Doesn't @StefanMolyneux know the Bible, like the Koran, also forbids sodomy? https://t.co/KGI4mdNVuY— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 13, 2016
What more does @StefanMolyneux want after Muslim gunman has already been shot dead by the police? https://t.co/KGI4mdNVuY— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 13, 2016
Can a criminal turn himself into a terrorist just by saying that he is one?— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 13, 2016
Who has the higher status? a) A criminal b) A terrorist— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 13, 2016
A distinction should be made between a common or garden mass murderer aspiring to be a terrorist and someone who is one.— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 13, 2016
Is it possible to be a Muslim mass murderer yet not be a terrorist?— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 13, 2016
Which is worse? Your only son is a— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 13, 2016
Which is worse? Your son is a— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 13, 2016
@Lyesmyth @StefanMolyneux Can a homophobic mass murderer become a terrorist just because he says he is one?— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 13, 2016
@Lyesmyth @StefanMolyneux A terrorist clearly has a higher status than a common or garden homoophobic mass murderer.— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 13, 2016
@demas9876 @StefanMolyneux Is any Muslim mass murderer automatically a terrorist just because he says he is one?— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 13, 2016
@demas9876 @StefanMolyneux As I see it, Mateen gifted his mass murder to ISIS, and they eagerly accepted it.— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 13, 2016
@demas9876 @StefanMolyneux What if your crime was committed for personal reasons eg arson which you later claimed to be political?— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 13, 2016
@demas9876 @StefanMolyneux Why would a criminal claim to be a terrorist? Because it gives him a higher status.— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 13, 2016
@demas9876 @StefanMolyneux Why is a terrorist considered to have a higher status than a mere criminal?— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 13, 2016
@demas9876 @StefanMolyneux An act of terrorism committed for political reasons is higher value than a mere crime committed for selfish ones.— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) June 13, 2016
|Gavrilo Princip - the world's most successful terrorist, whose assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand caused a chain of events that led to the destruction of the Austrian Empire. He even died a natural death.|
Omar Mateen sounds like the typical axe murderer going on a gun rampage. You can blame it on Islam if you want, but there are plenty of angry beta males who often fantasise about going on a gun rampage, even before ISIS was ever heard of. In America with its Second Amendment, it is easier to go on a gun rampage if you feel like going on a killing spree.
While Mateen said he did for ISIS, we could perhaps imagine ourselves as a potential mass murderer wanting to be bigger and badder than any other common or garden mass murderer.
The lowest status mass murderer would be to have been a gunman who "went postal" after he was sacked from his job.
The highest status mass murderer would to have been a terrorist who murdered significant numbers of men declared to be the enemies of his organisation, causing a worldwide outcry.
If you were an ambitious terrorist you would want to be as successful as the World War causing Gavrilo Princip. His act of terrorism led to the destruction of the Austrian Empire.
Now, which would you choose if you were a rational mass murderer who wanted maximum publicity post mortem?
How many of you would have been actually disappointed if the gunman had not been Muslim? At least Mateen did not disappoint you.
Amok originated from the Malay/Indonesian word mengamuk, which when roughly defined means “to make a furious and desperate charge”. According to Malay/Indonesian culture, amok was rooted in a deep spiritual belief. They believed that amok was caused by the hantu belian, which was an evil tiger spirit that entered one’s body and caused the heinous act. As a result of the belief, those in Indonesian culture tolerated amok and dealt with the after-effects with no ill will towards the assailant.
Although commonly used in a colloquial and less-violent sense, the phrase is particularly associated with a specific sociopathic culture-bound syndrome in Malaysian culture. In a typical case of running amok, an individual (often male), having shown no previous sign of anger or any inclination to violence, will acquire a weapon (traditionally a sword or dagger, but presently any of a variety of weapons) and in a sudden frenzy, will attempt to kill or seriously injure anyone he encounters and himself. Amok typically takes place in a well populated or crowded area. Amok episodes of this kind normally end with the attacker being killed by bystanders or committing suicide, eliciting theories that amok may be a form of intentional suicide in cultures where suicide is heavily stigmatized. Those who do not commit suicide and are not killed typically lose consciousness, and upon regaining consciousness, claim amnesia.
An early Western description of the practice appears in the journals of Captain James Cook, a British explorer, who encountered amok firsthand in 1770 during a voyage around the world. Cook writes of individuals behaving in a reckless, violent manner, without cause and "indiscriminately killing and maiming villagers and animals in a frenzied attack."
A widely accepted explanation links amok with male honor (amok by women is virtually unknown). Running amok would thus be both a way of escaping the world (since perpetrators were normally killed) and re-establishing one's reputation as a man to be feared and respected. Some observers have related this explanation to Islam's ban on suicide, which, it is suggested, drove Malay/Indonesian men to create circumstances in which others would kill them.
Simon Sheppard explores the mind of the spree killer
It is well to recall the position in earlier, more masculine times. Hitler was able to stand and wave to adoring crowds as his procession passed along, this at a time when gun ownership was commonplace and limited only by the requirement that firearms be officially registered, a purely bureaucratic measure. Similarly, in Britain at this time guns were widely available. It was an era of greater social cohesion, during which spurious instincts, to the extent that they existed, were controlled. Nowadays even the Pope rides behind bullet-proof glass.
The spree killer may be at the outer boundary in the range of normal human behaviour, but nonetheless his is the natural response of the social animal provoked beyond endurance. He is merely the forerunner, and until he is given legitimate expression of his valid and justified anger, and allowed to respond to the daily injustices and affronts he must presently endure, each new atrocity will only herald more to come.