off topic The politics of terrorism

[darksabre]

Two of the shooters dead, one in custody alive. One of the dead shooters is female, which to be honest probably blows my theory apart. No offense to the strong ladies out there, but women pretty much never come up in discussions about gun crime. Gun crimes on the whole are a predominately male category. 

[SwampD]

Two of the shooters dead, one in custody alive. One of the dead shooters is female, which to be honest probably blows my theory apart. No offense to the strong ladies out there, but women pretty much never come up in discussions about gun crime. Gun crimes on the whole are a predominately male category.

 

Just a minor correction, unless it changed, the person detained was at the scene of the shoot out. It is unknown if he was a part of it.

[darksabre]

Just a minor correction, unless it changed, the person detained was at the scene of the shoot out. It is unknown if he was a part of it.

Interesting. The news is all over the place tonight. I'm doing my best to parse the varied reports. So perhaps there were only two shooters? 

[nfreeman]

So how long are we going to pretend that this wasn't a Muslim terrorist attack?

[LGR4GM]

So how long are we going to pretend that this wasn't a Muslim terrorist attack?

Why because they had foreign sounding names? I have a white christian sounding name, so then I am a christian terrorist potentially even though I don't practice that religion?

 

"Police have identified Syed Rizwan Farook, a 28-year-old US-born male, and Tashfeen Malik, a 27-year-old woman, as the two dead suspects. Relatives have said the two were married."

 

Or we could wait to hear the facts before jumping to conclusions.  Also how do you define "muslim terror attack" versus "terror attack?"

Edited December 3, 2015 by LGR4GM

[nfreeman]

Why because they had foreign sounding names?

 

Or we could wait to hear the facts before jumping to conclusions.  Also how do you define "muslim terror attack" versus "terror attack?"

 

No.  Because they were both Muslims, he was devout, he traveled to Saudi Arabia within the past year, there were multiple shooters and the police said that this was a planned operation.  They also brought multiple bombs that, fortunately, didn't detonate.

 

Those are facts, not jumped-to conclusions.

[LGR4GM]

No.  Because they were both Muslims, he was devout, he traveled to Saudi Arabia within the past year, there were multiple shooters and the police said that this was a planned operation.

 

Those are facts, not jumped-to conclusions.

 

-

Links?

 

Also being Muslim and doing this because of Islam are 2 entirely different things.

Edited December 3, 2015 by LGR4GM

[Weave]

Hmmmm. Yesterday we were jumping to conclusions that this was done by a middle aged white guy.

 

Let the investigation run its course.

[LGR4GM]

All I am saying is lets wait a day or two to get the facts

[LastPommerFan]

So how long are we going to pretend that this wasn't a Muslim terrorist attack?

 

Point goes to We've, on both sides.

 

No, they aren't.  The rhetoric is different.  My observation is simply that the most impassioned responses to scenes like this come from the left, and the most impassioned responses to brown skinned acts of violence tend to come from the right.

 

Edited December 3, 2015 by Whiskey Bottle of Emotion

[darksabre]

You ain't gonna stop Freeman from posting his talk radio nonsense. Like the rising and setting of the sun...

[Doohickie]

Links?

 

Also being Muslim and doing this because of Islam are 2 entirely different things.

 

I heard it reported on the radio (NPR) that they were both Muslim.

 

Not sure what bearing that had on the attack. 

 

They were husband and wife (and have a 6 month old baby, who was left with a grandparent).  It was the county health office that was renting the room.  The husband was a health inspector and was at the party until shortly before the shooting.  There was apparently a disagreement and he left the party before returning.  I have a feeling this one will prove to be a Rorschach test- people will see in it what they want and the truth is probably a blend of everything.

They also brought multiple bombs that, fortunately, didn't detonate.

 

Those are facts, not jumped-to conclusions.

 

Actually I heard the report that what at first appeared to be pipe bombs, were later found not to be.

Edited December 3, 2015 by The Big Johnson

[nfreeman]

You ain't gonna stop Freeman from posting his talk radio nonsense. Like the rising and setting of the sun...

 

What, specifically, about my posts on this issue comprises "talk radio nonsense?"

[LastPommerFan]

What, specifically, about my posts on this issue comprises "talk radio nonsense?"

 

The part where D4rk decided to get you riled up.  :)

[Weave]

You ain't gonna stop Freeman from posting his talk radio nonsense. Like the rising and setting of the sun...

 

In Freeman's defense, it was you yesterday that was going on about middle aged white guys, and by implication the gun culture of America.  Today it's Nfreeman and brown people.

 

Freeman, you and D4rk very much confirmed my statement from the other day that the left gets riled up when white guys do it and the right gets riled up when they are brown.

Point goes to We've, on both sides.

 

 

*pats self on back*

[Doohickie]

Freeman, you and D4rk very much confirmed my statement from the other day that the left gets riled up when white guys do it and the right gets riled up when they are brown.

 

I really don't know whether to be riled up or not yet.  This one is a head scratcher.

[PASabreFan]

The definition of terrorism is important. You need more than "people were terrorized." By the definition, there are thousands of terrorist attacks every day in this country.

 

Terrorism attempts to achieve a political aim or make a political statement. It goes to motive. Pick a mass shooter from recent times who was a Christian (shouldn't be hard as white Americans commit one of these atrocities every couple of days, it seems). It doesn't make it a Christian terrorist attack.

