The Student Room Group

Owen Jones embarrasses himself on Sky News debate about Orlando

Scroll to see replies

Original post by ChocolateCosmos
Did you just call one of the most prominent leftist columnists.. a POSH KID....

With all due respect, get educated.


Who are you? His father?
Original post by joecphillips
Nobody said it wasn't homophobic it was but it is a lot broader than just a homophobic attack and that can not be ignored


No, it was a homophobic attack. How come when a black church was attacked that was primarily seen as an attack on blacks and when a synagogue was attacked it was seen as an attack on Jews but when a gay club is attacked ,'it's much broader'?


No, this was a homophobic attack, targeted at a gay club.
Reply 42
Original post by Bornblue
No, it was a homophobic attack. How come when a black church was attacked that was primarily seen as an attack on blacks and when a synagogue was attacked it was seen as an attack on Jews but when a gay club is attacked ,'it's much broader'?


No, this was a homophobic attack, targeted at a gay club.


Where have I said it wasn't?

The difference is that an attack on Jews and blacks is usually from a group or individual who only target those groups this was an Isis related attack and Isis attacks a lot of groups.
Original post by joecphillips
Where have I said it wasn't?

The difference is that an attack on Jews and blacks is usually from a group or individual who only target those groups this was an Isis related attack and Isis attacks a lot of groups.


The involvement of Isis is very unclear and unconfirmed. Apparently It was done by a an Indivudal 'in the name of isis' rather than anything planned or coordinated by Isis themselves. He wasn't a member of Isis.

There are several factors at play here.
However it was primarily a homophobic attack and not a 'broader attack on society'. It was very targeted at gay people.
Reply 44
Original post by Bornblue
The involvement of Isis is very unclear and unconfirmed. Apparently It was done by a an Indivudal 'in the name of isis' rather than anything planned or coordinated by Isis themselves. He wasn't a member of Isis.

There are several factors at play here.
However it was primarily a homophobic attack and not a 'broader attack on society'. It was very targeted at gay people.


Yes and what happened at the bataclan was targeted at people who like music, Brussels was targeted at people who like to travel not a broader attack on society.
Original post by joecphillips
Yes and what happened at the bataclan was targeted at people who like music, Brussels was targeted at people who like to travel not a broader attack on society.

The shooter open-fired at a gay nightclub. Everyone who was killed was a member of the LGBTQ community. He murdered 50 people based on their sexuality. His own father said he would often be repulsed by two gay men kissing in public. This was a homophobic attack, not an attack on "people having fun". He would have open-fired at Disneyland or something if that were the case.

It has emerged that he himself might have been gay, and that this attack could have had something to do with his self-hate as a closeted gay man. So it is really quite far from anything to do with ISIS at this point.
Original post by Zayn is Bae
The guy was mentally unstable, he's likely said that just to try and act important, so it looks like he's done something "meaningful" as it were. Considering Daesh push people off buildings for being gay, how could himself, a gay man, be a supporter?


Posted from TSR Mobile


Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they're not homophobic, the self-hating Jew is a famous stereotype but it's present in any marginalised group. He may have been gay but that doesn't mean he can't have opposed homosexuality and agreed with what IS stand for.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by tanyapotter
The shooter open-fired at a gay nightclub. Everyone who was killed was a member of the LGBTQ community. He murdered 50 people based on their sexuality. His own father said he would often be repulsed by two gay men kissing in public. This was a homophobic attack, not an attack on "people having fun". He would have open-fired at Disneyland or something if that were the case.

It has emerged that he himself might have been gay, and that this attack could have had something to do with his self-hate as a closeted gay man. So it is really quite far from anything to do with ISIS at this point.


It's possible, but he could have gone into the club to suss out the security, exits etc etc.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 48
Original post by tanyapotter
The shooter open-fired at a gay nightclub. Everyone who was killed was a member of the LGBTQ community. He murdered 50 people based on their sexuality. His own father said he would often be repulsed by two gay men kissing in public. This was a homophobic attack, not an attack on "people having fun". He would have open-fired at Disneyland or something if that were the case.

It has emerged that he himself might have been gay, and that this attack could have had something to do with his self-hate as a closeted gay man. So it is really quite far from anything to do with ISIS at this point.


Except the attack was done in the name of Isis by an Isis sympathiser who had been indoctrinated online, an Isis supporter disliked gays seems similar to Isis' position on gays.

Everyone in the bataclan had links to the band performing at the time
Everyone killed in Brussels had links to public travel.
Reply 49
I'd be more embarrassed being the kind of person who thinks he embarrassed himself. The hosts were terrible... "you're trying to take ownership of this attack.. I'm not gay or french and I'm still horrified"... what point is the idiot even trying to make?
Original post by SMEGGGY
It's possible, but he could have gone into the club to suss out the security, exits etc etc.

Posted from TSR Mobile


Perhaps, but there were club-goers who knew Omar and said he used to visit often and chat up other men, grope them, etc.

I think it's far more likely that this was just entirely an internal crisis for him
While the presenters are guilty of playing down the homophobic element to all this, Jones is guilty of playing down the religious element.

Just check out some of the top recommended comments on his opinion piece in the Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/13/sky-news-homophobia-orlando-sexuality

Even Guardianistas feel he is guilty of this.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by joecphillips
Except the attack was done in the name of Isis by an Isis sympathiser who had been indoctrinated online, an Isis supporter disliked gays seems similar to Isis' position on gays.

Everyone in the bataclan had links to the band performing at the time
Everyone killed in Brussels had links to public travel.

The shooter attacked 50 people for their sexuality: something that you're born with, something you can't change.

Liking music or being linked to public transport is not the same thing. No one gets oppressed for liking music. This was a homophobic attack.

He said he was doing it in the name of ISIS, but since it has emerged that he might himself have been gay, it's most likely that this was a product of his self-hate as a homosexual man.
Reply 53
Original post by tanyapotter
The shooter attacked 50 people for their sexuality: something that you're born with, something you can't change.

Liking music or being linked to public transport is not the same thing. No one gets oppressed for liking music. This was a homophobic attack.

He said he was doing it in the name of ISIS, but since it has emerged that he might himself have been gay, it's most likely that this was a product of his self-hate as a homosexual man.


So he has said he was doing it for Isis, he was indoctrinated by Isis but it has nothing to do with Isis.

Where have I said it wasn't a homophobic attack?
Reply 54
Original post by Stiff Little Fingers
A grown lunatic who'd pledged his allegiance to a group exposing the extremist ideology they're talking about. If it were just one unhinged person with no real affiliations fair enough, but once they've pledged their support to a terrorist group, claiming it had nothing to do with their ideology makes no sense.

Did he attack LGBT people specifically because he was just coincidentally a homophobe as well or because he subscribed to an ideology and a group that is homophobic? Who can tell. Did he commit an attack in general because he subscribed to an ideology and a group that is promoting such behaviour? Almost certainly.


Posted from TSR Mobile


My first thought was that he was 'ISIS driven' but a few hours after the event had occurred a lot of information emerged about the killer suggesting that there was more to it.

The telegraph reports that the pulse nightclub patron said that the killer was 'trying to pick up men' and that he was a regular. They also reported that:

The killer who professed support for an array of terrorist groups, from Isil to Hizbollah, was also drawn to the US law enforcement and military; bumper stickers on the back of his car professed he was a member of the Marines.


Now this is where it doesn't make sense. There are hostilities between the Daesh, Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda due to the difference in opinion and partly due to the current situation in Syria and different "Islamic" beliefs. To simplify the differences one organisation is supposedly Shia and the other Sunni. It does not make sense why the killer would pledge allegiance to all these groups when there is a well known fact that these groups do not cooperate and are very much against each other. So it just goes to show that the killer had no idea why he was using Islam as an excuse to kill members of LGBT. He seems very much confused to me. Also note that events in the past years could have inspired him i.e. the rise of terrorist groups like Daesh etc. and their usual way of causing havoc (shouting 'Allahuakbar' and then blowing themselves up) has become the typical profile of a terrorist and the killer could have simply copied this. Also, his father and ex-wife has stated that he was not religious as at all. Then why should he be used to represent the ideology of the majority of the peaceful 2 billion Muslims?

Neighbours described him as rude and sullen, and unresponsive to pleasantries.


The Federal Bureau of Investigation had studied Mateen twice, each time dropping its enquiries, according to an agency spokesman.


This just proves that was something shifty and wrong with the killer. He was involved with the FBI twice? (I've seen some sources say around 3 times) and was a very hostile person in general. He was a disgusting woman-beater and a homophobe.

Just saying that ideology was the main reason why he carried out these attacks is absurd. We need to look at the bigger picture. His actions don't seem very Islamic to me.
An Owen Goal if ever there was one.
Original post by joecphillips
So he has said he was doing it for Isis, he was indoctrinated by Isis but it has nothing to do with Isis.

Where have I said it wasn't a homophobic attack?

Why do you want it to be fuelled by ISIS so badly?
Original post by joecphillips
Yes and what happened at the bataclan was targeted at people who like music, Brussels was targeted at people who like to travel not a broader attack on society.


No it wasn't. Thy didn't attack people in Paris because they liked music and they didn't attack people in brussles because they liked to travel. They did attack gay people because they were prejudiced against gay people.


I don't see how anyone can fail to see that.
Original post by Stiff Little Fingers
Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they're not homophobic, the self-hating Jew is a famous stereotype but it's present in any marginalised group. He may have been gay but that doesn't mean he can't have opposed homosexuality and agreed with what IS stand for.


Posted from TSR Mobile


Maybe, but the fact he was on gay websites and frequented Pulse himself would suggest he's not exactly self hating, as you wouldn't exactly flaunt something you're staunchly against. Mere speculation of course, but his phone call isn't exactly compelling evidence and I don't think ISIS will be so keen to accept responsibility if he is found to be homosexual himself.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by joecphillips
So he has said he was doing it for Isis, he was indoctrinated by Isis but it has nothing to do with Isis.

Where have I said it wasn't a homophobic attack?

If I attack a black church by myself and say it's in the name of the BNP, it doesn't mean the the BNP did it.

There is no evidence here that the attack was planned, organised or coordinated by IS. If anything it was a disturbed lone wolf inspired by Isis.

Quick Reply