Home | About | Donate

Was the Orlando Massacre Another Chicken Coming Home to Roost?


Was the Orlando Massacre Another Chicken Coming Home to Roost?

Gary Olson

We may never know the crucial determining factor or combination of factors responsible for Omar Mateen’s ghastly slaughter of 49 people and the wounding of 53 others at Orlando’s Pulse nightclub. Mainstream media pundits quickly cited LGBT bigotry, lax gun laws, failed FBI background checks, an infatuation with violence, deeply closeted homosexuality, and “self-radicalization.”


'Years ago, Mateen spoke about becoming a martyr, and watched Islamic State terrorism and propaganda videos. Classmates recall that when the second jumbo jet slammed into the Trade Center’s south tower, the 14-year-old Mateen “started jumping-up-and-down, cheering on the terrorists."'

And just what was his theory about magic passports?


"Was the Orlando Massacre Another Chicken Coming Home to Roost"

Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens
By Ward Churchill


"Ancient History": U.S. Conduct in the Middle East Since World War II and the Folly of Intervention | Cato Institute


An important discussion with Stephen Cohen:



If the chickens are indeed coming home to roost via the U.S. war machine, as the author maintains, it will have little impact on this country's endless war policy. Future incidents such as Orlando will receive the compulsory shedding of tears, but will simply written off as collateral damage and the cost of doing business or, even more likely, be used as an opportunity to justify even more war.

When a policy seems to contradict its own stated objectives, decade after decade, and still receive support from one administration after another, it is time to question the veracity of those stated objectives and not perpetuate the myth that the policy is misguided or self-defeating. It is time to assume that the results are intentional and by design.

Based on such an assumption, the goal of decades of endless war has been to establish a working military presence across the globe and an active military presence in those areas that are considered strategically important. Maintaining that presence, by whatever excuse, is the goal. Enemies will be supplied as needed for the sake of public relations.

Concepts such as winning and losing, blowback, chickens coming home to roost are fodder for public consumption. They are merely costs of doing business and by-products, not things that actually drive the policy. The goal of the war machine is simply to keep it running across the globe. In that light, the policy has been supremely successful.


"They hate us for our freedom". What a joke, they hate us for bombing their countries, just as Mr. Olson has pointed out. If we know this so does the government. They didn't go to war for our freedom they went for oil and domination.
The rest is just stuff they tell you to scare you. When the bombing stops and the troops come home they will quit. This country has lost it's moral center, we deserve what we get for our need to dominate (and of course feed the arms dealers).


Yes, it is tragic that so many of us have to live with the aftermath of war as this country's major foreign policy tool. As to who deserves what, that is another matter. I understand your sentiment, however.

The war criminals in Washington who have kept the war machine running for decades deserve to be brought to justice, for sure. The media that has promoted these wars needs to be held accountable. That portion of the public that knows better, but has voted for leaders who promote war, anyway, does have blood its hands. Not all of us, though, deserve this in our livers. We've had no say in the matter and likely never will. I, for one, have spent a lifetime opposing war and will continue to do so.


While I appreciate your willingness NOT to use generic frames like "We" or "America/Americans"... the cost determinants do belong to some very specific actors and most of them exist within the Media-Military (banking) Industrial Complex.

Other than that, wise words.


When I heard that one, I realized Mateen was the one Trump saw.


The military has bases and production facilities in all but one or two of the 51 states of America. Each represents hundreds of millions, even billions of dollars of revenue in that state. Any effort to trim the MIC is opposed by those on this gravy train, including their political representatives.

This is driven, I'd argue, by the obsession with "The Marketplace" and the need for constant economic growth. Once you get on the MIC payroll, your ability to get and spend increases exponentially, along with your status as a citizen. (In the marketplace, citizen equals 'consumer'.) Among the many dire consequences of this reductionist thinking, the exploitation and desecration of the environment is the most desperate.

In the essay, The Etiquette of Freedom, Gary Snyder wrote, "If the lad or lass is among us who knows where the secret heart of this Growth-Monster is hidden, let them please tell us where to shoot the arrow that will slow it down."

This seems to me the core of our current dilemma - how to overcome the rapacious growth model with a sustainable one based on reverence for life (with the possible exception of mosquitoes, though I understand they are a major source of food for frogs and bats, both of whom I really like) and the planet that supports us.


I hate to have to say this again, but "Allah" is simply Arabic for "God" and "god," for that matter. Mateen did not speak or act for all Muslims. This is no more neighborly than he was.