 

Let the investigation unfold. Social media will probably hold the key. nfreeman is suggesting there was some coordination with elements in the Middle East.

 

There's also an issue of scale. If one extremist Muslim shoots a bunch of people in the name of Allah, is that a terrorist attack as much as 9/11 was? IMHO you really need the elements of planning, funding, coordination, a logical target etc. to make it a terrorist attack. The rest is the lone wolf syndrome.

[nfreeman]

In Freeman's defense, it was you yesterday that was going on about middle aged white guys, and by implication the gun culture of America.  Today it's Nfreeman and brown people.

 

Freeman, you and D4rk very much confirmed my statement from the other day that the left gets riled up when white guys do it and the right gets riled up when they are brown.

 

*pats self on back*

 

Again -- brown skin has absolutely zero to do with my views on this situation.  (Btw, there are plenty of white Muslims.) 

 

And while it may not be your intention, I have a hard time not inferring an accusation of racism from your statements on this.

[X. Benedict]

The Qur'an when you are ready.

 

Karen Armstrong is very good.  Google her ... she has written The History of God and 2 sensational biographies on Muhammad (PBUH).

 

If interested, PM me and I will relay my understanding to you.

I'd also recommend Karen Armstrong's works. Former Roman Catholic Nun and a very good scholar on the origins of the mainstream monotheistic faiths. 

[PASabreFan]

No.  Because they were both Muslims, he was devout, he traveled to Saudi Arabia within the past year, there were multiple shooters and the police said that this was a planned operation.  They also brought multiple bombs that, fortunately, didn't detonate.

 

Those are facts, not jumped-to conclusions.

How does being devout suggest that it was a terrorist attack? Devout does not equal extremist.

[nfreeman]

How does being devout suggest that it was a terrorist attack? Devout does not equal extremist.

 

True.  I was merely responding to the "because they have foreign-sounding names" question.

[darksabre]

What, specifically, about my posts on this issue comprises "talk radio nonsense?"

The part where you haven't had an original thought since the Reagan administration.

[shrader]

There's also an issue of scale. If one extremist Muslim shoots a bunch of people in the name of Allah, is that a terrorist attack as much as 9/11 was? IMHO you really need the elements of planning, funding, coordination, a logical target etc. to make it a terrorist attack. The rest is the lone wolf syndrome.

 

Did they ever say much about what the gunmen in France were wearing?  I don't remember hearing anything about body armor in either case, but my memory is foggy on that one.  This one feels like the lonewolf copycat type scenario to me, granted that's a very early and mostly blind perception of it.

[Doohickie]

I really think there are several contributing factors to these gun attacks, whether they are done by Christians or Muslims or atheists or whatever.

 

1. Violence in movies and video games that glorifies and desensitizes people to it.

2. Polarization of media and inflammatory rhetoric.*

3. Polarization of politics & rhetoric.*

4. Social media which seems to amplify political political differences and popularity (and conversely, isolation).

5. The person who uses violence is isolated and uses violence to participate in a larger cause.

 

There are others I'm sure, and how much each of these really contribute can be debated, but this, such as it is, is the society we live in.  Any solutions need to take into account these conditions (as sucky as they are).

 

 

* I think the media doesn't even realize they do this.  For example, there was a report in the local paper about Texas Gov. Abbott [R] visiting Cuba to discuss trade and the article went right in to implications that he's aligning with Obama.  I commented on the article that rather than implying some "grading" of the move based on political rhetoric, the paper should have evaluated the trip on its own merits (i.e., not whether it aligned him with Dems or Repubs, but whether it's good policy).

 

 

Did they ever say much about what the gunmen in France were wearing?  I don't remember hearing anything about body armor in either case, but my memory is foggy on that one.  This one feels like the lonewolf copycat type scenario to me, granted that's a very early and mostly blind perception of it.

 

If ISIS actively seeks to inspire people outside their membership to carry out acts of violence, are the people who carry them out "lonewold copycat type" or is it genuine terrorism?

Edited December 3, 2015 by The Big Johnson

[Weave]

Again -- brown skin has absolutely zero to do with my views on this situation. (Btw, there are plenty of white Muslims.)

 

And while it may not be your intention, I have a hard time not inferring an accusation of racism from your statements on this.

I am inferring a bias. I dont think it is racist.

I really think there are several contributing factors to these gun attacks, whether they are done by Christians or Muslims or atheists or whatever.

 

1. Violence in movies and video games that glorifies and desensitizes people to it.

2. Polarization of media and inflammatory rhetoric.*

3. Polarization of politics & rhetoric.*

4. Social media which seems to amplify political political differences and popularity (and conversely, isolation).

5. The person who uses violence is isolated and uses violence to participate in a larger cause.

 

There are others I'm sure, and how much each of these really contribute can be debated, but this, such as it is, is the society we live in. Any solutions need to take into account these conditions (as sucky as they are).

 

 

* I think the media doesn't even realize they do this. For example, there was a report in the local paper about Texas Gov. Abbott [R] visiting Cuba to discuss trade and the article went right in to implications that he's aligning with Obama. I commented on the article that rather than implying some "grading" of the move based on political rhetoric, the paper should have evaluated the trip on its own merits (i.e., not whether it aligned him with Dems or Repubs, but whether it's good policy).

 

 

 

If ISIS actively seeks to inspire people outside their membership to carry out acts of violence, are the people who carry them out "lonewold copycat type" or is it genuine terrorism?

To your last, i vote genuine terrorism.