Put on your surprised faces.

Funny how I was reading this as a report on a lone wolf isolated psycho with no connection to anything in particular...

...not a Turkish immigrant with a picture of the ISIS leaders on his profile page.

Compare and Contrast how the elite American media discounts facts that Catholic readers might be interested in.

I had noticed that the nuns were dropped from the stories I was reading. Subconsciously, I concluded that "well, I guess they weren't there."

//It could be as simple as this: Times editors may be convinced that their "urban," "liberal" or even "secular" readers don't want to read the religious details, especially since they would spotlight the role of religious convictions and identity in attacks of these kind. Editors at The Daily Mail may believe exactly the opposite, writing for very different readers.
Perhaps this is an issue of journalistic standards, with the Mail team being more comfortable quoting material from other sources, while the Times team wanted to stress its own reporting, mainly via political sources.
But what do you think Catholic readers are thinking, after reading these reports? What questions remain?
I can think of a few symbolic details. Was the priest literally killed in his liturgical vestments, the vestments in which he will be buried? Did he die trying to protect the Sacraments on the altar? Does his death make him, in the church's eyes, a martyr?
What damage was done to the church itself? Were there acts of iconoclasm? Did the attackers desecrate the altar with the priest's blood – an act that has taken place many times through the centuries – which would require (at least in Eastern church traditions) the church to be reconsecrated.
Would these kinds of details matter to many readers?
Just asking.//

That's a darn shame for everyone who spent so much time and effort blaming Christianity....

...for a Muslim terrorist attack.

But, hey! At least the smear is out there, so they have that working for them.

"Did the targeting of a gay-friendly nightclub by a radical Islamic terrorist amount to just a coincidence? At first, the theory that the motive behind the massacre that killed 49 innocent people was in part homophobic panic eclipsed the terrorist’s declared allegiance to ISIS while carrying out the attack. A month later, though, the Washington Post’s Adam Goldman reports that the FBI has found no evidence that Omar Mateen targeted the LGBT community specifically, nor much evidence that he was a closeted gay man himself:

The FBI has found no evidence so far that Omar Mateen, who killed 49 people and wounded more than 53 at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, chose the popular establishment because of its gay clientele, said U.S law enforcement officials.

“While there can be no denying the significant impact on the gay community, the investigation hasn’t revealed that he targeted pulse because it was a gay club,” a U.S. law enforcement official said.

Soon after the shooting in the early morning of June 12, top U.S officials such as the FBI director and U.S. attorney general described it as both a hate crime and an act of Islamic terrorism."