We’ve been told that Omar Mateen was a homophobic mass shooter, but that may be a diversion from his real motive.
It is easy to see why people assume the Orlando Pulse nightclub was attacked by a homophobic mass shooter. After all, Pulse catered to homosexuals. There is evidence that Mateen was himself homosexual at some times in his life, so people deduce he was a self-loathing homosexual.
But, taken at face value, the fact that Mateen made homosexual pursuits would indicate that he favored homosexuality. That seems incompatible with Islam, but the 9-11 hijackers had no problem with receiving lap dances and Afghanistan is notorious for men raping boys. We don’t know how conflicted Mateen felt about his homosexual pursuits.
And then there is this:
The whole video is fascinating, not least because it goes against the Muslim lone gunman narrative. But it also directly contradicts the claim that Mateen wanted to kill homosexuals because they are homosexual.
Vibe.com quotes the witness:
“After that he even spoke to us directly in the bathroom. He said “Are there any black people in here?” I was too afraid to answer. But there was an African-American male in the stall where most of my body was, and he had answered and he said ‘Yes, there are about six or seven of us.’ and the gunman responded back to him saying ‘I don’t have a problem with black people. This is about my country. You guys suffered enough’ He made a statement saying it wasn’t about black people. This isn’t the reason why he’s doing this, but through the conversation with 911, he said the reason why he’s doing this is because he wanted America to stop bombing his country.”
Now, why did the race of his victims matter to Mateen if he wanted to kill homosexuals? Black homosexuals would be no less offensive.
The easiest interpretation of these facts is that the Pulse nightclub was a convenient soft target for a politically motivated terrorist attack. Mateen was attacking Americans who happened to mostly be homosexual.
The main reason for believing that Mateen was angry at homosexuals comes from his father, who claims he was angered by two men kissing. Perhaps the father is lying because a political motive is more embarrassing to him than a homophobic one.
The only other testimony I can find is a former co-worker who claimed he quit because Mateen harassed him. Thus, CBS Miami reports that the co-worker claims “he was an angry, loud, profane man who used slurs for gay people, blacks, Jews and women.” But Mateen’s employer, G4S claims, “Mateen was subject to detailed company screening when he was recruited in 2007 and re-screened in 2013 with no adverse findings.”
Are investigators and reporters going to attempt to get to the bottom of these claims. Or will they chose the narrative that fits their politics and ignore contrary testimony?