In the week after the shooting massacre in Orlando, Fla., which claimed the lives of 49 victims and injured dozens more, the news media have found almost every reason for it outside of terrorism inspired by Islamic extremism.
Though the shooter, Omar Mateen, pledged allegiance to the Islamic State in a phone call before he was killed in a shootout with police, commentators and news outlets found several reasons to deny it was the main motivating factor.
Last Thursday, liberal New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof said that “perhaps the problem isn’t so much Muslims out of control but guns out of control.”
Charles Blow, also of the Times, also insisted that gun control, among other factors like “cultural toxicities,” were to blame.
“Lastly, we must remember that our foreign policy — whether bombing Muslims or banning them — has consequences,” wrote Blow, attributing blame to the U.S. for the massacre. “Seeking to diminish one threat can inflame another. Wars and reckless rhetoric are governed by the laws of unintended consequences, so we must tread carefully.”
Evidence cited by local and federal authorities, however, has suggested that Mateen was motivated by radical Islamic terrorism. A transcript from a local police dispatcher showed that he had said he was inspired by the Islamic State.
FBI Director James Comey has also said the investigation into the shooting revealed terrorist leanings at least partly influenced by outside elements. “The reason for that is there are strong indications of radicalization by this killer, and of potential inspiration by foreign terrorist organizations,” he said.
But a Times editorial said it was not obvious what motivated Mateen. “While the precise motivation for the rampage remains unclear, it is evident that Mr. Mateen was driven by hatred toward gays and lesbians,” the Times said.
Dana Milbank of the Washington Post acknowledged in passing that Mateen had mentioned Islamic extremism but that “he was obviously motivated by anti-gay hatred.”
A commentator on CNN said it wasn’t even clear the attack amounted to terrorism.
“We’re suggesting as we debate the mental state of the individual — what his relationship was with an ex-wife he abused at one point, with his visits to the club before — we’re suggesting we understand the mental state of the subject well enough to be confident we know why he committed that act, and therefore to know he was a terrorist,” said Philip Mudd, whose personal website identifies him as a former member of the CIA and FBI. “I’m not confident.”
