The reason for Omar Mateen's Orlando terrorist attack finally revealed

[rogue06]

Like most people with at least half a brain didn't already know.

Source: Orlando Terror Attack �Triggered� by Pentagon Drone Strike

Source

[*Story continues at above link and includes unedited language*]

© Copyright Original Source

So much for speculation in some quarters like the New York Times that the motive was essentially because he hated gays and lesbians -- it was nothing more than a hate crime. This was pushed by Mateen's father, who claimed that he snapped after watching two men kissing.

Likewise, the claim put forth by Mateen's iman and covered by the Associated Press that it was mental illness and "ha[d] nothing to do with ISIS."

The Guardian even went so far as to claim that CIA director John Brennan had declared that his agency "has not found any link" between Mateen and ISIS, which was not what he said. Brennan had said that they hadn't found any directread it here -- again, strong language warning!) likely because it would receive little coverage what with all attention being focused on the then up-coming debate between Trump and Hillary Monday evening.

[seanD]

This was already know via the witnesses inside the club

[Mountain Man]

Let's not jump to conclusions.

[Starlight]

So are you now against killing people in other countries with drones, since you believe it causes terrorism in the US?

[rogue06]

So are you now against killing people in other countries with drones, since you believe it causes terrorism in the US?

They will always find an excuse.

[Starlight]

They will always find an excuse.

So you're now saying his motives don't really matter? Or that the statement he gave to police that you posted was in fact false/disingenuous?

[rogue06]

So you're now saying his motives don't really matter? Or that the statement he gave to police that you posted was in fact false/disingenuous?

No. Just that attempts to claim it had nothing to do with Islamic extremism were wrong. Islamic extremists will always find an excuse to justify their terrorism. These are the guys that violently butcher people for daring to say that Islam is not a peaceful religion.

[Starlight]

Islamic extremists will always find an excuse to justify their terrorism.

So they are in essence just bad people / followers of a bad religion? Do you mean by your statement there's nothing the West can do to affect the rates of terrorism or trigger it, because these people will always find an excuse anyway? How do you explain changing rates of Islamic terrorism over time?

[seanD]

So they are in essence just bad people / followers of a bad religion? Do you mean by your statement there's nothing the West can do to affect the rates of terrorism or trigger it, because these people will always find an excuse anyway? How do you explain changing rates of Islamic terrorism over time?

That's actually a good question. Also, why wouldn't we have attacks on a constant basis since not only is our counter intelligence pretty much inept and incompetent, but our country is full of population gun free zones.

[rogue06]

So they are in essence just bad people / followers of a bad religion? Do you mean by your statement there's nothing the West can do to affect the rates of terrorism or trigger it, because these people will always find an excuse anyway? How do you explain changing rates of Islamic terrorism over time?

Back in the 1980s, long before terrorism was pervasive as it is today, there was a serious problem with the kidnapping for ransom of high level executives from companies like Goodyear, Firestone, Gulf (as BP was known as here), Cocoa-cola and others, in the nation of Colombia. I worked with the people who were hired to rectify this situation.

We were taught that there were three types of terrorists.

The first were essentially criminal gangs in it for the money (that was what we were facing) who were the easiest to deal with if you could make it more costly for them than it was worth.

The second were political terrorists (which were were prevalent back then -- think the Red Brigade, Baader-Meinhof Group/Red Army Faction and Japanese Red Army as examples), which were more difficult to deal with due to ideological convictions. Still they could be "reasoned" with although with difficulty.

Finally, there are religious terrorists such as what we see with Al-Qaeda, ISIS and to a lesser extent Boko Haram. We were told there was essentially no dealing with these people. Even when shown they are wrong they simply decide they are being "tested" and continue on. There was only one solution in such cases.

[Starlight]

Finally, there are religious terrorists such as what we see with Al-Qaeda, ISIS and to a lesser extent Boko Haram. We were told there was essentially no dealing with these people. Even when shown they are wrong they simply decide they are being "tested" and continue on. There was only one solution in such cases.

Does that extend to religious people in general?

[Sparko]

Finally, there are religious terrorists such as what we see with Al-Qaeda, ISIS and to a lesser extent Boko Haram. We were told there was essentially no dealing with these people. Even when shown they are wrong they simply decide they are being "tested" and continue on. There was only one solution in such cases.

Use a loudspeaker from a helicopter and pretend to be God speaking to them and tell them to jump off a cliff and you are waiting for them with 72 virgins and a case of beer?

[Sparko]

Does that extend to religious people in general?

yes because all religious people are terrorists.

[Starlight]

yes because all religious people are terrorists.

Well, for a given definition of terrorism. But I was more referring to:

We were told there was essentially no dealing with these people. Even when shown they are wrong they simply decide they are being "tested" and continue on.

This quote is essentially claiming that religious people are impervious to logic and reason. They were contrasted with the political ideologues who "could be "reasoned" with although with difficulty." The claim was that with the religious there is apparently no point trying to reason with them, and it was claimed to be a matter of either allowing them to do their thing or killing them. My question is, does he think that idea applies more generally, outside of the narrow scope of overt religious terrorists, to everyday run-of-the-mill religious people...?

[Sparko]

Well, for a given definition of terrorism. But I was more referring to:

We were told there was essentially no dealing with these people. Even when shown they are wrong they simply decide they are being "tested" and continue on.

This quote is essentially claiming that religious people are impervious to logic and reason. They were contrasted with the political ideologues who "could be "reasoned" with although with difficulty." The claim was that with the religious there is apparently no point trying to reason with them, and it was claimed to be a matter of either allowing them to do their thing or killing them. My question is, does he think that idea applies more generally, outside of the narrow scope of overt religious terrorists, to everyday run-of-the-mill religious people...?

I think the point was religious FANATICS are impervious to logic and reason.