[EmperorMagus]

A truck in a crowd.
At this point, I'm not sure what course of action is possible against this sort of terrorist attack. You literally need a person that can hijack a truck and a crowd.
It's kind of disgusting to see such a high kill count with so little effort, compared to other terrorists blowing themselves up with suicide vests and such.

[Aptorian]

EmperorMagus, on 15 July 2016 - 01:56 AM, said:

A truck in a crowd.
At this point, I'm not sure what course of action is possible against this sort of terrorist attack. You literally need a person that can hijack a truck and a crowd.
It's kind of disgusting to see such a high kill count with so little effort, compared to other terrorists blowing themselves up with suicide vests and such.

This scenario was always a reality. It's one of those kinds of terror that no one brings up because you can't guard against it. Same as a mad man with a gun or a knife in a crowd. Back in the 2000s when governments were spending billions on airport security this was known. But it's more important to create the illusion of safety than accepting that you cannot prevent these things.

[Studlock]

Pretty good write up on terrorism: http://www.theatlant...america/490352/

Basically confirms my priors, but still I think it's good to consider given recent events. Terrorist attacks in Europe and American (excluding 9/11 which was a huge anomaly and truly a world-changing event) have been on the decline, or within line with previous numbers--9/11 probably heightened our awareness of such things. However, terrorism has significantly increased in the Middle East since the start of the war of terror (and also Syrian civil war). War, and upheaval, in no surprise gives rise to increasing terrorism. This is important to consider because I believe with our now, current, hyper-awareness of these attacks we (or you, or other Western countries) could possible go to war again, thereby increasing terrorism.

[Gorefest]

Oh jesus, now there is a coup attempt underway in Turkey.

[Gorefest]

Erm. Turkish military says they have taken over. Turkish government says it is only a rogue element within the military. But why then are they using the official Turkish twitter account?

[Puck]

As fresh as the news are, there's bound to be lots of confusion.. Supposedly, the head of military has been taked as a hostage and there's been at least one explosion. Also, the bridge over the Bosphorus has been blocked.

Reddit livestream: https://www.reddit.c...ve/x9gf3donjlkq

This post has been edited by Puck: 15 July 2016 - 09:06 PM

[Puck]

Also, ironically, it seems like just two days ago, Erdogan signed a bill granting legal immunity to the military.

[worry]

The truck guy in France appears to have been a secular, habitually violent misanthrope rather than a radicalized fundamentalist: http://time.com/4409...tack-terrorist/

[Andorion]

Kanyemander West, on 17 July 2016 - 12:44 AM, said:

The truck guy in France appears to have been a secular, habitually violent misanthrope rather than a radicalized fundamentalist: http://time.com/4409...tack-terrorist/

You know things have gotten bad when you can't tell the terrorists and psychopaths apart anymore

[Macros]

Andorion, on 17 July 2016 - 01:23 AM, said:

Kanyemander West, on 17 July 2016 - 12:44 AM, said:

The truck guy in France appears to have been a secular, habitually violent misanthrope rather than a radicalized fundamentalist: http://time.com/4409...tack-terrorist/

You know things have gotten bad when you can't tell the terrorists and psychopaths apart anymore

I'm sorry but is there really a difference?
Killing due to the voices in your head is somehow better/ worse than killing because of what some decrepit corrupt old man told you some book said to do?

[Aptorian]

Macros, on 22 July 2016 - 05:43 PM, said:

Andorion, on 17 July 2016 - 01:23 AM, said:

Kanyemander West, on 17 July 2016 - 12:44 AM, said:

The truck guy in France appears to have been a secular, habitually violent misanthrope rather than a radicalized fundamentalist: http://time.com/4409...tack-terrorist/

You know things have gotten bad when you can't tell the terrorists and psychopaths apart anymore

I'm sorry but is there really a difference?
Killing due to the voices in your head is somehow better/ worse than killing because of what some decrepit corrupt old man told you some book said to do?

I think there is a very big difference. One that is both political and societal.

Terrorism used to be a distinct thing (well, at least from a Danish perspective). Terrorism was (and remains so if you ask me) a term that described politically or religiously motivated actions meant to incite fear and change. Not just random acts of violence. Terrorism is a tool used to threaten or coerce society in to pay attention.

Terrorism is something you can combat. You do so by monitoring people, keeping taps on certain groups and installing various preventive measures. It's something that is understandable and quantifiable. It has a source, it has its own twisted logic.

What the truck driver did, what school shooters do and plenty of other crazy or twisted people do, that to me is not terror. It's just random acts of aggression. Sometimes it happens to a single person. Some times many. You can call it evil if you like, all though I don't really believe in that stuff. But the point is that this is not Terror with a capital t. It may inspire fear and make us ask what the hell can we do, but it's not terror.

And the reason why that distinction is important is because of how we as a society handle these situations. Terror has become a catch all term and that is a problem.

Like all forms of societal upheaval, politicians capitalize on these events. They implement expensive, draconian often time frivolous measures that does no actual good. All they do is create a false sense of security that really means nothing. But at the same time, as people are made to feel safer, the reason why they should feel safer is always nagging at the back of our heads. The security scanners and extra police patrols and cameras are all there to catch the boogeymen. Even though those boogeymen almost certainly don't actually exist or if they do, can't actually be stopped.

As a society, if you create a permanent state of fear, you take away people's feeling of security. You make people desperate. You create a shadow over society where everything is scary and where everyone is looking for bad guys. People are more willing to sign away freedoms and more willing to assign blame. Like all those evil brown people and their bad religions, when in actuality, most of these people just want to live their lives like the rest of us.

I could go on about how I view this, but my point is, terror is not a term anyone should use freely. It should be a kind of word that has power and has meaning. Not just a buzzword that every politician and journalist uses to sell their bullshit. Calling everything terrorism simplifies things, when in reality nothing is simple and everything is confusing.

This post has been edited by Apt: 22 July 2016 - 06:31 PM

[worry]

Case in point: speakers at the RNC -- including Trump -- still conflated Orlando and Nice events with "Islamic terrorism" generally, with zero regard for evidence or nuance. Simplifying things serves the us vs. them narrative and those who benefit from it.

[worry]

John Hinckley said he shot Reagan for Jodie Foster. David Berkowitz said he killed for a demon dog. Who cares what these guys say? The evidence says Mateen had zero connection to ISIS. Just another disgruntled loser with a media-soaked mind fixating on whatever infiltrated deepest.

[worry]

That's fine, but the point is, could intelligence have been gathered about this man's activities beforehand? Was he part of a network? Is there legislation that, if it had been in place, would have increased the chance of preventing the shooting? Is it more helpful treating this event as terrorism, which we are currently in a "war" against (I know it officially ended in 2013 but a whole host of politicians are pretending it didn't, not that it ever made sense in the first place), or a crime for which non-military police work is appropriate. Apt's point is that the labels are important in part because they determine the response, and the right response is vital because effectiveness varies contextually (include the answer that no prevention was possible, or no response would improve things).

Edit: in response to Orlando, obv, not the current German thing.

This post has been edited by Kanyemander West: 22 July 2016 - 08:10 PM

[amphibian]

Sexy Gumbo, on 22 July 2016 - 07:42 PM, said:

We ll agree to disagree on Orlando

There's no disagreeing to do. Mateen was exactly what Worry says - a non affiliated murderer who wanted to get famous by saying he was indeed affiliated at the very end.

It's kind of amazing that being an Islamic terrorist is more appealing than being a homophobic murderer or whatever else other people are (wife beater etc). That's semiotics right there.

[Hairshirt]

I didn't realize you had to be a card carrying ISIS or Al Qaeda member in order to be a terrorist. I guess I just assumed pledging your loyalty to ISIS while murdering people got you into that club. Forget the labels of various organizations such as ISIS, or whomever. The one constant is Radical Islam, those are Terrorists. ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Al Nusra, Boko Haram and many others fall under the umbrella of radical Islam. Now if you want to discuss why radical Islam exists we can do that but I'm tired of people saying it doesn't exist.

This post has been edited by Hairshirt: 22 July 2016 - 09:42 PM

[worry]

That's a non sequitur.

[worry]

In the broad sense, yes, there's plenty to disagree about. Regarding Omar Mateen in particular though, all evidence points to mentally disturbed historically violent misanthrope with zero ties to terrorist organizations but who latched onto that kind of stuff through the same media bombardment we all get. If anything it was one of many conduits his violent tendencies could have gone down. So Islamic extremism was an influence on Mateen, but in the same way Natural Born Killers was an influence on the Trench Coat Mafia. It had a special place in their thoughts, but it didn't turn them into anything. Radicalization is a process. Mateen didn't go through that process, he wasn't educated, he wasn't a part of anything larger, and he wasn't a true believer. He independently (and superficially) latched onto the rhetoric of extremists as aggrandizement for his final act. To disagree with that would require inventing evidence that just isn't there in the record. Which doesn't help investigators, intelligence agencies, legislators, or any other authorities tasked with preventing terrorist attacks.

[Aptorian]

The more I read about the Munich shooting, the less it sounds like terror to me.

http://www.telegraph...e-20160723-1355
https://www.theguard...ately-teenagers

Quote

Three of the dead were from Kosovo, three were Turkish and one was Greek, their respective government officials said.

Turkish foreign minister Mevlut Cavusoglu named the three victims as Sevda Dag, Can Leyla and Selcuk Kilic.

Police said the gunman, who has been identified as Ali Sonboly, had no criminal record butwas a victim of two minor crimes – a theft in 2010 and bodily harm in 2012. He had been receiving psychiatric care, the press conference was told.

This wasn't some religious or political strike against Germany. The majority of the dead victims are children of immigrants. This is the equivalent of America's school shootings. A sick kid who was angry at the world and decided to kill the people he went to school with. Depressing certainly.

[Cause]

It does perhaps indicate that our exposure to all these acts of terror, shooting etc is providing some sort of motivation for these people to act.

The Orlando shooting, the Nice attack and now this are all major attacks that were all carried out by lone wolf attackers with questionable if any links to terror.