Now That We’ve Blamed Everybody And Everything—Guns, The NRA, Republicans, Christians, Gay Marriage Opponents, President Obama, Immigration Policy—That Had Nothing To Do With Omar Matteen’s Massacre, Let’s Talk About His Second Wife…

It is unknown whether having a child with the tragic "blurry face syndrome" contributed to Mateen's rampage...

It is unknown whether having a child with the tragic “blurry face syndrome” contributed to Mateen’s rampage…


“The Orlando gunman’s wife has told federal agents she tried to talk her husband out of carrying out the attack, NBC News has learned.

Omar Mateen’s wife, Noor Zahi Salman, told the FBI she was with him when he bought ammunition and a holster, several officials familiar with the case said. She told the FBI that she once drove him to the gay nightclub, Pulse, because he wanted to scope it out…”

Here’s a helpful Ethics Alarms ethics tip: if your husband, who had been talking about how much he hates gays and admires ISIS, cases a club for a possible slaughter and takes you with him as he buys a firearm and ammunition, you have an ethical and legal duty as a citizen and a human being to inform authorities to prevent a likely blood bath.

Are we clear on that?

Glad to be of assistance.


“Authorities are considering filing criminal charges against Noor for failing to tell them what she knew before the brutal attack, law enforcement officials say, but no decision has been made.”

They should throw the book at her.

39 thoughts on “Now That We’ve Blamed Everybody And Everything—Guns, The NRA, Republicans, Christians, Gay Marriage Opponents, President Obama, Immigration Policy—That Had Nothing To Do With Omar Matteen’s Massacre, Let’s Talk About His Second Wife…

  1. Given the man involved, I tend to think she might have been scared for herself and her child. Combined with the fact he made threats and did scary stuff as a matter of course, she may have thought he wasn’t going to really do it,

    Don’t know if that’s where this is headed, but if it is, one has to take that into account.

      • A Neo Nazi or somebody could vandalize a synagogue by painting swatikas on it, and be charged with vandalism with a hate crime enhancement which I believe would increase the penalty. Terrorism I believe is always a hate crime.

    • Obama may be promoting heresy. Who is he to deny the commands of Allah and the Prophet (peace be upon him)?

      Quran (3:151) – “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”.
      Quran (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”

      From the Hadith and Sira:

      Sahih Bukhari (52:220) – Allah’s Apostle said… ‘I have been made victorious with terror’

  2. Under Islamic law, women are chattel property. She exists to serve him. She would only go to authorities if and when he gave her specific permission to do so. Given that, this woman is not responsible. Would you hold a dog responsible for the actions of its owner?

    A wife disobeying her husband is a major sin!

    In regard to the actions carried out, Muhammad the Prophet of Allah made it very explicit:

    The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, “Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Lot, execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.”.

    The People of Lot = Gays

    Anyone who disagrees with the above is an Islamaphobe and a racist.

    • Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

      1 Corinthians 14:34-35

      Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

      Ephesians 5:22-24

      In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

      1 Timothy 2:9-12

      Anyone who disagrees is an anti-christian bigot.

        • It’s hardly deflection. You’ve suggested that the problem is words in the Quran. For every nasty passage in there I can show you one in the bible. If you want to go on a murder spree you can find a passage in either book that justifies your choice.

          The book isn’t the problem, or at least no more of a problem than the bible is. The problem is the belief that one can impose their own extreme social conservatism on others even to the point of murder.

          I am quite frankly terrified by this anti-muslim shit. I’m a Jew, when I see attempts to demonize a group of people for their faith, when I see talk of keeping them all out and religious tests, I start looking over my shoulder.

          If you don’t like religious radicals, fine neither do I. If you want to send troops to go knock them out of the territory they took, I’ll listen to your argument and weigh the pros and cons. And if you think theocracy sucks then don’t start down this slippery slope.

          • It is too bad, I think sometimes, that the format of this blog does not allow for lengthy and full-bodied conversations to take place. As you surely well know, the Jewish experience in Europe has been terribly hard. The facts are unbelievable. Yet the conflict between the Diaspora Jew and the Christian hosts has a different basis really very substantially different from that of the so-called ‘clash of civilizations’ that defines the Islamic historical project as-against Europe.

            Up until a very recent point – really in the last 150 or 200 years – Jewish culture has been traditional and extremely rigid. It would have to be described as religious extremism but with a long traditional history. In a certain real sense Jewish history in the Occident only began when Jews surrendered their traditional matrix. They became relevant in the Occident (intellectually and such) when they stepped out of the Shtetles and became present in Western culture.

            The Judaism that you likely grew up in (I assume you grew up more in the shadow of Judaism, perhaps Reform?) had been unrigid and liberalized for a long time, with certain exceptions. The Judaism I grew up with (Sephardic in a closed-knit observant community) was more properly religiously extremist as it is defined today.

