if that persons idea is to murder innocent people to make a statement to the masses
that is my idea of a terrorist
but also anyone who shoots another person as caused terror if you look at it that way
Topic: So, which shootings do we call terrorism? (Read 1472 times)
Oh, believe me, I did get your point about the moral equivalency of "muslim terrorists in the USA" and "USA terrorism in the Middle East." I do not agree with it, but I understood it. Since the question was categorizing extremist acts, I do not clearly see that it is relevant.
Do you want to give "Muslim extremists who kill innocent people in the USA" a pass from slapping the "terrorist" label if they are not Screaming Allah Akbars? Just trying to clarify your position here. Personally, I really do not care if they are screaming Allah Akbar, or bitching about the Palestinians, the Great Satan, to me the only exception to "terrorist" might be if they were acting against an operational military group and were wearing a uniform of an opposing group.
Do you want to give "Muslim extremists who kill innocent people in the USA" a pass from slapping the "terrorist" label if they are not Screaming Allah Akbars? Just trying to clarify your position here. Personally, I really do not care if they are screaming Allah Akbar, or bitching about the Palestinians, the Great Satan, to me the only exception to "terrorist" might be if they were acting against an operational military group and were wearing a uniform of an opposing group.
Am I saying that there is a moral equivalence between extremist attacks that target US citizens and sloppy dronestrikes that cause huge collateral damage? No. That idea has some merit behind it, but I don't back it up. I have been saying that those are not the way to solve that issue. Torturing people in Guantanamo Bay is not the way to tackle the issue. I have been repeatedly saying that I'm criticizing our actions, as their results are largely limited at best and counteractive to our goal at worst. If you want to debate moral equivalency, or excuses for extremist attacks on the innocent, find someone who is arguing them!
Now, I'm not saying that "terrorist" is a label that should not be applied to violence. I'm expressing that in shootings in the USA, it seems that "terrorist" is quickly applied to some, not at all to others, who have similar extremist views... just of different origin.
How about that.
Oh, believe me, I did get your point about the moral equivalency of "muslim terrorists in the USA" and "USA terrorism in the Middle East." I do not agree with it, but I understood it. Since the question was categorizing extremist acts, I do not clearly see that it is relevant.
Do you want to give "Muslim extremists who kill innocent people in the USA" a pass from slapping the "terrorist" label if they are not Screaming Allah Akbars? Just trying to clarify your position here. Personally, I really do not care if they are screaming Allah Akbar, or bitching about the Palestinians, the Great Satan, to me the only exception to "terrorist" might be if they were acting against an operational military group and were wearing a uniform of an opposing group.
Do you want to give "Muslim extremists who kill innocent people in the USA" a pass from slapping the "terrorist" label if they are not Screaming Allah Akbars? Just trying to clarify your position here. Personally, I really do not care if they are screaming Allah Akbar, or bitching about the Palestinians, the Great Satan, to me the only exception to "terrorist" might be if they were acting against an operational military group and were wearing a uniform of an opposing group.
Am I saying that there is a moral equivalence between extremist attacks that target US citizens and sloppy dronestrikes that cause huge collateral damage? No. That idea has some merit behind it, but I don't back it up. I have been saying that those are not the way to solve that issue. Torturing people in Guantanamo Bay is not the way to tackle the issue. I have been repeatedly saying that I'm criticizing our actions, as their results are largely limited at best and counteractive to our goal at worst. If you want to debate moral equivalency, or excuses for extremist attacks on the innocent, find someone who is arguing them!
Now, I'm not saying that "terrorist" is a label that should not be applied to violence. I'm expressing that in shootings in the USA, it seems that "terrorist" is quickly applied to some, not at all to others, who have similar extremist views... just of different origin.
Damn it, Spendulus, you took what I aid about your hypothetical scenario and acted as if I said it about reality. How about we dont make any of those assumptions in reality and stick with the FACTS!? And you keep refusing to take a few words and conclude logically towards their meaning by considering their context!
