Orlando Shooting

Where Did the Justice Dept. Learn to Censor Info About Violent Attacks? From the Public (Updated: Redactions Reversed)

Here are your unintended consequences for demanding media censor info about mass killers.

|

Omar Mateen
MySpace

Today the Department of Justice and FBI are releasing more information about Omar Mateen's attack on Orlando nightclub Pulse, including Mateen's 911 calls. Over the weekend Attorney General Loretta Lynch got significant public attention for making the Sunday morning television circuit and saying that the Department of Justice was going to deliberately censor out references to the Islamic State from the transcripts.

Lynch told NBC "What we're not going to do is further proclaim this man's pledges of allegiance to terrorist groups and further his propaganda."

When the transcripts were released this morning, the Justice Department censored out some of the words. Put on those thinking caps and see if you can figure out this puzzle:

Orlando Police Dispatcher (OD)
Shooter (OM)

OD: Emergency 911, this is being recorded.

OM: In the name of God the Merciful, the beneficial [in Arabic]

OD: What?

OM: Praise be to God, and prayers as well as peace be upon the prophet of God [in Arabic]. I let you know, I'm in Orlando and I did the shootings.

OD: What's your name?

OM: My name is I pledge of allegiance to [omitted].

OD: Ok, What's your name?

OM: I pledge allegiance to [omitted] may God protect him [in Arabic], on behalf of [omitted].

OD: Alright, where are you at?

OM: In Orlando.

OD: Where in Orlando?

[End of call.]

Who could Mateen possibly be referring to? Such a mystery. Note that there is an indication that Mateen is pledging allegiance to a specific person, not just ISIS. There may be investigative reasons for some censorship here, but that, remarkably, is not the justification being presented for it.

The decision has been widely derided and criticized online from folks across the political spectrum. It's blatant government censorship justified as a way to fight "propaganda." President Barack Obama's administration faces heavy criticism for the way it has approached dealing with the Islamic State. It's impossible to separate this decision to censor a transcript with the administration's now very obvious desire to downplay any possibility that the existence of ISIS presents a threat to American citizens back at home.

But here's the thing: Where on earth would the administration get the idea that such a move would play well with the public? It might be because Americans have been increasingly using this exact same argument to try to convince the media to self-censor information about mass killers.

Over the past few years, whenever there's been an incident of mass killings, there's been a push to stop providing information about the killer or even saying his name. The belief (which I think at the moment is unsupported by evidence) is that giving the killer publicity is exactly what he "wants," and it will encourage other psychopaths to do this same.  

It's an argument not tied to any particular political ideology. Conor Friedersdorf promoted the idea over at The Atlantic in 2014 following a killer's spree in Santa Barbara.

Mind you, this is not a call for official government censorship. These folks are not calling for the government to order the media not to publish names and images of mass killers. Rather it's a cultural push to get media to deliberately not give the public information. It's working to some degree. On the day of the Orlando attack, CNN correspondents made a big deal about not publicizing Mateen's name and image while reporting on the aftermath.

I take a dim view of this argument because it, first of all, assumes that we can or should alter our entire mass culture in such a way so as to not trigger violent behavior from a very small number of people. These people are unstable and unpredictable. It's not logical or reasonable to think that extremely violent, mentally ill individuals can be shepherded into peaceful or even rational behavior on the basis of withholding what rational people think are "rewards." Furthermore it creates an environment of collective responsibility for the behavior of a group of people—a "psychopath's veto," if you will. Except the censorship is not on the basis of what the psychopath demands so much as censorship on the basis of not providing what he wants.

In fact, while I was writing this blog post, Reason got a complaint from a reader who wanted us to stop using Mateen's name and photo as we did in Steve Chapman's latest column. The writer repeated the argument that media coverage is what nutjobs like Mateen crave and that covering it just encourages more.

But here we see the unintended consequence of media self-censoring stories about mass killings in order to pander to this belief that it helps prevent future attacks somehow. The argument Lynch is presenting for censoring transcripts of a 911 call is exactly the same as the argument presented to the media to withhold Mateen's name and image. Her argument is that referencing ISIS just encourages them to engage in more terrorism.

We can all see that there is a secondary political consideration for what the administration is doing here. That's why it's so important for the media not to easily fold to emotional demands to withhold information without an identifiable public service need that is based on facts, not fears. Authorities are more than happy to weaponize those fears to attempt to control public dialogue for self-serving needs.

But it's also not the media's role to direct whether a person retains infamy for his crimes. That will be a matter for culture and history (who remembers the name of the killer referenced in Friedersdorf's post? Anybody?). Otherwise, the slippery slide here is that the government itself will be deciding how much information the public gets to hear about criminals within our midst, and history shows that government will control the flow of this information to protect its own interests over public safety.

We are better off enduring Mateen's name and image for a few weeks than the alternatives.

UPDATE: As this trial balloon from the administration flew directly into the power lines, the FBI announced this afternoon it was unredacting the transcripts and releasing them in full.

Advertisement

NEXT: Free-Speech Groups Urge Veto on Rhode Island 'Sextortion' Measure

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. No woodchippers, no problem. Woodchipper references? Problems.

    1. 7:01. Never forget.

    2. We’ve reached that awful place our forefathers warned us about… when the government itself become as much of a threat to the Republic as radical Islam, by failing to recognize it as such.

  2. Rather it’s a cultural push to get media to deliberately not give the public information. It’s working to some degree. On the day of the Orlando attack, CNN correspondents made a big deal about not publicizing Mateen’s name and image while reporting on the aftermath.

    Oh, please. CNN didn’t withhold that info in order to respond to concerns that valorizing mass killers isn’t a good idea. They withheld that info because it blew up the Narrative that mass killings happen because bigoted white guys can get their hands on machine guns at the corner store.

    1. And, yeah, I agree that no matter how bad an idea it is to valorize mass killers, there’s no way to stop it from happening.

      The idea that this fed the administration’s clumsy censorship of anti-Narrative facts is just ludicrous, though. They would have done the same, regardless. Narrative uber alles, comrade.

      1. Not putting the guy on the cover of Magazines and making him sympathetic doesn’t mean you have to lie and pretend he didn’t do this in the name of his religion.

        1. Exactly how does putting his picture on the cover of magazine make him sympathetic? Time could put a picture of Hitler petting his dog on the cover. Does that mean we should be reminded of the Hitler with a song in his heart?

          1. I would thinking of the Rolling Stone cover of the little bastard in Boston.

          2. Check out the magazine covers of a sultry Tsarnaev.

            Like this:

            http://www.usatoday.com/story/…..e/2523891/

          3. Well, Time did name him ‘Man of the Year’

          4. Progressives and Fascism walk hand-in-hand.

        2. Not putting the guy on the cover of Magazines and making him sympathetic

          Seems to me there is an important lesson to be learned, namely that bad people don’t necessarily look like bad people.

    2. Vaporizing mass killers, OTOH…

      1. That just leads to smoking mass killers.

        1. You’re gonna need a bigger pipe.

      2. I would build the biggest, lowest resistance coil EVER to fry their evil asses.

    3. They withheld that info because it blew up the Narrative that mass killings happen because bigoted white guys can get their hands on semi-automatic machine guns at the corner store.

      FTFY

    4. Obama is sick and tired of having his nose rubbed in his “junior wisecrack” remark and wants the term USIS to go down the memory hole.

        1. Jaysus, this is what I get for typing on my phone with dilated pupils after an eye exam.

          Obama is sick and tired of having his nose rubbed in his “junior varsity” wisecrack and wants the term ISIS to go down the memory hole.

      1. The Republic will Never forget what a feckless and Usurping Progressive loser a nation of fools elected, twice.

  3. Well, to be fair, they’re only censoring the parts they don’t like. And at least they’re being honest about it. Doesn’t that make it ok?

  4. Yeah, the left is desperately trying to control the narrative on this. They are going extra hard on any homo who dares to go off the reservation and mention Islam. The local vigils seem to all have muslim religious leaders speaking. Prog ops are scouring the op-ed pages and pushing back against anyone who dares to bring up Islam.

    Now, having said all that, I’ll be the first to admit that Mateen probably was insane by any reasonable definition. But that still doesn’t excuse his actions and not every insane person shoots up a gay nightclub.

    1. Now, having said all that, I’ll be the first to admit that Mateen probably was insane by any reasonable definition.

      Keep in mind that when we find ourselves wanting to say, “Well he wasn’t a terrorist; he was *crazy*”… we’re just shifting from one-form of absolution for individual responsibility to another.