            The ‘anti-Muslim sh*t’ is a very complex trope. I think one has to recognize that it has been defined through neoconservatism, and in this one has to be willing to examine its Jewish American authors and as well their connection to modern Israel, which is walking and talking ‘anti-Muslim sh*t’

            Your phrase: “The problem is the belief that one can impose their own extreme social conservatism on others even to the point of murder’.

            That statement is loaded with so much fuel toward radical analysis. That analysis can go in different directions, like unrestrained quicksilver.

            I have found that one of the most difficult things that can be done is to get the facts on the table. It is not easy. It is devilishly hard in fact. It is the hardest part.

            I undertook the project of reading ‘The Destruction of the European Jews’ by Raul Hilberg in the same time-frame that I read ‘The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century’ by Houston Chamberlain. Chamberlain describes the intellectual foundation of an anti-Jewish perspective and, to put it directly, a defensive posture against what amounted to (in his and their eyes) an invasion of a foreign people and a foreign ideology.

            Raul Hilberg documents the intentional and forced separation of two peoples blended together after an accidental cultural project spanning roughly 1000 years. I say ‘accidental’ since the Diaspora was not, it would seem, a choice.

            Horribly, weirdly, impossibly, surreally, and yet according to the Jewish narrative, it was an act willed by Hashem himself. Now, wrap your head around that one and try to grok it out. If not, who was its author?

            At certain points – this is my own idea and opinion – some events get so complex and so entwined that they may not ever be solved. They cannot even be throught-through to their ends. One gets to a certain part and the mind seizes up.

            Not long after reading ‘Why the Jews?’ By Dennis Praeger and Joseph Telushkin (, and when I really thought it through, I concluded it was time to opt-out of the game. I asked (and I ask) What does it mean to be a Jew? I could not well enought answer that question.

            Excuse me for kind of rambling. It is not a very focussed post. Except that I think that when one really begins to penetrate these questions and issues they have unreal levels of complexity. Well, that is what it seems to me. That is basically the perspective I write from. Zoltar has called it ‘sitting on the fence’.

          • you are a really hard core apologist, aren’t you, GRRL?

            You are a Jew? You realize the Qu’ran calls explicitly for the killing of Jews, don’t you? Do you know that Muhammad, you know the guy all muslim men are supposed to emulate as the perfect man, killed a lot of Jews? Do you realize that Imams all over the world call for the extermination of Jews? Do you know that Mein Kampf is a best seller in Arabic? Do you know that many Islamic leaders are open admirers of Adolf Hitler? Do you know that Jews are now fleeing France, and other European countries, due to Islamic aggression…. not Hindu aggression or Baptist aggression.

            I’m assuming you are a female: Did you know that 75% of female prison inmates in Pakistan are rape victims? That is due to the fact that, under Islamic Jurisprudence, a rape victim needs 4 men to vouch for her. Also, under the same a woman’s testimony is only worth half a man’s. And, this isn’t just in 800 AD, its current jurisprudence!

            There was an Imam in Orlando openly calling for the killing of gays…. not sure if the shooter was a parishioner or not. Is this a habit of non-Islamic clergy?

            You seem to know a lot about the bible. Please direct me to the bible verse that directs Christians to wage global Jihad and impose a world wide totalitarian empire. Tell me how much of the bible is dedicated to dealing with “Kuffars”. Also, let me know where death for apostasy is indicated, I can’t seem to find it.

            We can debate ancient scriptures all day, but today nearly every muslim majority country is a human rights disaster. Eleven of them prescribe the death penalty for gay behavior. Do you believe this is a coincidence? How many christian majority countries have the same?

            If anyone who doesn’t have their head stuck in the sand is a bigot and a hater, then, well count me in. ALL of this is going on TODAY and it is getting WORSE. You don’t want to discriminate against Islamics as people? Substitute Islamics for KKK or Nazi and see how that looks.

            Turnabout is fair play, and if a group of people hate me (or you) because of who I/we are then I have every right to hate them right back.

            • And yet no American Muslim has ever given me shit over being a Jew, I can’t say the same for Christians. Muslims (and Christians) have however been my neighbors, my classmates and, my teammates. But even if each and every one had even an ass I still wouldn’t be okay with your pathetic little anti-Muslim obsession because when you start targeting people for their religions I’m going to make that list eventually.

              This is America, we don’t do that shit.

              • No, sweetheart… I am targeting people for their hateful, murdering totalitarian ideologies.

                I noticed that you did not answer ONE QUESTION I posed above. You continue to deflect and do nothing but call me a bigot. Why is that? Probably because you are full of shit.

                What do you think of the fact that RAPE VICTIMS are punished in muslim majority countries? Oh wait… nevermind. Pakistan jails rape victims because of NRA, Trump and climate change. Silly me!

                • It’s awful. Are we going to impose our values on Pakistan? If we’re going that route I’d like to impose them on Russia and China and India and Mexico too.

                  Do we hold the cultural values of places people are trying to leave against them? For that matter do we even care what cultural values a person has when we already have people here with awful cultural values, people like you? We use laws to deal with stuff, our laws, our bill of rights. NO religious tests. No religious persecution. I don’t care if someone prays or which way they face when they do it or what they choose not to eat or what funny languages they use when they talk to their god, the idea of making an issue of that is abhorrent to me.

                  And all you offer up is 2 A. Sicilian Ethics

      • And when was the last time you saw anyone on the internet or in a church saying any of the foregoing is relevant to contemporary life?

        • Other Bill, if that’s the argument, then people should stop quoting the Quran as if it’s the problem. Otherwise we get locked in this cycle:

          “The Quran says ____!”
          “Ok, but so does the Bible.”
          “It doesn’t matter! Most Christians don’t do that anymore!”
          “Neither do most Muslims.”
          “But they have to! The Quran says ____!”

          • That’s a weak argument. I’m basically atheist (I like the idea of Valhalla) so I don’t have a dog in either fight, but objectively, the rates of religious based extremist violence from Christians is astonishingly low when compared to Islam. How many Christian terrorism groups are there? Josehp Kony’s? Any others? How many Islamist terrorist groups are there?

            Yeah both religious texts have shitty passages, but Islam is far and ahead the worst when it comes to acting on them. Entire countries and pseudo-states still operate based on them.

            • “That’s a weak argument. I’m basically atheist (I like the idea of Valhalla) so I don’t have a dog in either fight, but objectively, the rates of religious based extremist violence from Christians is astonishingly low when compared to Islam.”

              Yes. So the problem isn’t the scripture.

              So…stop citing the scripture as if that’s the problem.

      • Paul, as distinct from Mohamed, is a man who describes an experience with his God or the Christian God. But Paul is understood to be a man and not a divine manifestation. It is true that Paul offered contours to early Christianity but he has not ever been taken as a divine figure himself, but rather an inspired figure. Jesus had relations with various women personages, as is recorded in the gospels, that I think are quite absent in the Quranic scriptures. The interactions with Martha and Mary, etc.

        It also has to be mentioned that from the most early days and as Christianity was being defined, that its ideological tenets which are said to be Jewish (yet this is questionable in certain ways) encountered the Greek philosophical world. There are many sources for verification of the extreme influence of Greek thinking in Christian doctrine (‘The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church’ by Edwin Hatch, 1895, is one). Platonic ideas and the Platonic schools have been always open to women’s participation in ways that are, I think this is undeniable, incomparable to any school of Islam that I’m aware of. Obviously, in The Republic, in this imagined society, men and women are seen as non-different in most (but not all) aspects. The Greek philosophical schools thus open up many dimensions to women which are quite more closed in Near Eastern societies dominated ideologically by Islam.

        The entire thrust, at basic and foundational levels, of Greek thought and Christian thought generally, are radically different than what arises in the Islamic world. Extremely and radically so.

        Just these references alone indicate a basis for inclusion of women and appreciation of women that have defined the Occident.

        Anyway, when you think about it, who REALLY wants some shrill chatterbox like Samantha Bee et al chiming up in that horrid, whiney voice in church or anywhere else for that matter. Put a scarf on your head, shut up, and sit down. And God help us…

        [A feeble attempt at a joke…]

        • Having been brought up by an Irish Catholic mother, in the Roman Catholic faith, I’ve always thought Catholicism really, really puts women and mothers on a pedestal. Which is a huge difference with Islam. I’ve found Islamic guys love their mothers and despise their wives, a lot like black guys, which I think is a curious, large problem. Particularly for women.

  3. I have a stupid question. If you’re not a mandated reporter or other special case, can you actually be charged for not reporting a crime? And would spousal privilege apply?

    • The case would be that she was an accessory before the fact. She assisted him in preparing for the crime. No, just knowing about it and not reporting it would not usually constitute a crime. Meanwhile, communications involving the planning of a crime are not protected by spousal privilege.

      • Gotcha, thanks! And, at least judging by my skimming of the BBC headlines this morning, sounds like they may be going to do that…

  4. I doubt any charges will be brought by the Valerie Jarrett DOJ. War on Women, the patriarchy, violence against women, the rape culture, you know. See, eg., poor little Mrs.Tsarnaev, Jr. If Mrs. Meteen is charged, Mr. Meteen will become a “white Afghani.”

    I’ve decided Obama and his crew are incapable of dealing with foreign threats because Saul Alinsky never included a chapter on defending a country against foreign attack. He was too busy providing methods for attacking a country from within. The concept of defending a country would have never occurred to him.

  5. This begs some questions.

    Why should we not prohibit persons convicted of domestic violence from marrying?

    Or dating?

    Or practicing law or medicine?

    Or require them to wear a distinctive badge on their left sleeve?

    These people are dangerous.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.