Yeah, muslim extremists have a rightwing ideology. However, the article was abut the question of whether or not "domestic, non-muslim right-wing 'terrorists' (extremists)" were a larger threat to US citizens than muslim extremists (domestic or otherwise) since the date of 9/11. That is a question without a definite answer, but the data suggests that domestic, non-muslim terrorist are a larger threat (regardless of their ideology, left or right [though I think anti-abortion, anti-government extremists have a larger kill count]).
There's also the problem of how they self-identify. Most muslim extremists that attack US citizens on US soil aren't screaming "Allahu Akbar!" as they're doing it. They don't seem to usually explicitly explain that their violence is "for the glory of islam" or whatever. We both completely agree that the Boston bomber was a muslim extremist, that what he did is wrong. He said that what he did was a response to the killing of (innocent?) muslims in the middle east. If I'm not mistaken, he stuck to that reason to the point when he was sentenced. I am not excusing terrorism, attacking innocent people is wrong, I just want to point out that the US government has killed innocent muslims and killing innocent US citizens is a completely, immoral, wrong response. Hope that keeps you from strawmanning the thing... again.
Muslim extremist come with as many self-identifiers as there are attackers, I think. We should stick to the shooter's (bomber/stabber/etc.) profile, how that shooter fits in the national status quo, and act proportionately and accordingly to the threat level.
Oh, believe me, I did get your point about the moral equivalency of "muslim terrorists in the USA" and "USA terrorism in the Middle East." I do not agree with it, but I understood it. Since the question was categorizing extremist acts, I do not clearly see that it is relevant.Yeah, muslim extremists have a rightwing ideology. However, the article was abut the question of whether or not "domestic, non-muslim right-wing 'terrorists' (extremists)" were a larger threat to US citizens than muslim extremists (domestic or otherwise) since the date of 9/11. That is a question without a definite answer, but the data suggests that domestic, non-muslim terrorist are a larger threat (regardless of their ideology, left or right [though I think anti-abortion, anti-government extremists have a larger kill count]).
There's also the problem of how they self-identify. Most muslim extremists that attack US citizens on US soil aren't screaming "Allahu Akbar!" as they're doing it. They don't seem to usually explicitly explain that their violence is "for the glory of islam" or whatever. We both completely agree that the Boston bomber was a muslim extremist, that what he did is wrong. He said that what he did was a response to the killing of (innocent?) muslims in the middle east. If I'm not mistaken, he stuck to that reason to the point when he was sentenced. I am not excusing terrorism, attacking innocent people is wrong, I just want to point out that the US government has killed innocent muslims and killing innocent US citizens is a completely, immoral, wrong response. Hope that keeps you from strawmanning the thing... again.
Muslim extremist come with as many self-identifiers as there are attackers, I think. We should stick to the shooter's (bomber/stabber/etc.) profile, how that shooter fits in the national status quo, and act proportionately and accordingly to the threat level.
Do you want to give "Muslim extremists who kill innocent people in the USA" a pass from slapping the "terrorist" label if they are not Screaming Allah Akbars? Just trying to clarify your position here. Personally, I really do not care if they are screaming Allah Akbar, or bitching about the Palestinians, the Great Satan, to me the only exception to "terrorist" might be if they were acting against an operational military group and were wearing a uniform of an opposing group.
The Muslim guy is the terrorist in the cases. No matter if a Muslim was a victim he was the terrorist. That is the wrongest approach. I know many Muslims, they are the nicest people. The terrorist attacks are done by crazy Muslims people, who are not wanted by the Muslims too.
Well, we simply don't have that problem.
The only question would be whether Muslim Terrorist should be called Muslim Jihadists. They self-identify as such, however I don't think they would mind the "Terrorist" label.
The only question would be whether Muslim Terrorist should be called Muslim Jihadists. They self-identify as such, however I don't think they would mind the "Terrorist" label.
No, they shouldn't. E.g. palestinians and Hezbollah fighting for their own land and rights, but IS and other jihadists have entirely different goals and rhetoric, however the methods can be pretty much the same.
Damn it, Spendulus, you took what I aid about your hypothetical scenario and acted as if I said it about reality. How about we dont make any of those assumptions in reality and stick with the FACTS!? And you keep refusing to take a few words and conclude logically towards their meaning by considering their context!
Yeah, muslim extremists have a rightwing ideology. However, the article was abut the question of whether or not "domestic, non-muslim right-wing 'terrorists' (extremists)" were a larger threat to US citizens than muslim extremists (domestic or otherwise) since the date of 9/11. That is a question without a definite answer, but the data suggests that domestic, non-muslim terrorist are a larger threat (regardless of their ideology, left or right [though I think anti-abortion, anti-government extremists have a larger kill count]).
There's also the problem of how they self-identify. Most muslim extremists that attack US citizens on US soil aren't screaming "Allahu Akbar!" as they're doing it. They don't seem to usually explicitly explain that their violence is "for the glory of islam" or whatever. We both completely agree that the Boston bomber was a muslim extremist, that what he did is wrong. He said that what he did was a response to the killing of (innocent?) muslims in the middle east. If I'm not mistaken, he stuck to that reason to the point when he was sentenced. I am not excusing terrorism, attacking innocent people is wrong, I just want to point out that the US government has killed innocent muslims and killing innocent US citizens is a completely, immoral, wrong response. Hope that keeps you from strawmanning the thing... again.
Muslim extremist come with as many self-identifiers as there are attackers, I think. We should stick to the shooter's (bomber/stabber/etc.) profile, how that shooter fits in the national status quo, and act proportionately and accordingly to the threat level.
Yeah, muslim extremists have a rightwing ideology. However, the article was abut the question of whether or not "domestic, non-muslim right-wing 'terrorists' (extremists)" were a larger threat to US citizens than muslim extremists (domestic or otherwise) since the date of 9/11. That is a question without a definite answer, but the data suggests that domestic, non-muslim terrorist are a larger threat (regardless of their ideology, left or right [though I think anti-abortion, anti-government extremists have a larger kill count]).
There's also the problem of how they self-identify. Most muslim extremists that attack US citizens on US soil aren't screaming "Allahu Akbar!" as they're doing it. They don't seem to usually explicitly explain that their violence is "for the glory of islam" or whatever. We both completely agree that the Boston bomber was a muslim extremist, that what he did is wrong. He said that what he did was a response to the killing of (innocent?) muslims in the middle east. If I'm not mistaken, he stuck to that reason to the point when he was sentenced. I am not excusing terrorism, attacking innocent people is wrong, I just want to point out that the US government has killed innocent muslims and killing innocent US citizens is a completely, immoral, wrong response. Hope that keeps you from strawmanning the thing... again.
Muslim extremist come with as many self-identifiers as there are attackers, I think. We should stick to the shooter's (bomber/stabber/etc.) profile, how that shooter fits in the national status quo, and act proportionately and accordingly to the threat level.
As I see it depends on the political agenda of the people who classifying a given shooting. An old example: back in the cold war days the IRA was viewed as a terrorist organization in the west, and as freedom fighters in the soviet block.
Well, we simply don't have that problem.The only question would be whether Muslim Terrorist should be called Muslim Jihadists. They self-identify as such, however I don't think they would mind the "Terrorist" label.
As I see it depends on the political agenda of the people who classifying a given shooting. An old example: back in the cold war days the IRA was viewed as a terrorist organization in the west, and as freedom fighters in the soviet block.
Sorry, I forgot that you cannot process information in context. I meant to say "Why do we need mass surveillance if data suggests (the information is not conclusive) that right-wing extremists are more likely to become a threat to citizens of the United States of America?" I've provided the data to back up that claim. You read it yourself.....
Yes, I did, and I did not find it supported your claim at all. But more interesting is the exclusion of Muslim terrorists from the so called "right wing extremists" category. I would suggest that Muslim terrorists are the very definition of right wing extremist. They are pure religious fundmanentalists, which is definitional on "right wing extremist." Anyway I think the correct phrase would be "domestic right wing extremist." But I'd still include Muslim extremists in that category - definitionally. So why aren't they?The only reason I can think of is to somehow put "Right wing extremist" in the conservative/Republican camp as opposed to "Left wing extremist".
This is important because I can't even agree with the premises of the question, so the question and conclusions look nonsensical.
But whatever, we're talking hypothetical scenario, right?
An easy way to discuss multiple things in a single conversation is to address each thing one at a time. OK, first let's talk about the assumptions we're making about your HS (hypothetical scenario): The majority of domestic right-wing (non-Muslim) attacks are not organized within a group, but the Muslim terrorist are more likely to be organized by religious institutions; both groups are equal in size (are they equal in casualties in your HS?); mass surveillance is the most advanced tool available, we're assuming that we can store and search through the data with high efficiency and not using that tool for anything other than the reduction of extremist attacks (which is not true in the real world, where it is used to spy on women). So, we agree with those assumptions in the HS, right?
Secondly, questions I want cleared about the HS. What is our goal? Is our effort worldwide or localized to the USA? What of our efforts abroad? Are we still torturing people in Guantanamo Bay in the HS? Are we still ordering massive collateral damage causing missile strikes? What else do we know about those two groups of extremists (we already know the Muslim extremist are more likely to be organized in group, and rightwing extremists are more likely to be "lone wolves" in the HS)?
Sorry, I forgot that you cannot process information in context. I meant to say "Why do we need mass surveillance if data suggests (the information is not conclusive) that right-wing extremists are more likely to become a threat to citizens of the United States of America?" I've provided the data to back up that claim. You read it yourself.
But whatever, we're talking hypothetical scenario, right?
An easy way to discuss multiple things in a single conversation is to address each thing one at a time. OK, first let's talk about the assumptions we're making about your HS (hypothetical scenario): The majority of domestic right-wing (non-Muslim) attacks are not organized within a group, but the Muslim terrorist are more likely to be organized by religious institutions; both groups are equal in size (are they equal in casualties in your HS?); mass surveillance is the most advanced tool available, we're assuming that we can store and search through the data with high efficiency and not using that tool for anything other than the reduction of extremist attacks (which is not true in the real world, where it is used to spy on women). So, we agree with those assumptions in the HS, right?
Secondly, questions I want cleared about the HS. What is our goal? Is our effort worldwide or localized to the USA? What of our efforts abroad? Are we still torturing people in Guantanamo Bay in the HS? Are we still ordering massive collateral damage causing missile strikes? What else do we know about those two groups of extremists (we already know the Muslim extremist are more likely to be organized in group, and rightwing extremists are more likely to be "lone wolves" in the HS)?
But whatever, we're talking hypothetical scenario, right?
An easy way to discuss multiple things in a single conversation is to address each thing one at a time. OK, first let's talk about the assumptions we're making about your HS (hypothetical scenario): The majority of domestic right-wing (non-Muslim) attacks are not organized within a group, but the Muslim terrorist are more likely to be organized by religious institutions; both groups are equal in size (are they equal in casualties in your HS?); mass surveillance is the most advanced tool available, we're assuming that we can store and search through the data with high efficiency and not using that tool for anything other than the reduction of extremist attacks (which is not true in the real world, where it is used to spy on women). So, we agree with those assumptions in the HS, right?
Secondly, questions I want cleared about the HS. What is our goal? Is our effort worldwide or localized to the USA? What of our efforts abroad? Are we still torturing people in Guantanamo Bay in the HS? Are we still ordering massive collateral damage causing missile strikes? What else do we know about those two groups of extremists (we already know the Muslim extremist are more likely to be organized in group, and rightwing extremists are more likely to be "lone wolves" in the HS)?
Just for grins, suppose you separated US mass killers into 2 groups -
- lone wolf US citizens
- Muslim terrorists
Assume the groups are about equal in size. The first group, as exemplified by say, the Unibomber, can be addressed only through ratcheting up mass surveillance to the Nth degree. The second group, as exemplified by the Boston marathon retards, can be addressed through surveillance on Muslim unmarried males between ages 18-45.
You have limited resources.
You don't like unconstitutional spying.
which group would you focus on, and why?
Lone wolves? There's another biased narrative. There was a major extremist attack against a Muslim mosque directed by... well, non-Muslims (I assume).
From talking points memo: “Our small group will soon be faced with the fight of our lives,” Doggart wrote in another Facebook post. “We will offer those lives as collateral to prove our commitment to our God. We shall be Warriors who will inflict horrible numbers of casualties upon the enemies of our Nation and World Peace.”
But let's set that aside to talk of your hypothetical scenario. Both groups are of same size, am I correct in assuming they cause the same-ish amount of casualties? Why exactly is mass surveillance the only way to deal with non-Muslim extremists? How do you know we only need to place that range of Muslims under surveillance? What of our efforts abroad? In your scenario, are we still torturing people in Guantanamo Bay? Are we still ordering massive collateral damage causing missile strikes?
Why do we need mass surveillance if data suggests (the information is not conclusive) that right-wing extremists are more likely to become a threat? Why not range it into more likely candidates like with your Muslim extremists of this hypothetical world? How much data do we have in the real world that backs up that range for likely violent Muslim extremists? And more importantly, how many casualties a year are we talking about?
I kind of have an answer, but I need more information from your hypothetical scenario.
I'm kind of lazy. Don't like write big numbers. How about just for June?
Jihad Attacks: 262
Countries: 29
Allah Akbars: 48
Dead Bodies: 2426
Critically Injured: 2582
thereligionofpeace.com
Your assertion...
Why do we need mass surveillance if data suggests (the information is not conclusive) that right-wing extremists are more likely to become a threat?
Is false(bolded)....unless you consider muslim extremists a variety of "right-wing exremists".
As for "why mass surveillance", well how exactly do you think governments get info on masses of people, if not by such methods? trying to not get thing confusing here is difficult because you keep throwing five different arguments ouit. But let's say that the hypothetical "right wing extremists" are "lone wolf attacks" while the Muslim extremists are organized, which they are. We know that these guys go to certain mosques and "study" with certain "clerics" and become radicalized. So there is a high probability an Islamic terrorist knows about other Islamic terrorists. that is not so for the "right wing lone wolf extremist."
Does that make sense regarding the hypothetical scenario proposed for discussion?
Just for grins, suppose you separated US mass killers into 2 groups -
- lone wolf US citizens
- Muslim terrorists
Assume the groups are about equal in size. The first group, as exemplified by say, the Unibomber, can be addressed only through ratcheting up mass surveillance to the Nth degree. The second group, as exemplified by the Boston marathon retards, can be addressed through surveillance on Muslim unmarried males between ages 18-45.
You have limited resources.
You don't like unconstitutional spying.
which group would you focus on, and why?
Lone wolves? There's another biased narrative. There was a major extremist attack against a Muslim mosque directed by... well, non-Muslims (I assume).
From talking points memo: “Our small group will soon be faced with the fight of our lives,” Doggart wrote in another Facebook post. “We will offer those lives as collateral to prove our commitment to our God. We shall be Warriors who will inflict horrible numbers of casualties upon the enemies of our Nation and World Peace.”
But let's set that aside to talk of your hypothetical scenario. Both groups are of same size, am I correct in assuming they cause the same-ish amount of casualties? Why exactly is mass surveillance the only way to deal with non-Muslim extremists? How do you know we only need to place that range of Muslims under surveillance? What of our efforts abroad? In your scenario, are we still torturing people in Guantanamo Bay? Are we still ordering massive collateral damage causing missile strikes?
Why do we need mass surveillance if data suggests (the information is not conclusive) that right-wing extremists are more likely to become a threat? Why not range it into more likely candidates like with your Muslim extremists of this hypothetical world? How much data do we have in the real world that backs up that range for likely violent Muslim extremists? And more importantly, how many casualties a year are we talking about?
I kind of have an answer, but I need more information from your hypothetical scenario.
....
That's why I would like for Guantanamo torture and murders to stop, I would like missile strikes that have large collateral damage to stop, I would like unconstitutional spying programs to stop. Don't you? I think we don't disagree in that aspect. I would also like us to prioritize things that are more deadly to US citizens and citizens of US allied nations, our money is better spent outside the sunni/shia/kurd conflict. That second part is something we might disagree with.....
That's why I would like for Guantanamo torture and murders to stop, I would like missile strikes that have large collateral damage to stop, I would like unconstitutional spying programs to stop. Don't you? I think we don't disagree in that aspect. I would also like us to prioritize things that are more deadly to US citizens and citizens of US allied nations, our money is better spent outside the sunni/shia/kurd conflict. That second part is something we might disagree with.....
Just for grins, suppose you separated US mass killers into 2 groups -
- lone wolf US citizens
- Muslim terrorists
Assume the groups are about equal in size.
The first group, as exemplified by say, the Unibomber, can be addressed only through ratcheting up mass survelliance to the Nth degree.
The second group, as exemplified by the Boston marathon retards, can be addressed through survelliance on Muslim unmarried males between ages 18-45.
You have limited resources.
You don't like unconstitutional spying.
which group would you focus on, and why?
There you go again. We're going to go in circles and circles because you insist on willfully misinterpreting what I've said despite the fact that I've cleared it up for you. I am not making excuses for extremist Muslim attacks. I am criticizing the US government's response to those extremists, and our priorities. The fact that I think we should be acting differently in response to the issue doesn't mean I am belittling or making excuses for such issues. If I say "we should have different government actions when it comes to unemployment, our current actions might be making unemployment worse", does that mean that I'm making excuses for people that don't work despite being able to? No, but you're making that same asinine leap in logic to evade the horrible wrongdoings the US government has done in response to Muslim extremists. Because the US is wrong in some actions, doesn't mean that the violence in reaction to those actions is justified.
I believe the problem is that there must be a good guy and a bad guy, for you. If one side does wrong, the other side must be the good guy. So, I think that you think that my criticism of the US is a defense of attacks that target the innocent (therefore, me labeling the US as the bad guy and muslim extremists as good guys), but they're not. Muslim extremists (attached to an organization or not) are not the good guy. The US tries its best, but it's also done some horrible stuff In this conflict. Both sides have killed innocent bystanders, and that is wrong.
That's why I would like for Guantanamo torture and murders to stop, I would like missile strikes that have large collateral damage to stop, I would like unconstitutional spying programs to stop. Don't you? I think we don't disagree in that aspect. I would also like us to prioritize things that are more deadly to US citizens and citizens of US allied nations, our money is better spent outside the sunni/shia/kurd conflict. That second part is something we might disagree with.
So if you want to have an honest conversation about what we actually disagree on, now's your chance.
As for what we decide to actually call terrorism (be it a Muslim shooting up a Navy base, or a Christian bombing medical clinics), and whether or not there is a double standard in coverage and rhetoric... I'll leave everyone to form their own opinion, because that's a bit subjective. Where I see bias, there might be none; or where I see perfectly unbiased coverage, it may be pushing a narrative. I don't think there's an easy way to prove ether way.
I believe the problem is that there must be a good guy and a bad guy, for you. If one side does wrong, the other side must be the good guy. So, I think that you think that my criticism of the US is a defense of attacks that target the innocent (therefore, me labeling the US as the bad guy and muslim extremists as good guys), but they're not. Muslim extremists (attached to an organization or not) are not the good guy. The US tries its best, but it's also done some horrible stuff In this conflict. Both sides have killed innocent bystanders, and that is wrong.
That's why I would like for Guantanamo torture and murders to stop, I would like missile strikes that have large collateral damage to stop, I would like unconstitutional spying programs to stop. Don't you? I think we don't disagree in that aspect. I would also like us to prioritize things that are more deadly to US citizens and citizens of US allied nations, our money is better spent outside the sunni/shia/kurd conflict. That second part is something we might disagree with.
So if you want to have an honest conversation about what we actually disagree on, now's your chance.
As for what we decide to actually call terrorism (be it a Muslim shooting up a Navy base, or a Christian bombing medical clinics), and whether or not there is a double standard in coverage and rhetoric... I'll leave everyone to form their own opinion, because that's a bit subjective. Where I see bias, there might be none; or where I see perfectly unbiased coverage, it may be pushing a narrative. I don't think there's an easy way to prove ether way.
Changing the goalpost!? Nice projecting. The original question is the title of this post, the title you clicked on to read those other questions!
The post is formatted as follows.
Title: So, which shooting do we call terrorism?
[l...recent shootings with a single perp.]
[Questions you decided to take out of context]
Which did you read first, the tittle of this post, or the post itself? You HAD to see the tittle first, read of the shootings first, then read those questions. This post is about shootings and the media double standard of when to call a shooting "terrorism".
Like I said, you're that type of person that ignores context (the question previous to the ones you quoted helps provide the context) and runs with a sentence or to into a tangent. I'm not drafting a legal document here, I thought this forum would have people honest enough to not take questions about the shootings and media reaction out of context.
Maybe its my fault, I didnt include redundancies to account for people like you, that like to stuff out of context and misinteprete things. Maybe I should have typed: "Which shooting was jumped on at a moment's notice, with mentions of terrorism? [In the media,] ....
The post is formatted as follows.
Title: So, which shooting do we call terrorism?
[l...recent shootings with a single perp.]
[Questions you decided to take out of context]
Which did you read first, the tittle of this post, or the post itself? You HAD to see the tittle first, read of the shootings first, then read those questions. This post is about shootings and the media double standard of when to call a shooting "terrorism".
Like I said, you're that type of person that ignores context (the question previous to the ones you quoted helps provide the context) and runs with a sentence or to into a tangent. I'm not drafting a legal document here, I thought this forum would have people honest enough to not take questions about the shootings and media reaction out of context.
Maybe its my fault, I didnt include redundancies to account for people like you, that like to stuff out of context and misinteprete things. Maybe I should have typed: "Which shooting was jumped on at a moment's notice, with mentions of terrorism? [In the media,] ....
Right, maybe you should have said something different. Because otherwise they'd have no clue what you were talking about other than what you said. There's no "double standard" such as you suggest though.
But if you want to figure out some way that slaughtering innocent people is okay because the USA (blah blah blah), the USA (blalblah blah) etc, go ahead. Why don't you call it "workplace violence."
Oh, wait..they tried that....
Here's your OP:
Dylan Roof killed 9 people, injured none.
Joseph Jesse Aldridge killed 8 people, injured 1.
Thomas Jessee Lee killed 5, injured none.
Cedric G. Prather, 5 killed, 2 injured.
Christopher Carrillo killed 5 people and injured none.
Michael “Augustine” Bournes killed 5 and injured none.
Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez killed 5 people and injured 3 people.
Which shooting was jumped on at a moment's notice, with mentions of terrorism? What determines who is called a terrorist? Religiously motivated violence? "Terrosim" is an arbitrary way to label violence, a way to drive the narrative. Don't be fooled by it.
You are certainly correct that labels can be deceptive and misleading. In other words, anything definite, descriptive, can be wrongly descriptive. Anything vague, indefinite, is SAFE.
I agree it shouldn't be called "terrorism." The distinction is whether or not the act was committed in the name of Jihad, so such incidents should be called something like Jihadist attack. At this point the word "terrorism" is being used as a euphimism to avoid explicitly connecting it to Islam.
Good point. Someone wants us to call killings where the crazy person is shouting "Allah Akbar" terrorist acts, while they are actually better described as, well...
Allah Akbars....
Terrorism have no religion. Terrorism have no reason. Terrorism have no government. Terrorism have only sick mind that must be cured, isolated or eliminated.
I agree it shouldn't be called "terrorism." The distinction is whether or not the act was committed in the name of Jihad, so such incidents should be called something like Jihadist attack. At this point the word "terrorism" is being used as a euphimism to avoid explicitly connecting it to Islam.
Changing the goalpost!? Nice projecting. The original question is the title of this post, the title you clicked on to read those other questions!
The post is formatted as follows.
Title: So, which shooting do we call terrorism?
[list of recent shootings with a single perp.]
[Questions you decided to take out of context]
Which did you read first, the tittle of this post, or the post itself? You HAD to see the tittle first, read of the shootings first, then read those questions. This post is about shootings and the media double standard of when to call a shooting "terrorism".
Like I said, you're that type of person that ignores context (the question previous to the ones you quoted helps provide the context) and runs with a sentence or to into a tangent. I'm not drafting a legal document here, I thought this forum would have people honest enough to not take questions about the shootings and media reaction out of context.
Maybe its my fault, I didnt include redundancies to account for people like you, that like to stuff out of context and misinteprete things. Maybe I should have typed: "Which shooting was jumped on at a moment's notice, with mentions of terrorism? [In the media,] What [do you think] determines who [(as in which shooter)] is called a terrorist? Religiously motivated [gun] violence? "Terrosim" is an arbitrary way to label [gun] violence, a way to drive the narrative [a narrative that inflates the threat of muslim extremists in the homeland]. Don't be fooled by it."
That article provides analisys on whether rightwing extremists are currently more of a threat on americans' lives than muslim extremists. It doest go into a definite conclusion, but it seems that rightwing extremists have caused more deaths in the US than muslim extremists. That's why I said that they SEEM to be a bigger threat.
And no, I am not making excuses for terrorists, or out to belittle attacks. I repeat, I am criticizing our response to the problem. Guantanamo torture and murder is not helping solve the problem, missile strikes that cause large collateral damage do not solve the problem. Unconstitutional spying programs dont solve the problem. We also face more deadly (for US citizens, anyways) issues, (like the cartels) closer to home! We are not the world police, this is not our conflict. We should be stiking to helping our citizens and our allies. I dont think we should be spending so much money on this sunni/shia/kurd conflict.
The post is formatted as follows.
Title: So, which shooting do we call terrorism?
[list of recent shootings with a single perp.]
[Questions you decided to take out of context]
Which did you read first, the tittle of this post, or the post itself? You HAD to see the tittle first, read of the shootings first, then read those questions. This post is about shootings and the media double standard of when to call a shooting "terrorism".
Like I said, you're that type of person that ignores context (the question previous to the ones you quoted helps provide the context) and runs with a sentence or to into a tangent. I'm not drafting a legal document here, I thought this forum would have people honest enough to not take questions about the shootings and media reaction out of context.
Maybe its my fault, I didnt include redundancies to account for people like you, that like to stuff out of context and misinteprete things. Maybe I should have typed: "Which shooting was jumped on at a moment's notice, with mentions of terrorism? [In the media,] What [do you think] determines who [(as in which shooter)] is called a terrorist? Religiously motivated [gun] violence? "Terrosim" is an arbitrary way to label [gun] violence, a way to drive the narrative [a narrative that inflates the threat of muslim extremists in the homeland]. Don't be fooled by it."
That article provides analisys on whether rightwing extremists are currently more of a threat on americans' lives than muslim extremists. It doest go into a definite conclusion, but it seems that rightwing extremists have caused more deaths in the US than muslim extremists. That's why I said that they SEEM to be a bigger threat.
And no, I am not making excuses for terrorists, or out to belittle attacks. I repeat, I am criticizing our response to the problem. Guantanamo torture and murder is not helping solve the problem, missile strikes that cause large collateral damage do not solve the problem. Unconstitutional spying programs dont solve the problem. We also face more deadly (for US citizens, anyways) issues, (like the cartels) closer to home! We are not the world police, this is not our conflict. We should be stiking to helping our citizens and our allies. I dont think we should be spending so much money on this sunni/shia/kurd conflict.
Jump to: