Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/uspatri1/public_html/index.php:32) in /home/uspatri1/public_html/wp-content/plugins/wp-super-cache/wp-cache-phase2.php on line 1197
A Straightforward Take on the Orlando Shooting | U.S. PATRIOT NEWS & REVIEWS

A Straightforward Take on the Orlando Shooting

So there’s been another in America’s seemingly endless line of mass shootings. Except it wasn’t really, of course. Despite the predictable yelps of “Nothing to do with Islam!!!” this was a straightforward terrorist attack, of the sort that most of the world is now depressingly familiar with. It’s not a gun control issue; a similar attack happened in Paris last November, and while the terrorists could have bought the weapons locally (yes, you can buy guns in Europe) it was easier to exploit the EU’s suicidal free movement policy to bring them in from the east. If terrorists want weapons, they’ll get them; make it impossible to get guns and they’ll just blow their worthless selves up with home-made explosives, as four vermin did in London in 2005.

It’s hard to know where to start on this attack. Probably the best place is with the most annoying argument – that it was nothing to do with Islam. Of course it bloody was. The Afghan-American perpetrator was a Muslim, brought up by a pro-Taliban bigot from a country where being gay is a capital offense. I really doubt he picked up his loathsome views from watching Westboro Baptist videos on YouTube. This attack was plain old Islamist terrorism, hitting at a country (the USA) and a group (gays) that are both loathed by Islamists. So if anyone says it had nothing to do with Islam they can be safely ignored. The murderer called 911 before starting his rampage just to let them know it had everything to do with Islam.

Orlando Shooter Omar Mateen
Orlando Shooter Omar Mateen

Would the slaughter have been averted if someone in the club had been carrying a handgun? I doubt it. Ignoring the inherent risks of having people carrying firearms while they’re out drinking, a scared civilian with a handgun against a psychologically prepared and motivated terrorist with a rifle probably isn’t going to end well. It maybe could have been averted if the FBI’s interest in the killer’s known extremist links had been enough to bar him from buying a gun, but I doubt it. He’d either have bought one from criminals or just bought a stack of chapatti flour and started mixing the HME.

I don’t actually think there’s any way, in the short term, to avoid more attacks like this. The west is at war with Islamic State and a range of other Islamist groups. As I’ve said before, it doesn’t matter if we want to be at war with them or not – they do, and that’s all it needs. Until we acknowledge that we’re at war, and act accordingly, attacks like Orlando – and Brussels, San Bernardino, Paris, London, Madrid and all the others – will just keep on happening. This isn’t about magazine capacities or waiting periods; it’s about what happens when a modern western society based on the concept of personal freedom is hosting backwards idiots who take their morality from the most primitive corner of the Middle East.

Disclaimer: The content in this article is the opinion of the writer and does not necessarily reflect the policies or opinions of US Patriot Tactical.

Fergus Mason

Fergus Mason grew up in the west of Scotland. After attending university he spent 14 years in the British Army and served in Bosnia, Northern Ireland, Kosovo and Iraq. Afterwards, he went to Afghanistan as a contractor, where he worked in Kabul, Mazar-e-Sharif and Camp Leatherneck. He now writes on a variety of topics including current affairs and military matters.
Fergus Mason

Latest posts by Fergus Mason (see all)


6 thoughts on “A Straightforward Take on the Orlando Shooting

  1. Freedom is a dangerous way of life. The alternatives are various degrees of slavery. The only question is whether we face inevitable danger with courage and dignity, or like frightened sheep.

    1. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Not putting our heads in the sand and pretending that some people aren’t a threat. The smart thing is to identify those people and neutralize the threat they pose. Background checks and subsequent firearms restrictions on dangerous people keep us all safe – sheep and sheep dogs alike.

  2. I find myself agreeing a disagreeing with you at various parts of your piece Fergus. I believ that there is more to Mateen’s motivation than plain old Islam. But Islam is in there at the core nonetheless.

