The Narrative that Omar Mateen chose ‘The Pulse’ nightclub for his massacre out of anti-gay bigotry (or, alternately, because he was a closeted homo) seems to be at odds with what the investigation revealed.
Much of the evidence regarding Mateen’s motives has remained under seal and thus unavailable for public review. But this afternoon, Salman’s lawyers filed a motion to preclude the admissibility of certain evidence and, in doing so, provided a meaningful glimpse into many of the facts that are clearly at odds with the long-standing, prevailing view that Mateen’s motive, at least in part, was to attack a gay club and murder LGBTs. That includes searches on Mateen’s phones during the week of the attack in which he was attempting to choose his target by searching generically for soft targets in the form of popular tourist locations or simply “nightclubs, Orlando” — not “gay nightclubs” or “LGBT clubs.”
By repeatedly emphasizing this anti-gay motive, U.S. media reports had the effect, if not the intent, of obscuring what appears to have been Mateen’s overriding, arguably exclusive motive: a desire for retribution and deterrence toward U.S. violence in Muslim countries.
So, he wasn’t an “Anti-Gay Hate Crime,” and the massacre at Pulse was not proof of “America’s Homophobic Conservative Culture” as reported by CNN, ABC News, Time, Esquire, Slate, the Chicago Tribune, the Huffingpaint Post, the UK Telegraph, the UK Independent, and … naturally… the New York Times. No, it was just an Islamic Supremacist who set out to murder infidels as the Quran instructs.
Hey, and remember, the FBI interviewed Omar Mateen twice and decided he wasn’t a threat.
Oh, here’s a picture of Omar’s dad at a Hillary Clinton campaign event a few weeks after his massacre.