LGBT folk – pretty much from the start.

The "rather" part of that is perhaps the most egregious and baffling because the two 'competing' narratives are far from incompatible. If one takes the view that tolerance and acceptance of LGBT people (though still very much work in progress) is one of the finer achievements of western liberalism, then it's not too much of a stretch to see mass killing of gays as homophobic and, by extension, an attack on western values. If JHB and Longhurst had conceded Owen's point and made it part of their broader narrative, I'd have some sympathy. But they didn't.

 

[Pliny Harris]

maybe an unpopular opinion but i really feel for the shooter's father in this too. imagine your child doing something like this? seeing him just now on the sofa on his own, arrayed in front of the media with tears in his eyes really hit me. that's his son dead. not just dead but the most hated man in the world right now. how do u deal with that

To an extent...

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

To an extent...

yeah i know that. and not to sound condescending or anything but in that instance he wasn't a probable homophobe, he was just a man who had suffered an appalling loss and was in a truly horrible, unimaginable situation. i wasn't really considering the context which is sort of irrelevant, we can sympathise with anyone

 

[Pliny Harris]

yeah i know that. and not to sound condescending or anything but in that instance he wasn't a probable homophobe, he was just a man who had suffered an apalling loss and was in a truly horrible, unimaginable situation. i wasn't really considering the context which is sort of irrelevent, we can empthasise with anyone

Fair. I can never tolerate words like that leaked out of anyone's mouth. You can leave it aside for now but fucking hell it's backhanded and at complete odds with the world I inhabit. Maybe I'm uh, touchy, but there you go.

I also find it maddening when anyone suggests this isn't an LGBT+ thing. (This bit isn't a pop at any of yous. Obviously.) It bears so much repeating. To me it represents a world where so many people acknowledge homophobia, but fail to tackle it head on and often not at all. It's a grim halfway house to be in.

 

[NorfolkWomble]

I don't think the lone deranged gunman argument works with this one or the San Bernandino shootings. People have been claiming that when it is a white male it is allocated into the deranged nutter category but when it is a brown Muslim the same 'luxury' isn't afforded.

I think this is wrong for a few reasons. If you look at characters like Dylan Roofe and Anders Breivik. Both white, both male. Both 'loners'. Both as far as I know very much withdrawn from society, probably both somewhere on the autistic spectrum.

This shooter though, married (divorced now), employed, had a son, attended a mosque. Engaged in society in some way. Not sitting on his computer trawling the Islamic equivalent of Stormfront like Breivik or Roof.

San Bernandino, married couple, attended mosque, had jobs, had some engagement in society.

I just don't think not affording them the lone nutter classification is indicative of western racism against non-whites, it is instead a logical application of the facts.

 

[TheArtfulDodger]

Sounds more and more like this is just a case of outright homophonic hate and the 'IS' stuff was just an afterthought, apparently the gunman actually frequented the club.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

I don't think the lone deranged gunman argument works with this one or the San Bernandino shootings. People have been claiming that when it is a white male it is allocated into the deranged nutter category but when it is a brown Muslim the same 'luxury' isn't afforded.

I think this is wrong for a few reasons. If you look at characters like Dylan Roofe and Anders Breivik. Both white, both male. Both 'loners'. Both as far as I know very much withdrawn from society, probably both somewhere on the autistic spectrum.

This shooter though, married (divorced now), employed, had a son, attended a mosque. Engaged in society in some way. Not sitting on his computer trawling the Islamic equivalent of Stormfront like Breivik or Roof.

San Bernandino, married couple, attended mosque, had jobs, had some engagement in society.

I just don't think not affording them the lone nutter classification is indicative of western racism against non-whites, it is instead a logical application of the facts.

Nah, it sounds exactly like what he did. I mean, that description doesn't even apply to Breivik, who was firmly connected to domestic and european fascist movements before carrying out his atrocity. Roof, who probably fits the "loner" profile much better, had active communication with white nationalist groups in the US.

It sounds like this guy had very little direct contact with IS or other militant Islamic organisations. He also was described as "unstable" by his ex-wife. He consumed jihadi propaganda, but seemingly had little contact with anyone.

The "lone-nutter" classification is pretty problematic partly because it's used to erase other motives (e.g. racism, homophobia) and partly because it creates stigma around mental health. But there's very little sense in applying it to Dylan Roof or Breivik and not to this guy.

 

[spireite]

Closer to home relevance or nonsense poll?

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/11/europe/britain-muslims-survey

 

[sl1k]

To an extent...

Now this may be a difficult pill to swallow, but homosexuality is prohibited in Islam. The guy in this instance was saying that it is not for us to judge or administer punishment and that it is for only God o deal with in whatever way he does. I don't see what's wrong with that statement, if he had said anything different it would have been disingenuous.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

The implication was that homosexuality deserves to be punished. The fact that it comes from Islamic scripture doesn't make it any more acceptable.

 

[sl1k]

The key here is tolerance and humanity. People will differ in values, you'll achieve very little squabbling over semantics.

 

[spireite]

Now this may be a difficult pill to swallow, but homosexuality is prohibited in Islam. The guy in this instance was saying that it is not for us to judge or administer punishment and that it is for only God o deal with in whatever way he does. I don't see what's wrong with that statement, if he had said anything different it would have been disingenuous.

Is that not just a reason to question your belief system and NOT to be Muslim, because it's homophobic?

 

[sl1k]

Nope

 

[Aber gas]

https://theintercept.com/2016/06/13...onize-islam-and-justify-anti-muslim-policies/

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

Now this may be a difficult pill to swallow, but homosexuality is prohibited in Islam. The guy in this instance was saying that it is not for us to judge or administer punishment and that it is for only God o deal with in whatever way he does. I don't see what's wrong with that statement, if he had said anything different it would have been disingenuous.

Nah, it's a fucking awful thing to say. On any day, but not least when 50-odd people have been killed by your son.

"Well, they shouldn't be put-to-death" is a much better statement than its negation but it still feeds into a worldview of a society that largely regards LGBT people as something to (at best) be "tolerated" by straight society - it's still a positioning of straight as normal and anything that isn't 100% straight as weird/deviant which is fucked up.

 

[spireite]

Nope

...