    Emerging evidence points to Mateen having a homosexual inclination himself. Islam, like all the Abrahamic faiths, is fundamentally opposed to homosexuality. This leaves Mateen with only one way to reconcile his urges with his faith – to kill as many gays as he can while committing suicide by cop as a means of appeasing his god and hopefully making it into paradise in the process. All pure speculation on my part, but we need to look for reasons hat fit the evidence, rather than trying to change the evidence to fit a predetermined narrative.

    You are right about your concerns about a bunch of drunk men and women having handguns in the club. It would just have been a recipe for more carnage. But why does a man like Mateen need to have an AR-15? It is a weapon designed to take human lives, just as the FN SLR that we trained on and carried is, except that an AR-15 is more effective in a confined space, especially with a 30 rnd magazine to keep it firing.

    You say that we need to acknowledge that we are at war, but it is more complex than declaring war on, say, the North Koreans. We are at war with a set of religious beliefs. It is worse than being at war with a political ideology because with radical Islam, the believers think their god will actually reward them for their death. How do you undermine such a belief system when you can’t produce proof that they are wrong?

  3. @buylocalbill I appreciate your message because you question things you have read. Any truely intelligent person will always do this iin search for the truth. That being said I am feeling the need to point out that parts of your message appear to be structured in the same way the liberal gun grabber structure their idiotic rhetoric. ” it is a weapon designed to take human lives, just as the FN SLR that we trained on and carried is”. The definition of weapon is, ” a thing designed or used to inflict bodily harm or physical damage.” ALL weapons are created to kill, from a .22 rifle to a 30mm grenade launcher. The weapons are not the issue here. The issue as I see it, is that our leaders refuse to stick up for the people they swore an oath to protect and serve. They refuse to see the big picture that we are actually at war with an ideology. If it isn’t a firearm that they are using it will be a bomb or a car or anyother means to destroy western ideas.

    1. Joe, not sure of your background but I appreciate the civility and respect of your comment and am happy to respond in kind. My background is military followed by policing and intelligence, including counter terrorism. I am retired now but still have family in special ops policing.

      All firearms are designed to inflict injury or death, with the possible exception of those designed specifically for target shooting and even they can inflict injury or death. My point is that there a many firearms are not designed to inflict injury on humans. Many are designed for other purposes, such as hunting. In the past I have been involved in the procurement of firearms for a law enforcement agency. Coincidentally, we decided to purchase AR15s and MP5s to replace FN SLRs, because the 7.62mm FN that we had jnherited caused problems in close quarter battle situations. Even the AR15 can be problematic when used in an operation that involves internal cavity walls because of excessive penetration with the associated potential for collateral casualties.
      The problem as I see it does include the weapon to which the criminal or terrorist has access. Would you give Mateen access to a 30mm grenade launcher? If not, why not? I certainly wouldnt because he could inflict that much more death and mayhem.
      Should Mateen be allowed to outgun the first responder police? Having been a first responder police officer, self interest says I don’t believe so. Should Mateen be allowed to stand toe to toe with the SWAT team? As a former SWAT officer and someone whose son is a current SWAT officer, again self interest says I don’t believe so.
      In Mateen’s case, the weapon is most definitely PART of the problem ause it put him on a superior footing to the off duty cop who tried to engage him. It allowed Mateen to hold off first responders, kill 49 innocent people, inflict grievous harm on another 50+ people and irrevocably harm hundreds of people’s lives forever.

      He couldn’t have done that much harm with a knife or an axe. He couldn’t have even done it with a chainsaw or a pistol. He would have needed a car bomb of significant power to inflict that much damage. Indeed, most car bombs in the middle east kill less than Mateen managed to kill.

      With respect Joe, the weapon is part of the problem. It is the “means” part of “motive, means and opportunity”. I don’t want to take your gun off you Joe – unless you are the next Mateen, in which case I would do it in a heartbeat! Do you want to take my gun off me? Would your answer change if you thought that I was the next Mateen? These are the difficult questions that we expect our leaders to deal with. At the moment, they seem to be hiding from them. So sad…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *