Jump to content
natininja

Terrorism / Mass Shootings

Recommended Posts

How many people has the KKK killed in the last 30 days?

 

...And other non-Muslim religious terrorist groups? I don't know. Don't you think that list is at least as long? Do you consider armies as conducting terrorism? Have the Israelis engaged in terrorism? Have we?


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many people has the KKK killed in the last 30 days?

 

...And other non-Muslim religious terrorist groups? I don't know. Don't you think that list is at least as long? Do you consider armies as conducting terrorism? Have the Israelis engaged in terrorism? Have we?

 

I don't know about other groups, but no, neither we nor the Israelis have conducted terrorism.  If we had, there would be an awful lot more dead Muslim civilians.  I hear sheltered campus types citing all kinds of statistics about how many civilians "we" killed in Iraq (often using extremely loose causality standards that they would never apply to anyone they weren't actively trying to vilify), all to obfuscate the fundamental reality: if we really, truly, thought like the Islamists do about the desirability of maximizing civilian casualties for psychological effect, we could depopulate entire regions of the Middle East even without deploying our nuclear arsenal.

 

Civilian casualties as unfortunate side effects of military operations are not terrorism. Nor is the suppression of insurrection or separatists, even if the fighters on the other side don't fully qualify as soldiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think persons on the receiving end of Israeli and American bombs and bullets might have a different opinion. How often does a terrorist describe themselves as one? The term is usually applied by the victims.


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that we decided to use the phrase "War on Terror" as a euphesim.  Our enemies are those who share a certain interpretation of Islam.  "Terrorism" is a tactic, and usually one used by the losing side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why would they if he didn't proclaim to be doing it in the name of Jesus Christ?  If he had, then he would be a Christian terrorist.

 

 

Why did he do it?

 

I have no idea, I would say it is because he is crazy.  I don't know, and I don't think you know either.

 

I don't think Richard Speck, Charles Whitman, Charles Starkweather, or any other mass murderers were terrorists.  I think they were just nuts!  None of them proclaimed religion as their reason.  Why do you?

 

You don't consider people who blow themselves up or fly a plane which they are on board into a building to be nuts?  Just because you're nuts does not mean you're not a terrorist. (I'm saying that without any opinion on whether the individuals you mentioned were terrorists by any of the various definitions of that term).  Religion too often leads to mentally unbalanced people doing terrible things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why would they if he didn't proclaim to be doing it in the name of Jesus Christ?  If he had, then he would be a Christian terrorist.

 

 

Why did he do it?

 

I have no idea, I would say it is because he is crazy.  I don't know, and I don't think you know either.

 

I don't think Richard Speck, Charles Whitman, Charles Starkweather, or any other mass murderers were terrorists.  I think they were just nuts!  None of them proclaimed religion as their reason.  Why do you?

 

You don't consider people who blow themselves up or fly a plane which they are on board to be nuts?  Just because you're nuts does not mean you're not a terrorist. (I'm saying that without any opinion on whether the individuals you mentioned were terrorists by any of the various definitions of that term).  Religion too often leads to mentally unbalanced people doing terrible things.

 

Eric Rudolph was a terrorist, as was Baruch Goldstein.  Both were inspired by a twisted definition of their religion. 

 

So were Yigal Amir and Nathuram Godse, though neither would normally be considered a terrorist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why would they if he didn't proclaim to be doing it in the name of Jesus Christ?  If he had, then he would be a Christian terrorist.

 

 

Why did he do it?

 

I have no idea, I would say it is because he is crazy.  I don't know, and I don't think you know either.

 

I don't think Richard Speck, Charles Whitman, Charles Starkweather, or any other mass murderers were terrorists.  I think they were just nuts!  None of them proclaimed religion as their reason.  Why do you?

 

You don't consider people who blow themselves up or fly a plane which they are on board into a building to be nuts?  Just because you're nuts does not mean you're not a terrorist. (I'm saying that without any opinion on whether the individuals you mentioned were terrorists by any of the various definitions of that term).  Religion too often leads to mentally unbalanced people doing terrible things.

 

You should read more of the posts in a thread before you respond.  Just 2 posts previous to the one you quoted above I said:

 

All Terrorists are crazy, but not all crazy people are Terrorists.

 

Read more: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=6490#ixzz3WUDgnswh

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is why I don't read your crazy posts..... So back to news that actually matters....

 

Environmental terrorism cripples Palestinian farmers

http://www.mintpressnews.com/environmental-terrorism-cripples-palestinian-farmers/203988/


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is why I don't read your crazy posts..... So back to news that actually matters....

 

Environmental terrorism cripples Palestinian farmers

http://www.mintpressnews.com/environmental-terrorism-cripples-palestinian-farmers/203988/

 

This has been going on for awhile, and what makes it really insidious is that if the squatters can chase the Palestinians off the land in question, it can be declared state land open to future "settlement".

 

The squatters in the West Bank are a textbook example of why the Geneva Convention explicitly banned moving one's own civilians into occupied territories.  Unfortunately, Israel's parliamentary system gives them disproportionate power.  Also, the Israeli government would rather the zealots harass Palestinians in the West Bank than secular Jews in Ramat Gan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wyden and Paul are on a roll.

 

MAJOR DEVELOPMENT: Rand Paul, Ron Wyden to Introduce 28 Pages Resolution in Senate

 

By Brian McGlinchey

 

The growing, nonpartisan drive to declassify a 28-page finding on foreign government support of the 9/11 hijackers is about to take an enormous step forward with the introduction of a Senate resolution urging the president to release the material to the public. Dramatically compounding the issue’s visibility, the resolution is being introduced by high-profile Republican presidential hopeful Rand Paul of Kentucky.

 

A spokesperson for Senator Paul told 28Pages.org that Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden will cosponsor the resolution, which will serve as the upper chamber’s companion to House Resolution 14. Wyden is a member of the Senate intelligence committee.

 

Paul will unveil the Transparency for the Families of 9/11 Victims Act at an outdoor Capitol Hill press conference on Tuesday, June 2 at 10:00 am, joined by Representatives Walter Jones (R, NC), Stephen Lynch (D, MA), Thomas Massie (R, KY) and former Democratic Senator Bob Graham.

 

http://28pages.org/2015/05/28/major-development-rand-paul-ron-wyden-to-introduce-28-pages-resolution-in-senate/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right wing extremists terrorize a mosque with assault rifles during prayer time (photos/videos)

http://www.occupydemocrats.com/right-wing-extremists-terrorize-a-mosque-with-assault-rifles-during-prayer-time-photosvideos/


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

honestly, I don't know how Pamela Geller does it, putting up with the kind of inane questions thrown at her by idiots in the media. She's like a modern-day Paul Revere. In a matter of a few seconds she turns the tables on the Southern Poverty Law Center and calls them out for the hypocrites they are. Instead of worrying about a group drawing some "offensive" cartoons maybe we should all start focusing on the real danger to the world, but I'm afraid we've become so enslaved to political correctness that it's probably too late :|--

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s2po2Xl0Io

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we do some kind of side-by-side comparison about how much we time and money we spend 'worrying about' jihadists vs. how much we spend on people drawing cartoons in an attempt to incite violence from the jihadists?  You might be surprised by the results, EVD.

 

Certainly, she is a hate filled piece of sh*t.  Not nearly as hate filled or as much of a piece of sh*t as the jihadists, but a piece of sh*t nonetheless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we do some kind of side-by-side comparison about how much we time and money we spend 'worrying about' jihadists vs. how much we spend on people drawing cartoons in an attempt to incite violence from the jihadists?  You might be surprised by the results, EVD.

 

Certainly, she is a hate filled piece of sh*t.  Not nearly as hate filled or as much of a piece of sh*t as the jihadists, but a piece of sh*t nonetheless.

wow, you really don't get it, do you? whether you draw cartoons or not, and despite your sophomoric slurs against Pamela Geller, the jihadists want to kill you. Yes, even you! Your mere existence is enough to "incite violence"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummmm.... I have no idea what I am supposed to 'get' and no idea how that is even fathomably responsive to my post.  Maybe try reading it first.  After you read it, try to comprehend it.

 

That said, my apologies for the slur against your girlfriend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummmm.... I have no idea what I am supposed to 'get' and no idea how that is even fathomably responsive to my post.  Maybe try reading it first.  After you read it, try to comprehend it.

 

That said, my apologies for the slur against your girlfriend.

well I guess I was too stupid to understand another one of your cryptic obfuscations. Please tell us the results of your "side-by-side comparison" (since you obviously must have the "facts" at your command) so that I will be "surprised by the results."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can start with the $6 trillion and 10 year long Iraq War on one side, I suppose

 

Sorry about my 'cryptic obfuscations'.  I don't speak Amurcan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man Linked to Shooting at Dallas Police Headquarters Had Violent Past

 

(DALLAS)—The man linked to a violent assault on Dallas police headquarters was accused two years earlier of choking his mother, then fleeing to an East Texas town where schools were locked down out of fear he would attack them as “soft targets,” according to accounts from police and family members.  Police said the suspect, who planted pipe bombs outside the headquarters and fired at officers early Saturday from his armored van, told them he was James Boulware.  He was killed hours later by a police sniper.

 

Boulware was arrested for family violence in Dallas two years ago, in a case that was later dismissed. ... In interviews with The Associated Press, Boulware’s father recalled his son’s seething anger at police after losing custody of his child, and his brother recalled that the family’s attempts to get Boulware help were rebuffed.

 

Authorities say it was miraculous no one else was injured in Saturday’s attack, in which the gunman sprayed the front of the building with gunfire just after midnight.  After opening fire, the suspect drove the armored van into a squad car, still firing, then led police on a chase to a restaurant parking lot in the suburb of Hutchins.  The police sniper shot him during the standoff.

 

MORE: http://time.com/3920660/dallas-shooting-police-headquarters/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

74% of law enforcement agencies listed right-wing extremism as one of the top terrorist threats in their communities http://t.co/Kcr36LOzpf


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of the 74 people killed by terrorists, 48 have been home-grown terrorism because of racism or right-wing extremism. 26 have been from "jihadists". That equates to about 65% to 35%. Seems they are pretty accurate in their fears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of the 74 people killed by terrorists, 48 have been home-grown terrorism because of racism or right-wing extremism. 26 have been from "jihadists". That equates to about 65% to 35%. Seems they are pretty accurate in their fears.

 

That's if you arbitrarily start the statistic after 9/11, as the NY Times chose to do. If you include 2001 in the numbers, there's 3003 deaths due to Muslim extremists, which dwarfs the 48 home-grown terrorist deaths, and comes out to about 99% vs 1%. An actual, meaningful stat would have looked at the past 20 or 25 or even 50 years.

 

There's also geography. Most Muslim extremists are thousands of miles away from Small Town, USA so of course they aren't a fear of law enforcement compared to threats that live down the street.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of the 74 people killed by terrorists, 48 have been home-grown terrorism because of racism or right-wing extremism. 26 have been from "jihadists". That equates to about 65% to 35%. Seems they are pretty accurate in their fears.

 

That's if you arbitrarily start the statistic after 9/11, as the NY Times chose to do. If you include 2001 in the numbers, there's 3003 deaths due to Muslim extremists, which dwarfs the 48 home-grown terrorist deaths, and comes out to about 99% vs 1%. An actual, meaningful stat would have looked at the past 20 or 25 or even 50 years.

 

There's also geography. Most Muslim extremists are thousands of miles away from Small Town, USA so of course they aren't a fear of law enforcement compared to threats that live down the street.

 

I think a better indicator would be number of attacks, not how many people each group killed. It also depends on the definition of terrorism. Was the Aurora shooting terrorism? I don't think it should be labeled as such since it doesn't seem it was for political or ideological reasons. He was just nuts. But I think it is just as relevant to the discussion of what local police are/should be worried about. I don't know if that NY Times article included it or not.

 

And I agree about the small town argument. They should all respond with being more worried about homegrown terrorism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So 9/11 equals any other attack where maybe 1-2 people were killed?  That doesn't make much sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not what I said at all.

 

In terms of being prepared, I don't think it matters much to look at how many people ultimately die. Police should be prepared to stop or intercept an act of terror. Whether that ultimately kills 3000 people or 2 people shouldn't change how you prepare for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough, it's not what you meant, but I don't know that in a world of scarce resources you basic point holds.  I'd rather focus on the the sources of terrorism that are most likely to cause catastrophic damage.

 

Also, let's not forget terrorism is international, not just intranational:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/world/middleeast/terror-attacks-france-tunisia-kuwait.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the more unfortunate things to happen post 9-11 was the promotion of the idea that “terrorism” is the enemy.  Terrorism is a tactic.  Our enemy is a particular strain of radical Islam (not the religion as a whole).  It’s like saying we are fighting a war on armored assault.

 

This euphemism allowed us to emphasize that we are not at war with Islam as a whole.  This was important because it was obviously an objective of Al Qaeda at all to pick that fight, making them the vanguard of the Islamic world rather than their problem children.  Unfortunately, it’s now being used not only to deemphasize the religious aspect of the conflict but to conflate others to equal importance.  In particular, terrorism and guerilla tactics are being grouped together inappropriately.

 

In any case, as P. J. O’Rourke once said, “as frightening as terrorism is, it's the weapon of losers...Winners don't need to hijack airplanes. Winners have an Air Force.”. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In any case, as P. J. O’Rourke once said, “as frightening as terrorism is, it's the weapon of losers...Winners don't need to hijack airplanes. Winners have an Air Force.”

 

Hah!  I hadn't heard that one, but I agree with it.

 

I did once in college refer to suicide bombings (which were a hot topic at the time because of the Intifada) as the "poor man's smart bomb," though.  It's much preferable to be able to use actual smart bombs, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terrorism can be the weapon of winners if they actually win...... it's just that history often calls them freedom fighters or revolutionaries when they do win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terrorism might help you avoid losing and increase the cost of another side's victory.  But I don't think I could point to an outright victory that was based on terrorism alone, at least a victory in the classic sense that would get the freed faction able to write history and call themselves freedom fighters.  ISIS might be the biggest terrorist group on the planet as well but they also have a more traditional armed force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try any revolutionary group in the history of mankind. Certainly, as they grow in power and influence, armed forces are formed, but revolution almost always begins with what would technically be classified as terrorism by the strict definition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terrorism might help you avoid losing and increase the cost of another side's victory.  But I don't think I could point to an outright victory that was based on terrorism alone, at least a victory in the classic sense that would get the freed faction able to write history and call themselves freedom fighters.  ISIS might be the biggest terrorist group on the planet as well but they also have a more traditional armed force.

 

True today. But it doesn't seem that far fetched for the future. Like some kind of biological weapon in the wrong hands could reap catastrophic results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is too f---ed up.... And 6 percent of the turnout in his district actually voted for this moron.

 

NBC News ‏@NBCNews  32m32 minutes ago

Tennessee congressional candidate charged with plot to burn N.Y. mosque http://nbcnews.to/1LR4em5 


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try any revolutionary group in the history of mankind. Certainly, as they grow in power and influence, armed forces are formed, but revolution almost always begins with what would technically be classified as terrorism by the strict definition

 

Not really.  Guerilla warfare that does not make a point of attacking soft targets isn't really "terrorism".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^so it's not terrorism when some jihadist opens fire on an army base or in a police station?

 

Actually, by my definition, that's close to true.  Military bases are military targets.  (Police stations are civilian targets, though there was actually a very interesting case out in Nevada(?) recently that actually explored the development of professional police forces--which were actually not much of a thing in the Revolutionary Era--and at least flagged the issue that some police today might actually meet an originalist definition of "soldier," but that conversation might be more suited for the police violence/militarization thread.)

 

Of course, military bases also often have considerable civilian presences, so it's certainly possible that an individual or organization could target a military base but still target maximum, visible civilian casualties for maximum psychological effect on the target government and population with a political motive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^so it's not terrorism when some jihadist opens fire on an army base or in a police station?

 

Not an army base.  A police station is debatable.  The 9/11 attack on the Pentagon was terrorism because it was a hijacked plane.

 

This is part ofwhy it's so dumb to call it a "war on terror".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pre 9/11 I was taught that a key factor in determining whether some act qualified as terrorism was whether it was state sponsored. But now we have the term 'state sponsored terrorism'.

 

FWIW I always considered the Ft. Hood shooter to be a terrorist. Maybe I was wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pre 9/11 I was taught that a key factor in determining whether some act qualified as terrorism was whether it was state sponsored. But now we have the term 'state sponsored terrorism'.

 

FWIW I always considered the Ft. Hood shooter to be a terrorist. Maybe I was wrong

 

Borderline, as he attacked civilian areas of the base too.  The better term would be traitor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"State sponsored terrorism" is still terrorism.  You can have the backing of a state without being a state.  Likewise, the Bush Doctrine targeted state sponsors of terrorism, and that's still intellectually consistent.  (Al Qaeda was not the government of Afghanistan--the Taliban were, but they supported Al Qaeda.  It's guilt by association, absolutely, but sometimes that's fair in politics.)  The one that's something of a contradiction in terms, generally invented and pushed by the anti-Israel crowd, is "state terrorism."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"State sponsored terrorism" is still terrorism.  You can have the backing of a state without being a state.  Likewise, the Bush Doctrine targeted state sponsors of terrorism, and that's still intellectually consistent.  (Al Qaeda was not the government of Afghanistan--the Taliban were, but they supported Al Qaeda.  It's guilt by association, absolutely, but sometimes that's fair in politics.)  The one that's something of a contradiction in terms, generally invented and pushed by the anti-Israel crowd, is "state terrorism."

I thought the claim was always that Iran was backing Al Qaeda (among many other unsavory groups), hence the "state" sponsorship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty common knowledge that Iran backs Hezbollah and a number of other terror groups, but I'm not sure what connection the government of Iran itself has to Al Qaeda--the Islamic Republic of Iran (which is not exactly a republic) is actually an opponent of the Islamic State (which is not exactly a state), for example.  (The fun of Middle East politics.)  I'm sure that many individuals in the government of Iran also support Al Qaeda, and may even use their positions to surreptitiously direct state resources to Al Qaeda, but it's nothing like what Al Qaeda had with Afghanistan.  In fact, I wouldn't even analogize it to Saudi Arabia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iran=Shiite

 

Al Qaeda=Sunni

 

It's highly unlikely that there is any real connection between the two.  Saudi Arabia, our staunch ally on the other hand.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Sunni-Shiite divide is overplayed in Western media.  Even though it's true that there has been serious strife between those denominations of Islam, they've also banded together against common enemies (i.e., non-Muslims) before.

 

It's a pretty open secret on military sites that Shiite Iran helped Sunni Taliban/Al Qaeda fighters escape our onslaught in 2001.

 

That said, while I say it's overplayed, it's also definitely not an illusion, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...