      I would also disagree entirely with your claim of “reasonable definition” of insanity. The actual definitions from a legal POV require someone to ‘not be fully cognizant of their surroundings or the reality of the situation they’re involved in”. If Omar Mateen made his phone call and said he’d just successfully repelled the alien invasion and was ready to be beamed back aboard the Mothership, I’d maybe take your assertion more seriously. The fact that he knew that he was murdering people, and he was able to articulate his reasons WHY he was murdering those people, are generally indicators that he was not actually suffering from any reasonable definition of insanity at all.

      When you start dumbing-down “insanity” to mean any form of aberrant behavior, you’re just providing a huge open-door for people to absolve responsibility for actions.

      I do think a number of mass-shooters in recent memory have qualified as ‘insane’. The VA Tech shooter, the Aurora CO, etc. I don’t think it should be seen as an “either/or” proposition. People can be crazy AND be evil assholes making conscious choices to commit terrorist acts.

      1. Insanity is the freak that did Sandyhook. He seems to have actually been in a psychotic state such that he believed life was some kind of video game.

        This guy knew exactly what he was doing and did it for a specific purpose. This is not a senseless tragedy. It is a completely sensible tragedy where the person who created it told us exactly why it was happening.

        1. It is a completely sensible tragedy where the person who created it told us exactly why it was happening.

          Yeah, no kidding.

          You’d think the fact that the guy made a phone call in the middle of a murder spree an ANNOUNCED THE REASONS HE WAS DOING THINGS might actually be taken at face value.

          Instead we’ve gotten assurances from “Experts” that they don’t have enough information to ‘fully understand’ what actually happened, and hey, lets run some news stories about how he was that fat kid who got picked on in the 3rd grade, maybe that will help us decode the mystery of human psychology.

          I call it “Rosebudding” = basically, trying to insist that a single point in a human being’s life MUST BE the consequent of the sum total of all the previous events, and that ‘everything matters’ equally.

          The actual effect of the process is to baffle people with irrelevant bullshit…. to distract them from the simple facts, like “he murdered people in the name of ISIS”.

          1. Would this guy have murdered 50 people if he had been a same self loathing nasty piece of work he was but instead of being a Muslim had been a Hindu or an Atheist? I seriously doubt it. This is what murderous ideologies do; give nasty and violent people a reason to be mass murderers rather than just ordinary criminal assholes.

            1. He might have murdered different people. If he were Hindu, he might have wanted to kill a bunch of Muslims.

              1. Yeah those damned Hindus and their barbaric violent ideology and long history of aggressive behavior…

              2. In India maybe but never over here.

      2. Yeah, sorry for muddying the waters with that, Gilmore. Ultimately every mass killer is insane – because normal people just don’t do that. Which is not to give them a pass based on the crazy.

        1. Ultimately every mass killer is insane – because normal people just don’t do that.

          Under the right circumstances “normal” people are capable of killing a lot of people. They just have to convince themselves it is the right thing to do.

        2. Sorry, but I don’t buy “mass killer = insane”, at least not for useful values of insane. Some are, some aren’t.

          1. Yeah, the problem is that it’s a bit of a catch-22. If a guy finds his wife in bed with another man and kills them both, would you say he is insane? After all, he’s not exactly acting in a sane manner, even though his behavior is understandable.

          2. useful values of insane

            Good way of looking at this.

          3. And most insane people are not mass killers.

          4. I don’t know. I’d say that wanting to kill a lot of innocent people is insane. Not necessarily in the sense that will get you acquitted. But it’s certainly not a healthy, well-adjusted state of mind.

          5. Insane is only useful as a legal definition. It has no clinical meaning.

      3. Reminds me of the execution of the child-killer in Starship Troopers.

        Can’t find the exact quote now, but Rico argues that if the killer was insane, he should still be executed as a danger to society. OTOH, if he regained sanity, he would surely kill himself out of remorse.

        1. Thinks like this are a real test of my opposition to the death penalty. Absolutely do people like Roof and that woman who deliberately drowned her kids in the bathtub deserve death. I still don’t trust the state with that power even in situations like this where the acts were extreme and guilt unquestionable. However, these people will never be rehabilitated, can never be trusted again. And keeping them alive only places the mental hospital staff in ongoing danger. A true conundrum.

          1. The problem is that there’s no such thing as super-duper guilty, and the death penalty was reserved for that. Unfortunately, most death penalty cases aren’t that clear cut, and until there’s some serious reforms in place in the court system, I’m going to have oppose the death penalty.

            1. Also the complication that the jihadist fucks want death and martyrdom. Why give them that? Lock em up in solitary and see if they can get to Paradise that way.

              1. As long as they are only fed pork products. Actually. . .no. if you’re looking at locking someone away for life that’s exactly what the death penalty is for. I’m sure this’ll sound cold but there is no reason taxpayers should be on the hook to keep these people alive.

      4. There are plenty of reasonable definitions of insanity besides the legal “not guilty by reason of insanity” one.

    2. Also – i’m not really trying to pick on you in particular, tonio; its just that i think we’ve all gotten pretty lazy with media-driven armchair psychoanalysis, trying to insist upon some “coherence” to people’s backgrounds which makes later behavior seem logical.

      The fact is that “sane” human behavior can often seem insane when you try and impose any kind of logic on it. That’s not how most people *are*. People have complex motivations which don’t always make sense no matter how hard you try and contextualize them.

      1. No problem. Agree that a person can both be insane and be a violent fanatic.

        1. They can be both. But the definition of insanity requires a disconnect from reality. So the guy who shot rep Giffords because of the mind controlling effects of grammar was insane.

          Mateen shot up a bunch of gays because he thought his religious beliefs ordered him to kill gay people, and he found a group of like minded people that agreed with him, so his actions at least had something to do with what was going on on planet Earth. So he was an asshole, but wasn’t insane.

    3. The local vigils seem to all have muslim religious leaders speaking.

      Hadn’t noticed that but ugh how trite.

      What I have noticed is that they all turn into anti-gun rallies.

      1. Yeah, that’s why I’m avoiding the vigils.

    4. They are going extra hard on any homo who dares to go off the reservation and mention Islam.

      While at the same time trying to ban people on the largely Muslim no fly list and terror watch list from buying guns.

      1. the largely Muslim no fly list

        for the 50th time =

        when did you learn the contents of the No-Fly list?

        1. Liberals.

          You know they’re psychic, don’t you?

          1. You misspelled ‘psychotic’.

    5. Back up, they have homo reservations now?

    6. The local vigils seem to all have muslim religious leaders speaking.

      NPR was falling over themselves all weekend talking about how badly gay Muslims were impacted by the Orlando shooting. So that’s what, like 0.00002% of the US population? It was one of the fucking weirdest things I’ve ever listened to.

    7. They are going extra hard on any homo who dares to go off the reservation and mention Islam.

      Have you seen the reaction to the rainbow “Don’t Tread On Me” flags? These people are going to need a new set of pearls to clutch after crushing their current ones.

  5. The agenda of hiding the killer’s name and image is to prevent people from learning about why they did it. In fact the motive was the same as the Santa Barbara killer Elliot Rodger – rebellion against a virulently anti-Christian father. You reap what you sow.

    1. I thought Elliot Rodger was a case of the dangerous outcomes of involuntary celibacy. Hmm, maybe Islam is similar in that regard.

      1. Yep. He was mad at vagina for not allowing him entry.

        1. Some dudes deal with that by getting into PUA/gender warfare bullshit; others deal with it by, you know, working on themselves so that they have a better personality that women actually want to spend time with.

          ?\_(?)_/?

    2. Wouldn’t rebelling against your anti-Christian father involve becoming a priest or something? Killing queers in the cause of Islam doesn’t seem very rebellious.

      1. “Killing queers in the cause of Islam doesn’t seem very rebellious.” So you think he furthered his father’s cause?

        1. Yes it did or he at least reasonably thought it would. First, it bought him a ticket to heaven. Second, he did his part in creating a more Islamic world. His act alone doesn’t do that, but it is a start. Enough people do what this guy did and people will stop being openly gay for fear of their lives.

          1. Nope. It was a repudiation of the gay culture that he felt rejected him along with the Muslim culture and for the same reason. He was not religious and did not believe in heaven, even though your religion commands you to believe that he did.

            1. Yeah, I am going to ignore what he actually said and instead believe whatever you pull out of your ass. Ah, no.

              1. Pro-tip: you don’t have to believe every self-contradictory thing a mass killer says.

                1. No, but I don’t have to engage in half assed pop psychology and rationalization either. He said he did it for ISIS. He told his wife and his family he was doing it for ISIS. There is no reason not to take him at his word.

                  In your view does anyone ever kill for Islam? It is just bad luck that there is so much terror that people mistake for being Islamic I guess.

                  Troll somewhere else. No one here is going to buy your bullshit.

        2. So you think he furthered his father’s cause?

          From what I’ve read, his father was a pretty nutty Islamist fundamentalist, so, yeah. Chalking this up as rebellion against anti-Christian bigotry is bizarre, given that this was a fundamentalist Islamic attack (killing gays? check. Spouting Islamic propaganda? check.).

          1. No he would have hated his father for rejecting him and forcing him into a loveless marriage. Why not use your morally-perfected-by-evolultion brain for once in your life?

            1. No he would have hated his father for rejecting him and forcing him into a loveless marriage.

              OK, sure.

              Still looking for any reason to believe this was rebellion against anti-Christian bigotry rather than Islamist terrorism.

            2. You never met him. You have no idea anything about him. And you are asking us to ignore what he said and believe up a made up diagnosis on your part.

              He hated his father? Really? What did you know the man? It drove him to do it? I guess that is why he said “fuck you dad” when he did it. Right?

              What is CAIR paying trolls now?

              1. The FBI made him do it!

                /sarc

                1. Seriously, this dajjal guy is fucking nuts!!!

    3. Wow. Normally I’d think your attempt at trolling was weak, but it seems to have worked none-the-less. No one seems to have yet noticed your link is just to the IMDB of a random movie yet…

      1. Actually, it seems to link to Addiction Myth. So that’s interesting.

  6. Rather it’s a cultural push to get media to deliberately not give the public information. It’s working to some degree. On the day of the Orlando attack, CNN correspondents made a big deal about not publicizing Mateen’s name and image while reporting on the aftermath.

    You really don’t believe that do you? They didn’t seem to be concerned about that with Dylan Root. All of this is being withheld because the narrative is that Islam is peaceful and not the cause of terrorism.

    1. Sorry, are you referring to Dylann “Storm” Roof?

      1. His name wasn’t really Storm?

  7. The beginning of wisdom is to call things [ ].

    1. Hitler?

    2. (((Hitler)))?

    3. …to call things empty arrays?

    4. The beginning of wisdom is uncaught NullPointerException.

  8. I knew it was only a matter of time before the left would start denying that it’s Islamic terrorism even when it’s a clear case that it is exactly that. The entire basis of their ideology is lies.

    1. Lies or delusion? And pray tell, what exactly is the difference?

      1. Shut up you incoherent fuck.

        1. Shut up you incoherent fuck.

    2. It is not clearly terrorism. I might be. It might be the shooter fucking with police before the end came.

      Even more scary to the government’s narrative of terrorism is that a gay man was jealous or self-hating and decided to shoot up a gay club that he visited.

      1. Without too much of a semantics argument, what is terrorism? I’d say that the guy was a terrorist because he did terrorist shit. But, I also think it was based on some kind of confused, self-hating issue as opposed to ISIS. This guy was just looking to associated himself with some cause before he died.

        1. John makes the Nazi reference below. I agree that this dude was probably attracted to the ISIS ideology based on his already-held beliefs. Would be similar to an American dude in 1940 who decided he hated Jews, so he killed up a bunch and then googled Hitler and claimed allegiance to the Nazis.

          What does it matter? With regards to the specific terrorist/criminal, it doesn’t really matter how committed he was to ISIS before this happened. I think that the main reason for making distinctions about his status as a terrorist is about whether or not his actions provide a justification for bombing more people in the middle east.

          1. Would be similar to an American dude in 1940 who decided he hated Jews, so he killed up a bunch and then googled Hitler and claimed allegiance to the Nazis.

            Your timeline is off. More like an American anti-semite who became a Nazi shortly before killing a bunch of Jews.

            Saying that he would have gone killing anyway sort of begs the question of why he didn’t go on a killing spree on his own, before joining a murderous cult.

            1. RE: my timeline is off…

              I think that’s the question. Did he actually have anything to do with ISIS beforehand. Or did he kill a bunch of people and then decide to declare that he was killing in the name of ISIS. I don’t know that there’s a reason to think that he had anything to do with them beforehand.

              1. As of my last reading of the news on this, there was no known affiliation with ISIS or other islamist groups prior to the shooting. That doesn’t mean there was no affiliation.

                1. He sure spent time on their websites, yanking it to beheading videos, etc.

                  1. I should have written contact, as in they contacted him. Yes, he appears to have been a lone wolf, which does not make him any less of an ISIS sympathizer than someone who went to Syria for indoctrination and training and came home with the secret decoder ring.

                    But the progs are trying to spin the lack of known contact and direction as not an actual ISIS sympathizer.

                    In Christian doctrine, IIRC, if you accept Jesus then you are a Christian from that moment on. You may not be a particularly sophisticated Christian wrt belief system, you may not know the difference between Protestants and Catholics, but you are still a Christian. Thus the same with jihadi sympathies – once you declare your alliegiance you’re one of them even if you don’t get a certificate.

                2. If there was an affiliation, would the public even be allowed to know about it? My guess is no.

                3. They don’t need affiliation. What difference would it make in terms of anything anyone could do about it if they knew there was an affiliation or not?

        2. But, I also think it was based on some kind of confused, self-hating issue as opposed to ISIS.

          Why can’t it be both? Why can’t he be a confused, self-hating person, and that’s why he fell in with a totalizing religious ideology like Islamism?

        3. Terrorism: the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal. -Webster

          18 U.S.C. ? 2331 defines “international terrorism” and “domestic terrorism” for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled “Terrorism”:

          “Domestic terrorism” means activities with the following three characteristics:
          Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
          Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
          ….
          -FBI

          We kind of have to agree on what terrorism means to call it that don’t you think?
          This guy didn’t seem to want to frighten gays to fulfill some Islamic goal. But maybe he did.- Webster

          Definitely a Terrorist – FBI

          1. I agree with the concept that his actions define him as a terrorist; whether or not he was affiliated with any organization that is considered terrorist.

            With regards to what “loveconstitution1789” posted, he said that it’s not clearly terrorism, he may have been fucking with police. I took that as a reference to the ISIS comments and an implication that his actions might not have been terrorism if he wasn’t actually part of (or inspired by) ISIS. If that is a requirement, he might not have been a “terrorist”.

            Going back to Hyperion’s original, he said that it’s a clear case of Islamic terrorism. That adjective is probably the main question. Did Mateen do it based on either the words of ISIS or the general ideals that drive Islamic terrorism? Or, did he do it for his own reasons and then claim allegiance to ISIS?

            Does it matter beyond the question of whether or not we should drop bombs and who should they be dropped on?

            1. I think the word terrorist/terrorism gets thrown around way too much.

              With that being said, the feds consider him a terrorist or are using the word to scare Americans. There does not seem to any evidence yet released that shows that he killed 50 people because he wanted to achieve a political goal and/or affect the conduct of government. 50 people is not mass destruction nor assassination.

              Dropping bombs, I would argue requires a defined enemy, a reasonable goal, a reasonable exit strategy and a declaration of war or letter of Marque or reprisal.

              1. I would say that his actions would qualify as being intended to intimidate a civilian population. In less legal terms, I would say that he intended to spread terror.

                I agree with you on dropping bombs. I mention it because both sides of the aisle seem like they are happy to take this as a justification for further dropping bombs and that concerns me. Especially because I agree that things like enemies, goals, exit strategy, and declaration of war are important. But no politician has shown any concern for those details for well over a decade.

              2. Dropping bombs does require a defined enemy and a reasonable goal. It is here that we have continually fallen short since we moved beyond the Afghanistan phase of the WOT. What strikes me is that we first fell into references to terrorism, though, to avoid explicitly saying who or what we are at war with. That’s what makes the talk of taking constitutional rights from people on watch lists so terrifying: they don’t want to refer to a country, to actions taken on behalf of an ideology or the like. They just want the right to go after bad people – with them defining who’s bad.

                That said, an act like this seems pretty clearly targeted to terrorize gays from using their First Amendment right to freedom of assembly. In other words, it was not an act of war, but it was clearly an act of terror.

      2. I might be. It might be the shooter fucking with police before the end came.

        There is no evidence that would indicate that. His told his wife why he was doing it and it was because of his religion. Everything about this guy says that he did it in the name of Islam.

        Even more scary to the government’s narrative of terrorism is that a gay man was jealous or self-hating and decided to shoot up a gay club that he visited.

        Assuming he was gay, and that is hardly clear, that just means a self loathing gay man was attracted to an ideology that calls for the death of gays. That makes perfect sense. I am sure a lot of Nazis hated Jews before they became Nazis. Why else would they have wanted to become Nazis if they didn’t hate Jews to start with?

        1. Why else would they have wanted to become Nazis if they didn’t hate Jews to start with?

          For the snappy uniforms, of course!

          1. “Don’t be stupid, be a smartie! Come and join the Nazi Party!” – Mel Brooks

          2. I blame this entire thing on the rise of the lumbersexual in American society. People are wanting to join ISIS because of the snappy beards they wear. The best thing we could do to counter the ISIS threat is make it clear that Beardos are not cool.

            1. https://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=ToKcmnrE5oY

              “Have you noticed that our hats have skulls on them?”

            2. Fuck you, having a beard is awesome.

              1. That is just what ISIS says too.

                1. Well, stopped clock and all that.

                2. And Sikhs tell you beards are awesome too and they are bad ass.

        2. According to her. I admit that is evidence and that should be considered too. However, this dumb broad told the FBI that he confided in her that he was going to do a terrorist act or serious crime and she didn’t think the government would go after her? Not too smart. THE DOJ went after anyone they could involved with the Boston bombers.

          You know there were Jewish Nazis right? Alright, not every German fighting in Nazi Germany was a Nazi.
          http://www.jewishmag.com/158mag/ hitler_jewish_soldiers/hitler_jewish_soldiers.htm
          There were definitely Nazi sympathizers that were jewish.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Category:Jewish_Nazi_collaborators

          If you have ever been to the Islamic countries men do things to boys that we would call gay.

      3. I’m personally going with the former. He was reported to the FBI for suspect behavior twice before. So, I don’t think he was just throwing that out there to see if it would stick.

    3. Only a matter of time? Hell, they did the same thing with the Ft. Hood shooting.

      1. What did that piece of workplace violence have to do with Islamic terrorism?

  9. This is definitely an attempt to test government controlling the narrative and see how it plays.

    Government ‘s statements about the shooting: “The FBI is appropriately investigating this as an act of terrorism.”
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/ 06/12/president-obama-tragic-shooting-orlando

    Possible narrative that doesn’t fit expanded government powers to “fight terrorism”: Jilted gay man kills people at gay club which is a crime, not terrorism.

    1. I don’t see why you can’t be a self-loathing homosexual and an ISIS sympathizer. Those are far from mutually exclusive.

      1. Absolutely he could be both. That would cause some in our government to experience head explosions because it does not fit political narratives.

      2. Not just “not mutually exclusive”. “Self-reinforcing”, I would say.

    2. Has there been any confirmation that he was actually gay and not just using the apps and visiting the club for years in preparation for the attack and to seethe in his anger? Like has there been any physical gay contact? I hear a lot of “well he was on Grindr! and “He was at the club!” and that his dad called him gay once, but I have yet to hear any concrete evidence that he was actually gay.

      1. He apparently came on to another dude he was in police academy with. Asked him on a date. I’m skeptical he was planning to shoot up a club for a decade or so, as well (it was around that length of time from then). He went to gay clubs with other members of his class, as well.

      2. Lack of evidence is not the same as evidence of lack. While some bona fide man-on-man action would certainly suggest gay, my understanding is that real hardcore jihadis get a pass on all sorts of non-islamic activity (pork, shrimp, alcohol) as long as they do it in furtherance of jihad. And it’s possible that even if he did try to hook up that he wasn’t successful because of his personality. It is also possible that he had some truly anonymous sexual encounters we’ll never learn about those – the sort where you just go to a known cruising spot and there isn’t even a trace on social media apps.

        1. It is also possible he was just trolling for gay men so he could murder them. When that didn’t work, he decided just to go to a club and murder them.

          1. It is also possible he was just trolling for gay men so he could murder them

            Didn’t that happen to a gay man in Seattle? I thought I remember hearing about a Muslim that set up an account on a gay dating website to trap and kill gays.

      3. Why the hell would you need to stake out the location of your crime for THAT many years??

        1. A very good point. It’s not like he couldn’t have found other ways to kill groups of gays – pride festivals, for instance.

          1. ways places

        2. Maybe he was also working up the courage fortitude to actually take action?

    3. Possible narrative that doesn’t fit expanded government powers to “fight terrorism”: Jilted gay man kills people at gay club which is a crime, not terrorism.

      Just keep telling yourself that’s all this was. Ignore the transcript of the call which was the basis for this thread — the one where he says he’s doing all this for Islamic reasons. Just scroll up the page a bit, it’s hard to miss.

      1. That settles it then!

        He spent all the time visiting a gay bar to scout it out because he was a dutiful jihadist? Maybe- maybe not. I am glad you are so sure based on a censored transcript.

        Please don’t ever serve on a jury, because you might be asked to wait for all the evidence before making a decision.

        1. I know when I plan out MY crimes I spend a solid decade casing the place before committing the crime.

          On a completely unrelated note, my skills at investment are terrible.

        2. He could be attracted to dick and still find it abhorrent religiously. Could have even projected it on them for tempting him proving Muhammad was correct that gays are the evil.

          IDK, but saying it wasn’t jihadi BS is grasping at straws. What drew him to Jihadi BS could be lots of things that don’t really change what it was.

  10. He obviously targeted the club specifically because it was gay, but I notice an explicit lack of mention of homosexuality or gay people in the transcripts, and a hell of a lot of typical Islamic terror lingo, praise for Allah, and rants against the West. The “well he doesn’t know the difference between the Taliban and ISIS so he can’t really be a Muslim” argument is so inane I don’t know how people say it with a straight face.

    1. He also visited Disney World. Why? Because Mickey Mouse is ________ .

      I think much of this speculation is just that and we may never know why for sure.

      1. Minnie Mouse is a transvestite. This is well known.

      2. It is possible to hate more than one thing. And for a jihadi, striking a Disney venue would have a huge impact.

    2. He obviously targeted the club specifically because it was gay, but I notice an explicit lack of mention of homosexuality or gay people in the transcripts…

      But apparently he left enough of a trail of virulently homophobic comments outside of the 911 calls.

    3. Well, not knowing the difference between ISIS and Hezbollah is on the level of not knowing that there is a difference between Catholics and Protestants. Not knowing that the Catholic/Protestant divide isn’t PROOF you aren’t a Christian, but it does mean you’re fairly unversed in your own religion’s history.

      1. I don’t think making statements in favor of both ISIS and Hezbollah necessarily means he doesn’t know the difference. It could be that he is supportive of virtually any anti-Western Islamic terrorist group. Iran supports Hamas even though the former is Shiite and the latter is Sunni.

  11. Speaking of inconvenient information, I wonder how progs are rationalizing the gun shop owners who wouldn’t sell him bulk ammo and reported him for being shady and wanting body armor? I mean, since guns turn people into mass murderers, gun shop owners must be the worst of the worst. They couldn’t possibly care about saving lives.

    1. I mean, since guns turn people into mass murderers, gun shop owners must be the worst of the worst. They couldn’t possibly care about saving lives.

      Wow, I wasn’t aware of this. ‘See something, say something.’ practically implemented in good faith and they may as well have been pissing into the wind. Hopefully, it doesn’t come back to bite them. Kinda gives the notion of universal background checks a swift kick in the gonads too.

      1. “See something, say something”

        Except for his wife. She gets a pass.

        1. and then she disappears before they can change their minds, who could have seen that coming?

    2. Its far more important to run 1000 stories about his 3rd grade behavior and insist that “What we still don’t know” makes drawing any conclusions impossible.

  12. Personally, what stands out to me is how asinine the censorship is. Consider:

    Praise be to God, and prayers as well as peace be upon the prophet of God [in Arabic]. I let you know, I’m in Orlando and I did the shootings….My name is I pledge of allegiance to [omitted].

    So, what might possibly be in the [omitted] section? Ooh! I know! The Elks! Or maybe the Metropolitan Orlando Area Junior Chamber of Commerce!

    1. Right. That struck me too. “We’re going to omit all references to ISIS. So all of the redacted parts are absolutely, positively not ISIS namechecks. Got that?”

    2. You know, the redacted part is so … obvious as to what has been omitted that I kinda wonder if this is just a smokescreen.

      “Guys, if we refuse to release just the word ‘ISIS’ in this transcript maybe SO MANY PEOPLE will get butthurt about it that we can sneak past all KINDS of gun control!!”

      It feels like many times the left just decides to strategically invent stupid controversies so that their opponents fixate on the controversy and are distracted, spending too much time ranting about trans people in bathrooms or worries about the obvious-but-omitted words in a report, and thus cannot focus on the other bad, but not ridiculous, shit the left proposes.

      Sort of like bullfighting. Wave the red flag of PC Censorship, then when the bull charges that, stab ’em with the sword of Gun Control.

      1. So suddenly everyone is going to buy into control because of this? WTF?

        1. Very tricky, while you were writing that they took your guns.

      2. “You know, the redacted part is so … obvious as to what has been omitted that I kinda wonder if this is just a smokescreen.”

        Or it could be that orders came down from on high ordering the censorship and the agent in charge thought it was a stupid idea that was bound to generate a backlash. So, the agent did the minimal censorship required by the orders.

    3. So, what might possibly be in the [omitted] section?

      Woodchippers.

    4. Cthulu.

  13. You, all right? I learned it by watching you!

  14. “But here’s the thing: Where on earth would the administration get the idea that such a move would play well with the public?”

    IDK, ‘Aminmal Farm’ and ‘1984’ come to mind.

  15. I’m not clear why they couldn’t publish the transcript and replace the guy’s name with “MURDERER” written in caps or Italics to denote the substitution. Instead, they keep the guy’s name and delete the yucky parts.

    I wonder what would have happened if the hated BOOSH had pulled a similar stunt during his administration. I expect the Public Outrage Machine would be running on overdrive, and the Jon Stewarts of the world would pummel that shit for about a month.

    I wonder what would the reaction would be by the media if a mass shooting in 218 by a crazy white guy proclaiming loyalties to the Westboro Baptist Church had his transcript edited by President Trump?

    This is the kind of stuff that media types of all stripes should be in agreement on. Fedgov has crossed a serious line and Team Stuff shouldn’t be more important than maintaining whatever existing shred of journolistic integrity the media thinks it still has.

    1. 2018. Obviously, while the Republic is in danger, Trump is no Elagalabus.

      1. Are we sure about that? Lol

  16. The writer repeated the argument that media coverage is what nutjobs like Mateen crave and that covering it just encourages more.

    Apparently, the left (it’s usually leftists who do this) is psychic and can see the drive behind people who commit crimes like this.

  17. FWIW, I think they’re using the same approach that TV stations use for streakers and other jackasses that run on the field at some sporting event. Not showing them on TV hasn’t eliminated the people who do that, but has it reduced the numbers? I don’t actually know. It seems like it has, but maybe that’s just because SportsCenter doesn’t have/show the footage, so we’re less likely to see that it happened.

  18. This is just a big bunch of [redacted], FBI.

  19. It’s the NRA, right? Just replace [omitted] with ‘the NRA’.

  20. “Where Did the Justice Dept. Learn to Censor Info About Violent Attacks?”

    From you, Dad!

    1. I never learned how to sensitive material destructive to political narratives, Father, you never taught me!

  21. Sorry if someone already mentioned this but if he had pledged allegiance to the tea party or some white group or patriot militia you could imagine what the doj would do. I don’t buy this argument that anyone in Washington or the media is just doing what we ask them to do. That’s absurd. This is spin by ommission, nothing more

    1. If it would have been some guy draped in a Rebel Flag and saying he did it for the NRA and what male Christians, they would be shouting it from every rooftop in the country.

      This is the worst administration in the history of this nation. Just imagine what it will be like after 8 years more of Obama (Hillary puppet). Just let that sink in. It’s a very disturbing picture.

      1. I try not to think about it. Need to buy stock in breweries.

  22. I’m getting worn down just talking about this stuff. The Obama admin has just made up their mind that they’re going to do whatever they want to do. They want to make this about guns, so that’s what they’re going to do. And the GOP controlled Congress have made it just as clear that they are not going to do shit about whatever it is the Obama admin is doing, and we’ve had two Speakers of the House in a row who will bend over backwards to help Obama do whatever the fuck he wants.

    I mean, they’re telling the public, we’re going to lie to you or just hide facts from you, and Americans in general don’t seem to have any issue with that. Just go ahead and replace all the media with a US version of Pravda and it will all be good.

    1. This is partly why the 1st Amendment has increasingly become a joke. The media at large are controlled by Democrats and are suffused with mendacious cunts who happily exploit principles of liberty and social capital and treat them as a weakness to be undermined. It doesn’t matter if it’s NBC, the local newsrag, social media, or cable TV–they’re all run by high-time preference, progressive fifth columnists who don’t care how dysfunctional their policies are or how much they break down trust bonds in the long run, as long as they obtain power over those they consider inferior.

      Publications like Reason are simply trying to hold back the authoritarian flood. The lesson here is that if you want to control society and control the culture, you have to control the media, or destroy what’s in its place.

  23. Yeah, I was wondering the same…

    People typically complain that we publicize the message of killers and are now all outraged that the message of a killer has been censored.

    1. When it has never been censored before and everyone knows it won’t be censored again if the motives are something that fits their narrative, yes they are.

      If next week someone shoots up a Mosque and says he did it for Donald Trump and the NRA, do you honestly think CNN will be interested in censoring his reason? I can’t even type that with a straight face. Of course they wouldn’t. So this is not about censoring the motive of the killer to keep it from inspiring others. This is about lying.

      1. This censorship, though, is so blatantly obvious as to what they are covering up. I mean, they censored the word “ISIS”, you can just find-replace it to get the original meaning just fine. I just can’t begin to care about this other than thinking this is some kind of distraction.

        Let’s see, too many people on the Right won’t let us do the kind of gun control we want… what can we do to distract them…

        I KNOW, let’s censor just the word “ISIS”. That makes it look like blatant PC censorship. But with enough plausible deniability that we can just say this is to avoid publicizing terrorist rhetoric like people have been bitching about for a long while now!!

        That way the Johns of the world will be TOO OUTRAGED by the not-actually-censorship-because-everyone- knows-the-one-omitted-word-is-ISIS -but-LOOKS-like-PC-censorship-anyways that they spend less time ranting against our stupid, tyrannical gun control aims!!

        I think this is, like the trans bathroom thing, just another one of those fake controversies that the Democrats drum up to distract the Right from their true machinations. And just like the last fake controversy, you’re blundering right into their trap and fighting the fight against PC censorship on the terms the Enemy has set for you.

        1. That is delusional. This just makes them look like lying sacks of shit and makes people trust them less, which makes people less inclined to buy into gun control.

          That is not what is going on here. What is going here is they are censoring it so their hack media and internet trolls have talking points to try and change the narrative.

          Sometimes lying is just lying and nothing more.

          1. The administration is just censoring ISIS because they’d rather he’d used ISIL, just like the Lightbringer does.

            1. #savage

              1. ^As the kids say

      2. “This is about lying.”

        It is totally about lying, I can agree there. But this isn’t about making it fit their “narrative” because even with the word ISIS omitted, it is blatantly obvious that the guy killed in the name of ISIS. I think this is a lie meant to distract the people like yourself that will get riled up about this. Spending so much time worrying about the spectre of mild-and-ineffective-censorship that you (and more importantly, pro-second amendment pundits) don’t have as much time to attack the bigger threat of gun control.

        I don’t feel like falling for the left’s trap. The censorship effectively did nothing, we still know exactly what he said through context, and is not an issue. This is the last post I feel willing to give this manufactured non-issue. Let’s go back to focusing on the attempts to strip away the second amendment.

        1. You grossly underestimate their ability to get their supporters to rewrite history. They redact is and everyone of their supporters will pretend there is no evidence he did this for ISIS. And give it a year and that will be the received truth.

    2. His message isn’t being censored. Just the parts that don’t fit Obama’s narrative of blaming guns.

      1. Effectively, NOTHING has been censored because the censors told us the word that was omitted, see above response to John.

        1. NOTHING has been censored because the censors told us

          lol

  24. Some People Want to Book Of Internet That issued some time never ever get because the internet now How can Fast and Earning Categorize Very much.Now i have to able freelancing of internet online jobs and makes a book who help learn about herself and next generation teach very well.

    Go to the website>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.CashPay60.Com

  25. “But here we see the unintended consequence of media self-censoring stories about mass killings in order to pander to this belief that it helps prevent future attacks somehow.”

    Does anyone believe that? I only see it rise an issue when the criminals hurt a narrative.

  26. All of this information came out a week ago, anyway.

    http://www.npr.org/2016/06/13/…..rep-schiff

    He specifically mentioned Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

    1. Everyone knows the truth. This is just Lynch spitting in people’s faces and telling them its raining.

      1. What’s the truth?

        That Omar Mateen got training and logistical support for ISIS in Syria?

        Or that Omar Mateen liked to go to certain websites?

        If ISIS wants to claim responsibility, I have no problem with holding them accountable by flattening whatever they held in Fallujah.

        But just because I say I invented the omelet doesn’t make it so.

        1. The truth is this. ISIS for 1.5 yrs now has been pushing msg: If you can’t reach Syria, take action against infidels at home. In Adnani’s Sept 2014 speech, he encouraged sympathisers 2pick up any tool they can – a rock to smash an infidel’s head; a car to ram him. Just about the only requirement from ISIS’ pt of view is that the ISIS-inspired attacker needs to clearly state their affiliation w/group.

          This guy took up their offer and did what he did. It is really that simple. You just make yourself sound stupid when you pretend there is anything else to it.

          1. “This guy took up their offer and did what he did. It is really that simple. You just make yourself sound stupid when you pretend there is anything else to it.”

            Yeah, they’ve been calling for lone wolves to do things like this for years.

            Not as long as Tom Metzger. Does that make Metzger responsible for every skinhead that stomps a minority in Europe and elsewhere?

            The real question is: What are you trying to justify with the observation that the Florida Massacre was because of ISIS?

            Do you want to send ground troops to Syria because they planned this attack and gave the murderer material support?

            Do you want to unplug the internet because this kook read their websites?

            When you’re blaming ISIS for this, what are you trying to achieve by that?

            Like I wrote, I have no problem holding them accountable for whatever they want to claim responsibility for. I have a big problem with violating anybody’s rights or getting into a quagmire that will cost trillions and thousands of American lives–to achieve nothing but make you feel better about sexually conflicted murderer who claimed affiliation with ISIS (and Hezbollah!) because he read their websites.

            1. The real question is: What are you trying to justify with the observation that the Florida Massacre was because of ISIS?

              Because that is what happened. ISIS said go forth and attack where you are and that is what this guy did. He told us so. And they were happy he did it. There is no justify to it. It is just what happened.

              When you’re blaming ISIS for this, what are you trying to achieve by that?

              Telling the truth. This is how they operate. Put their message out hard enough and long enough and eventually some people are going to hear and take it up. When that happens take credit for it and use it to inspire others.

              What are you trying to accomplish Ken other than deny reality? So what if the guy had other issues? He wasn’t shooting up gay clubs before this. And he only did it after he decided he wanted to head ISIS call to action.

              And this kind of thing is going to continue to happen until we do something about ISIS. If you don’t want to do that, fine. But understand that the price of doing nothing is going to be them continuing to give people like this guy a reason to commit mass murder.

              1. “Because that is what happened. ISIS said go forth and attack where you are and that is what this guy did. He told us so. And they were happy he did it. There is no justify to it. It is just what happened.”

                You quoted the question, wrote all that, and still didn’t answer the question.

                “What are you trying to justify with the observation that the Florida Massacre was because of ISIS”

                Because this guy read ISIS’ websites, we should [fill in the blank].

                I hope it’s not something stupid. Just because a sexually conflicted nutjob did something awful after reading ISIS websites–probably isn’t a good reason to do something stupid.

                Get a load of this: even if ISIS had orchestrated and provided material support for the actual attack in Florida, that probably still wouldn’t justify doing something stupid.

                1. I hope it’s not something stupid. Just because a sexually conflicted nutjob did something awful after reading ISIS websites–probably isn’t a good reason to do something stupid.

                  What difference does it make that he might have been sexually conflicted? Are the people less dead?

                  Okay, so ISIS is giving every closet case in America inspiration to commit mass murder. You seem to think that somehow makes ISIS not a problem. No Ken. It makes them an enormous problem.

                  The underlying assumption of your position is that this guy would have gone out and killed 50 people had he been a Hindu who had never heard of ISIS. No, Ken he wouldn’t’ have. We know that for two reasons. First, despite being a closet case for years, he didn’t do that until he decided to do it for ISIS. Second, no one other than ISIS inspired nuts are doing this kind of thing.

                  ISIS inspired this guy to do this and they are going to continue to inspire others as long as they continue to exist. The problem is ISIS and Islam. What you want to do about that problem is open for debate. But saying the problem is anything but that is stupid and delusional.

                  1. “What difference does it make that he might have been sexually conflicted? Are the people less dead?”

                    I thought you were interested in the truth just because it’s the truth.

                    “You seem to think that somehow makes ISIS not a problem.”

                    Actually, I said I have no problem holding them accountable for anything they want to claim credit for–so long as we don’t do anything stupid like invade.

                    Have I said twice or three times in this thread. I’ve said it for days in other, too.

                    Doesn’t mean I have to pretend that ISIS gave training or material support to the Orlando Massacre.

                    “The underlying assumption of your position is that this guy would have gone out and killed 50 people had he been a Hindu who had never heard of ISIS.”

                    So, what do you want to do about people’s religion, exactly?

                    I hope it’s not something stupid.

                    1. So, what do you want to do about people’s religion, exactly?

                      I hope it’s not something stupid.

                      I am open for suggestions. Your plan seems to be to do absolutely nothing. You admit ISIS is responsible for this. How Americans have to die before you think we should fight back? Standing around letting people murder us seems pretty stupid to me.

                    2. So, what do you want to do about people’s religion, exactly?

                      How about you can’t say that it is people’s duty to murder in the name of your religion? How about that?

              2. “Telling the truth. This is how they operate. Put their message out hard enough and long enough and eventually some people are going to hear and take it up. When that happens take credit for it and use it to inspire others.”

                So far, I haven’t seen anything to suggest that ISIS orchestrated or gave material support to Omar Mateen’s attack in Orlando.

                That is the truth.

                The truth is that this attack appears to be a lone wolf thing: It appears Mateen did it by himself and claimed affiliation with an organization he’d never met and from which he’d never received any training or material support.

                The truth is that ISIS has a history of trying to goad the United States and others to come fight them on the battlefield in Syria and Iraq.

                1. So far, I haven’t seen anything to suggest that ISIS orchestrated or gave material support to Omar Mateen’s attack in Orlando.

                  They didn’t have to. That is the entire point. Why bother to orchestrate it when you can just put out propaganda and get people to do it on their own?

                  The truth is that this attack appears to be a lone wolf thing: It appears Mateen did it by himself and claimed affiliation with an organization he’d never met and from which he’d never received any training or material support.

                  Sure. And you somehow think that matters makes ISIS or radical Islam in general less of a problem. NO, it makes them more of a problem. Thanks to an endless supply of guys like this, they don’t have to provide support. They just need to supply inspiration.

        2. Thank you for inventing the omelet!

          1. It was more of an innovation.

            I was making scrambled eggs one day, and I decided to put some sliced mushrooms and cheese in there.

            I decided it would be easier if I just, you know, flipped it over on itself to melt the cheddar.

            And voila!

  27. “Lynch told NBC “What we’re not going to do is further proclaim this man’s pledges of allegiance to terrorist groups and further his propaganda.”

    Predictably, this just throws kerosene on the fire.

    If they did this to deflect people away from blaming this on ISIS and pressuring the Obama Administration to fight ISIS directly, all their secrecy will do is give people more ammunition to claim that the Obama Administration is papering over ISIS’ responsibility.

    There’s a word for furthering the cause you’re actively seeking to fight. That word is “incompetence”.

    The Obama Administration is incompetent.

  28. So Conor Friedersdorf and one cosmotarian magazine reader is “the public” now?

    Seems to me like the press is wholly to blame. They started it with suppressing teen suicides ages ago.

  29. “I take a dim view of this argument because it, first of all, assumes that we can or should alter our entire mass culture in such a way so as to not trigger violent behavior from a very small number of people.”

    Bullshit. The only way to deter a mass shooting at a gay club is for everyone to be carrying a high-capacity assault weapon so they can deter the 0.00000000000000001% chance that a Islamic fundamentalist will be in attendance. It never hurts to be too careful.

    1. “…carrying a high-capacity assault weapon…”

      There is no such thing. Assault weapons are almost universally single-shot (or in the case of things like the Bangalore Torpedo or Mine-Clearing Line Charge, single-use). The only assault weapons I can recall with more than one shot are the American M202 FLASH and the Chinese FHJ-84.

      1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoFikuoIwLw

        THE DP-12 a double barrel pump shotgun that you can shoot both barrels at the same time. I need this

  30. I suppose the novel conspiracy theory to sell through all of this is that the whole massacre was orchestrated by the Obama Administration to trick America’s right wing into fighting for gay rights world wide.

    Gay rights in Syria. Gay rights in Iraq. Why, they’re throwing gays from rooftops, doncha know? If being a right wing patriot isn’t all about fighting for gay rights in Syria, then the flag doesn’t mean anything at all!

    LO freakin’ L.

    1. Because Obama gives a fuck about gays. Ken, if you were under the impression that a Christian being against murdering gays is being a hypocrite if they don’t want to enact force baking laws then you are a retard.

      Believe it or not, and I can’t believe I have to say this to a libertarian- lots of people hold the position that forced association is bad for everyone because such a power should never be held in a free society.

      1. It is hilarious the way the right is suddenly up in arms about gays and their rights.

        Yes.

        They’re throwing them off the rooftops! Why, we shouldn’t even let Muslims into the country because they don’t care about gay rights at all!

        LOL

  31. If 911 had happened with Obama in office, would he have said it was the acts of a few deranged mad men and had nothing to do with Bin Ladin or the Taliban? I think he might have.

    1. I think he would have put the blame squarely where it belonged… on Margaret Thatcher’s neo-colonialist middle east policy.

      1. I blame the hippie trail.

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

        It ran straight through Kabul!

    2. If he’d avoided invading Iraq because of 9/11, Obama would have been head and shoulders above Bush on that one count.

      After all, six months after we invaded Iraq, 69% of the American people still believed Saddam Hussein was personally complicit in 9/11–and that wasn’t by accident. Somebody told them about Al Qaeda ties to Saddam Hussein and showed them pictures of mobile WMD labs that turned out to be phony.

      If Obama hadn’t invaded Afghanistan in response to 9/11, I don’t suppose he’d have been reelected.

      If Obama had merely bombed Afghanistan to smithereens, we might be better off now than we are today.

      1. This time with bacon!

        http://usatoday30.usatoday.com…..iraq_x.htm

      2. Sadam had WNDs all over the country Ken. We found thousands of chemical shells in Iraq and veterans are sick from the exposure to chemical weapons to this day.

        I know it is a matter of religious faith with some people that Saddam didn’t have WMDs, but the truth is he did. And 69% of the country did not believe Saddam had something to do with 911. Show a citation for that or stick that statement back up your ass where you found it.

        1. “We found thousands of chemical shells in Iraq and veterans are sick from the exposure to chemical weapons to this day.”

          If you think digging those shells out of the ground or because they’d been lost and abandoned was worth $3 trillion and counting and thousands of American casualties, you’re out of your mind.

          And the reason people thought Saddam Hussein’s WMD were a big deal is because they thought Saddam Hussein had used WMD against Americans here in the United States–not because they were afraid of his lost artillery shells.

          For goodness’ sake, remember when snail mail was important, and everybody was afraid to go to the mailbox? Do you remember the anthrax attack at all, or have you completely forgotten?

          1. If you think digging those shells out of the ground or because they’d been lost and abandoned was worth $3 trillion and counting and thousands of American casualties, you’re out of your mind.

            They were not lost or abandoned. They were stored in huge ammunition dumps and the Iraqis knew exactly where they were. And whether Iraq was worth it or not is a different debate. Even if it wasn’t, lying about the facts is still lying.

            And the reason people thought Saddam Hussein’s WMD were a big deal is because they thought Saddam Hussein had used WMD against Americans here in the United States–not because they were afraid of his lost artillery shells.

            He was in possession of tons of chemical weapons. He also had all of the know how to put his program back into production once the UN Sanctions ended, which was going to happen sooner or later. The scientists, the labs, the materials to make it, it was all there just waiting to start producing again once the sanctions were lifted.

            Saddam had a huge WMD program and was in possession of large amounts of chemical weapons. The fact that they were in artillery shells didn’t make them any less dangerous. The facts are what they are Ken.

      3. One thing people get wrong; everyone thinks there was no strategic rationale for invading Iraq. This is wrong.

        1) Al Queda’s casus belli with the U.S. involved American troop ‘occupying’ Saudi Arabia.

        2) The troops were there to prevent a repeat of the invasion of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia that triggered the first Gulf War.

        3) The Saudi’s would not accept a withdrawal of U.S. troops with a Saddam Hussein remaining in power.

        Had Bush pulled it off, everyone would be arguing that it was a coup of strategic genius; reducing the importence of Saudi Arabia on middle east policy, removing the U.S. from what had started out as a conservative/modernist battle for control of the Saudi monarchy; and setting the stage for normalization of relations with Iran in the next few decades.

        People assume that Bush merely wanted to finish Gulf War 1. That is not correct. Rather there was no attention paid to considering the Iraq invasion from the perspective of what would happen in Iraq. Instead they focused on how outsiders would react to what happened. Setting up a representative govt that would be pro U.S. and not corrupt and oppressive was an impossibility. A stable form of self determination would require the U.S. to partition the country along ethnic lines, and then leave. To keep a single state, either the Shiites would have to run the show (and ally themselves with Iran) or the U.S. would have to set up an oppressive Sunni dominated state.

        1. All the reasons Bush Sr. didn’t invade in 1991 were still legitimate in 2003.

          And all the things they predicted would happen in 1991 in Hussein were removed from power came true once he was removed from power.

          Obama wouldn’t have held himself back from invading for the same reasons Bush the Greater did.

          But even if you don’t shoot yourself in the face for a stupid reason, you’ve still managed to not shoot yourself in the face.

          P.S. Syria would have had a revolution regardless of whether we toppled the Saddam Hussein regime, but ISIS wouldn’t be what it is today if we hadn’t. Many of those “dead enders” Rumsfeld used to talk about found their way to ISIS by way of the insurgency. If you want to look for somebody who’s ever been more wrong than Rumsfeld about everything, I think you might have to look to Bill Kristol. And I suspect they may have been talking to each other or reading the same awful books or something.

          1. And you only assume the counter factual of not invading would have been better because you don’t know much and that is what you want to believe. Had we never invaded, Saddam would have eventually died, he was in poor health by 2003. When that happened, his idiot sons, who were hated by literally everyone, would have never held the country together and what is happening in Syria today would have happened in Iraq.

            Would that have been “better”? That is debatable of course. It is not however any kind of a positive counter factual.

            1. “When that happened, his idiot sons, who were hated by literally everyone, would have never held the country together and what is happening in Syria today would have happened in Iraq.”

              Are you asking me what would have been better from an American perspective?

              You’re setting the bar really low. I could clear that bar without even trying.

              On the downside of the invasion, you’ve got $3 trillion in spending and counting, thousand of American casualties, ISIS having materialized as a new threat, plus you’ve installed a government that is (at best) sympathetic to Iran, and you’ve emboldened Iran in its nuclear program. Surely you noticed that Iran started flaunting IAEA when we were bogged down in Baghdad, their handpicked party had been elected to take over the Iraqi government, and the country was on the brink of civil war, right?

              All I have to do is show that continuing to do as we had been doing from 1991 – 2003 would have been better for the United States–in one way–to show that invading Iraq was a mistake?

              That’s too easy.

              Bush the Lesser and his advisors were morons.

              Bush the Greater was a genius by comparison, and so were his advisors, if only because they resisted the same urges Bush the Lesser faced.

              Ever heard the expression “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread”? Bush the Lesser was a fool, and we’ll be paying the price of it for generations.

              P.S. Obama probably wouldn’t have been elected if Bush the Lesser hadn’t invaded Iraq.

        2. An interesting theory, but not one anyone mentioned in 2003, so I tend to doubt it. Bush 43 is known to have wanted to “get” Saddam from the time he (Bush) took office. Bush talked about wanting Iraq and its oil to be administered for the benefit of the Iraqi people, but when his first choice, Jay Garner, took that talk a little too seriously, he was quickly replaced by Paul Bremer, who gave it only the merest lip service. Anyway, who are the Saudis to say they will “not accept” a withdrawal of U.S. troops? How do they get a veto over U.S. decisions?

          1. The first time the U.S. refused to go along with Saudi geopolitical demands was when congress refused to authorize a military campaign to overthrow Assad. Withing a few weeks, ISIS appeared on the scene with all the money and heavy weapons they needed to overwhelm all the other competing rebel groups.

            With the exception of that episode, every intervention the U.S. has had in the middle east has been beneficial to the Saudi king. That includes the Iran/Iraq war, both Gul Wars 1 and 2, the GWOT, the occupation of Iraq (where the U.S. government helpfully massacred the Saudi malcontents being recruited by the imams taking the king’s pay to go and attack the great satan), rejecting Iranian assistance in the fight against Al Queda, the intervention in Yemeni civil war, etc.

            Many of them have not been beneficial to the U.S. I don’t know why the U.S. government has, since the Nixon presidency, behaved as the Saudis’ bitch. All I know is that it does.

    3. That’s why they call him the Notorious B.I.Y.

  32. This is how the grown ups talk to the children. You can’t handle the truth.

    1. When I was a kid, that’s kind of how I handed the parental units.

      Parental Unit on Sunday Morning: “So what’d you do last night?”

      Ken: “Oh nothing”.

  33. If Dylan Roof had pledged allegiance to Daivd Duke during his attack, I wonder if that information would have been redacted….

    Or does that serve a more valuable narrative, that we need moar gubmint to protect society from teh evil racist white people.

  34. Gawd, you mean people want 15 minutes of fame, so they go on a murder spree?

    That’s so 2000’s.

    Over it.

    Talk to the hand.

  35. https://twitter.com/rcallimachi

    I bet this woman is not popular with her colleagues at the Times. She must not get invited to any of the right parties.

  36. n fact, while I was writing this blog post, Reason got a complaint from a reader who wanted us to stop using Mateen’s name and photo as we did in Steve Chapman’s latest column.

    A Reason reader complained? Get out of town.

    1. Last week, I said something in the comments about seeing his face all the time like he was Justin Fucking Bieber.

      I wonder if that counts.

      1. Probably, but it doesn’t explain all those Bieber posters in your bedroom with the eyes cut out.

        1. By eyes, you mean penis, right?

          1. Yes. The penis is the window of the groin, after all.

      2. Commenters aren’t “Readers”. I mean, really: have you ever actually finished a Shikha column?

        1. Libertarians are a bunch of whiney bitches, so I am sure even non-commenters complain. Can you imagine the Hihn letters Reason receives?

          1. They go into the super-important file

            1. When the super-important file achieves sufficient mass, like all very large masses, it turns into a black hole. In the case of Hihn, that probably happened eons ago.

        2. Yeah, this is a false flag operation, because everyone knows there is no such thing as a “Reason reader”.

    1. Give it a month of two and that won’t be on the parody account.

  37. I figured it out. It’s Madlibs.

    Diety: Zeus
    Adjective: beautiful
    Adjective: punctual
    Language: Spanish
    Diety: Thor
    Plural noun: pizzas
    Noun: electric scooter
    Diety: Buddha
    Language: Klingon
    Person: Sylvester Stallone
    Another Person: Genghis Khan
    Diety: Vishnu
    Language: Old English
    Person: the bad guy from the first season of 24

    —-

    OD: Emergency 911, this is being recorded.

    OM: In the name of Zeus the beautful, the punctual [in Spanish]

    OD: What?

    OM: Praise be to Thor, and pizzas as well as electric scooter be upon the prophet of Buddha [in Klingon]. I let you know, I’m in Orlando and I did the shootings.

    OD: What’s your name?

    OM: My name is I pledge of allegiance to Sylvester Stallone.

    OD: Ok, What’s your name?

    OM: I pledge allegiance to Genghis Khan may Vishnu protect him [in Old English], on behalf of the bad guy from the first season of 24.

  38. And the Left wonders (or pretends to wonder) why people buy into Trump and other conspiracy theorist rhetoric about the Obama administration and jihadists.

    Unless this is an epic exercising in feeding the trolls. 23-dimensional chess, or whatever it is that Barry plays.

  39. Actually, what the DOJ released isn’t a transcript at all.

    Every time he said “Allah”, they replaced it with “God”.

    So, not a fucking transcript.

    1. Good catch. That is appalling. Give them a while and they will be telling us he was an angry Christian.

      1. Well, since his religion obviously had nothing to do with the attack (it was pro-gun Republicans, after all), we can just edit it to Christianity. His actions were more in line with American Christians, anyway. /progtard

    2. So he was obviously a Christian Arab, since they call God “Allah” too. Derpity derp.

    3. Is that part supposed to be a translation of Arabic? If so, changing “Allah” to “God” would be consistent.

      Also, it looks like they unredacted everything now.

  40. Reason got a complaint from a reader who wanted us to stop using Mateen’s name and photo

    Maybe you should just use Jared Loughner’s booking photo. Everybody likes that one.

    1. That’s what I use on my Facebook page.

  41. Over the past few years, whenever there’s been an incident of mass killings, there’s been a push to stop providing information about the killer or even saying his name. The belief (which I think at the moment is unsupported by evidence) is that giving the killer publicity is exactly what he “wants,” and it will encourage other psychopaths to do this same.

    I get what these people are going for, but I think it’s misguided.

    What I’d prefer is to see reporters unload on these worthless assholes. Rather than speaking hushed awe or anger at Republicans/immigrants/guns/Obama/etc. or the usual pants-wetting, call him a piece of shit. Say he’s a pussy for preying on unarmed civilians, that his belief system is worthless and the organization to which he pledged allegiance doesn’t give a shit about him, that you hope the handlers of his corpse shove a ham sandwich in his mouth before pissing on his body and burying him with copious amounts of gay pornography. Don’t express fear of these wastes of life.

  42. The other bit of DOJ’s editing is replacing “Allah” with “God”. It may be one thing to omit parts of the transcript (so long as the omissions are flagged), but what’s the justification for changing words like this with no flagging*? And changing them in a way that shifts from one religion (Islam) to another (Christianity).

    If you were to read this cold, you could well conclude that either (a) this is some oddball Arabic speaking Christian or (b) not really be sure whether the guy was Islamic or not. This isn’t “denying ISIS their propaganda”; this is pure obfuscation.

    *Note that the random sprinking of [in Arabic] is not consistently adjacent to “God” in the transcript.

    1. I see Playa beat me to it. Allah damn it!

      1. /calls in tip to FBI tip line.

  43. It’s clear who he was pledging allegiance to (al-Baghdadi). What’s not clear is who or what he said it was “on behalf of”. ISIS? Maybe, but I’m not certain, it doesn’t really seem to fit the sentence.

    1. They released the full version. It’s “the Islamic State.”

  44. RE: Where Did the Justice Dept. Learn to Censor Info About Violent Attacks? From the Public

    Wrong answer.
    The People’s Department of Injustice has been censoring for well over a century.
    But don’t worry.
    It’s for our own good.
    Our socialist slavers oppressing have said so.
    They wouldn’t lie.

  45. Semi-unrelated, but “Western Secular Caliphate” is the stupidest made-up name I’ve come across in a while.

    1. But still a good band name.

  46. Go all the way, censor “God” as well, why don’t you?

  47. Reason got a complaint from a reader who wanted us to stop using Mateen’s name and photo

    How about you stop using Steve Chapman’s name and column?

    1. Nah. Run his name and pic. Just use the ducklips selfie pic – there’s your ridicule and diminishment, right there.

      See? Everybody’s happy.

  48. Where Did the Justice Dept. Learn to Censor Info About Violent Attacks? From the Public

    “From you, alright! I learned it by watching you!” – Justice Dept.

  49. Well, they’re cracking under the ridicule and pressure, and will release the full transcript.

    Having thus not only failed to suppress the Islamic references, but actually pulled of the difficult feat of drawing even more attention to them by attempting to censor them first.

    Geniuses. Top. Men.

    1. Streisand Effect, for the motherfucking win.

  50. Hmmm … late to the comments here, probably already covered, but I ain’t reading 232 comments to see.

    This whole publicity things strikes me as just another desperate rationalization to justify the position that the State knows best and mere mortals are to oincompetent and naive and gullible to trust with the truth. I have heard reports that some spree killers want to set records, and that’s as close to reality as they get — if these guys have every intention of dieing in a blaze of glory, then getting their name associated with the massacre is the least of their goals, and unless you redact the number of dead, you can’t thwart their goals anyway.

    1. mere mortals are to oincompetent

      Typo of the day.

  51. Thanks for the update, Shackleford.

  52. The administrations primary [not secondary] goal here is to gloss over any hint of radicalized Islam, which our current POTUS is committed to denying at all costs. The reasoning being that profiling or any hint of categorizing certain groups of individual is a far far worse crime than anything they might actually do.

    And yes, these unstable individuals are motivated by the posthumous fame they see their predecessors getting; this outcome of social and mass media is the most outstanding variable in the re-occurrence of these scenarios, and what not one [in the media] wants to address. But clearly when someone does something this bad there is no way you can keep their name from getting out, just wish is wasn’t plastered all over every web page with endless coverage of what they “accomplished.”

  53. It really doesn’t matter. The Obama regime is always going to lie about everything.

  54. This is ‘beyond a shadow of a doubt’ (lol) silly

    Sorry but there is just a qualitative difference between asking the media to do something voluntarily and something that the government does when it comes to dissemination of information

    we expect the press to make all sorts of editorial decisions that it would be entirely wrong for the govt to make

    It’s just such a clearly different thing, and this article is thus… Nonsense

    This is some weak sauce

  55. That’s not the way to do it. What you do is make up a cover story, saying there was a gas explosion or some such, accounting for the deaths & injuries.

  56. As much as I dislike the withholding of this information it pales in comparison to my anger over the media refusing to name accusers of sexual assault.

  57. Except they still changed what he said by “translating” “Allah” into “God”. Allah isn’t God and Mateen didn’t say “God”, he said “Allah”. So they were still trying to manipulate people with this “transcript”.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.