[Hairshirt]

Cause, on 23 July 2016 - 05:15 PM, said:

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.

The Nice attack was carried out by a single person yes, but 5 more people were just charged with aiding him. The most recent does just seem like a disturbed kid from everything I've read, Orlando seems murkier to me. The attackers father is a crazy Pro Taliban exile, and I think it's been documented over the course of years of FBI and witness/social media show that the attacker was radicalized. Why does it matter if the attacker is a lone wolf terrorist or a member of a terrorist group? The results are the same or worse either way, dead people killed in the name of a radical religious cause.

[EmperorMagus]

Hairshirt, on 24 July 2016 - 02:47 AM, said:

Cause, on 23 July 2016 - 05:15 PM, said:

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.

The Nice attack was carried out by a single person yes, but 5 more people were just charged with aiding him. The most recent does just seem like a disturbed kid from everything I've read, Orlando seems murkier to me. The attackers father is a crazy Pro Taliban exile, and I think it's been documented over the course of years of FBI and witness/social media show that the attacker was radicalized. Why does it matter if the attacker is a lone wolf terrorist or a member of a terrorist group? The results are the same or worse either way, dead people killed in the name of a radical religious cause.

Literally on this page from Apt.

Apt, on 22 July 2016 - 06:16 PM, said:

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.

I have no problem if you want to discuss things in the discussion forum, but saying the same thing over and over again without addressing the points brought up by other people is pointless, and frankly insulting to the person who went through the trouble of writing this.

[worry]

Disrespecting Apt is a board tradition, but I agree it should be kept to a minimum in the Discussion forum, especially since he's pretty much on target with his contributions.

The Nice attack is looking a bit more complicated though, that's true. I'm not sure it changes anything in a political sense, since a few more accomplices puts it more at the Timothy McVeigh level than the ISIS level -- and again, I'm speaking about how we address it. The five suspected accomplices were arrested. Police work/investigation, if this bears out convictions, was seemingly the appropriate response. Not declaring "war on terror" or whatever.

[Aptorian]

I feel like I should clarify that I was not saying that individual people can't be terrorists. Otherwise there wouldn't be suicide bombers. However there is a difference between belonging to a network or cell, a group with a cause, and being a solitary fanatic individual who decides that they want to kill a bunch of people.

Take the IRA as an example. When the IRA (the nice cells at least) went out and bombed some place, often times they would actually give warning first, they would also hit specific targets and their attacks were always connected with a demand, a reaction or counter reaction. It wasn't just bombing for the sake of killing as many English people as possible. There is a purpose there, a goal that drives the violence.

A kid calling in a bomb threat during an exam period is not a terrorist. A guy who goes nuts with a knife or a gun in a crowd because God said all fags need to die, is not a terrorist. A person who writes threatening or inflammatory messages against the state or the jews or what ever, is not a terrorist.

Terrorism is a tool. It's not just an action. All acts of terrorism are crimes, but not all crimes are terrorism. No matter how terrible these crimes might seem.

This post has been edited by Apt: 24 July 2016 - 09:16 AM

[Cause]

I like what you are saying Apt but its also a little bit of semantics. Its arguing for a difference between political terrorism and acts of terror. The difference certainyl exists but the outcome of the both is the same. Terror and death.

[Aptorian]

You're not wrong but I think the distinction is important.

[amphibian]

Apt, on 24 July 2016 - 03:38 PM, said:

You're not wrong but I think the distinction is important.

It is important.

However, what seems to be happening is that the "lone wolf" type of multiple murderer now feels like some sort of social justification is needed for the murdering that they already planned on committing - and to them, that social justification is readily found in movements of "resistance". They mostly decide to murder first, then do the "underpants gnomes thing" to enact social change with the murders - for the cause of white supremacy, a strong Islamic theocracy that's a different flavor to what's extant, and/or all the other actually nonsensical reasons.

It's like a ideological virus that only hooks into those who are already about to murder and mutates their acts into parts of a "movement", rather than the individual acts of violence that they almost always are. The quickest solution is to drastically cut down on the number of guns available to private individuals, watch for bomb assemblers, and never launch into a war in the Middle East.

[Morgoth]

I agree with apt in that the distinction is important too. The meaning of words is important, especially in the context of this sort of conversation. Though, as a lawyer I'd argue it always is important. To have a strong dialogue we need to be clear about what exactly we're talking about.

I would also say that yes, there is a very big difference between a lone wolf terrorist and a member of a terror organization. As a country it is much easier to come through unscathed, I think, from the acts of a lone wolf. Breivik is no longer a threat to Norway, but ISIS is still a threat to France.

[Silencer]

From Wikipedia:

Quote

Hoffman believes it is possible to identify some key characteristics of terrorism. He proposes that:


The Baghdad bus station was the scene of a triple car bombing in August 2005 that killed 43 people.
By distinguishing terrorists from other types of criminals and terrorism from other forms of crime, we come to appreciate that terrorism is :

1 ineluctably political in aims and motives;
2 violent—or, equally important, threatens violence;
3 designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target;
4 conducted either by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia) or by individuals or a small collection of individuals directly influenced, motivated, or inspired by the ideological aims or example of some existent terrorist movement and/or its leaders; and
5 perpetrated by a subnational group or nonstate entity.

Now, that's just the opinion of one "scholar" - and I think where people are disagreeing is with point 4, "individuals...influenced, motivated, or inspired by the ideological aims or example of some existent terrorist movement". But nowhere there does it state that one lone person acting of their own volition is a terrorist - and generally that is the accepted criteria. You might act alone, but unless you are choosing to work for some larger organisation you're just a lone nut with a vendetta.


The thing is, there's a big difference between claiming to be inspired by ISIS, and actually being inspired by ISIS. Often that's difficult to prove; if someone says "I killed these people for ISIS", that can either be a true statement, or it can be a statement showing what the individual has talked themselves into believing to be their motivation. But just because someone commits an act that causes terror, doesn't make them a terrorist - otherwise every murderer could be a terrorist. *shrug*

[Tsundoku]

How the fucking hell did those responsible for security miss these alarm bells? (Paris police stabbing attack)

https://www.news.com...f057d529f720783

From the sounds of it, it's not like he was being at all subtle.

This post has been edited by Tsundoku: 06 October 2019 - 02:37 AM

[Aptorian]

3 people killed in a church in Nice, France. A week ago a French teacher was beheaded for showing pictures of The Prophet Mohammed. A guard outside the French Embassy in Saudi Arabia was also attacked.

https://www.bbc.com/...europe-54729957

It's always important to take take a step back from these events and look at the bigger picture, but maaan... my belief in freedom of religion sure is getting thinner.

[Cyphon]

Nothing wrong with freedom of religion. But that isn't the same as freedom to impose religion on others and where that conflicts with freedom of speech and freedom of platform.

The counter to this is of course freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences... the issue is what is the appropriate interaction between all these freedoms...

[Malankazooie]

Dang, Obama got Osama, now Biden takes out the #2 Al-Zawahiri. Should be good for a boost in approval rating.

[Tsundoku]

Salman Rushdie stabbed. Hope he's OK.

https://www.news.com...ba3ad8c3e1eff51

I thought this thing was put to bed ages ago?

EDIT: "The Iranian government later walked back the fatwa, but as recently as 2012 a semi-official religious organisation inside Iran placed an over US$3 million (A$4.6m) bounty on the author’s head."

"Providing an update on his condition following the attack, Rushdie’s agent, Andrew Wylie, revealed he had been put on a ventilator and would “likely” lose an eye.
“The news is not good,” he said on Friday evening (US time).
“Salman will likely lose one eye; the nerves in his arm were severed; and his liver was stabbed and damaged.”

This post has been edited by Tsundoku: 13 August 2022 - 04:04 AM