• Planned Parenthood Shooting Suspect Made Comment About 'No More Baby Parts': Sources
    76 replies, posted
[QUOTE=soulharvester;49210486]I don't have a stronger word than tragedy to describe the loss of innocent children's lives, but it isn't a direct challenge to our country as a first world super power.[/QUOTE] no terrorist organization is a threat to the US as a first world super power, we are way too powerful for that
I feel you vastly underestimate the potential damage a few extremists with enough dedication and preparation could do to our country if given the opportunity. Being the biggest military power on the globe doesn't mean your country is untouchable, especially when we have so many ethical codes and rules that potential threats don't follow and have no hesitation to exploit.
[QUOTE=soulharvester;49210519]I feel you vastly underestimate the potential damage a few extremists with enough dedication and preparation could do to our country if given the opportunity. Being the biggest military power in on the globe doesn't mean your country is untouchable, especially when we have so many ethical codes and rules that potential threats have don't follow and have no hesitation to exploit.[/QUOTE] we survived one of the worst terrorist attacks in modern history, we can survive anything short of a nuclear war or resource war, i think you're underestimating the power of this nation and its people
The argument was never over being able to survive the event, It's about the fact that they're two completely different classes of event. Domestic attacks/threats are the results of our society's flaws. Foreign terrorist threats are an attack on our society. It's different.
[QUOTE=JerryK;49210533]we survived one of the worst terrorist attacks in modern history, we can survive anything short of a nuclear war or resource war, i think you're underestimating the power of this nation and its people[/QUOTE] 9/11 had a bigger bark than it did bite. it is absolutely tragic and by no means something that can be easily shaken off, but as an event it was very localized. its nothing compared to something like, say, bombing strategic points on the power grid and telecommunication lines. sure, you may not kill many people directly, but if done correctly you could knock power and internet out for large swaths of the country including any military bases on grid. it would be impossible to repair in any short order and it doesn't take long for society to start breaking down once the lights are out. mass unrest across the country is more dangerous than any singular attack a terrorist could come up with except biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons. and our country's defense plan for those strategic points i mentioned is basically "hope they don't find them" of course i worry more about domestic terrorists taking advantage of this than foreign terrorist
[QUOTE=soulharvester;49210580]The argument was never over being able to survive the event, It's about the fact that they're two completely different classes of event. Domestic attacks/threats are the results of our society's flaws. Foreign terrorist threats are an attack on our society. It's different.[/QUOTE] why does this matter? both are bad, both can be results of terrorism, and both can be feared
:snip:
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;49210590]9/11 had a bigger bark than it did bite. it is absolutely tragic and by no means something that can be easily shaken off, but as an event it was very localized. its nothing compared to something like, say, bombing strategic points on the power grid and telecommunication lines. sure, you may not kill many people directly, but if done correctly you could knock power and internet out for large swaths of the country including any military bases on grid. it would be impossible to repair in any short order and it doesn't take long for society to start breaking down once the lights are out. mass unrest across the country is more dangerous than any singular attack a terrorist could come up with except biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons. and our country's defense plan for those strategic points i mentioned is basically "hope they don't find them" of course i worry more about domestic terrorists taking advantage of this than foreign terrorist[/QUOTE] I agree with you, except that I don't really see domestic terrorists attacking/sabotaging these kinds of targets. Domestic terrorists tend to target groups of people, or organizations, not the public at large. It's foreign threats that would target the things that our populations rely on, IMO. Why do you think they took down the "World Trade Center"?
Is this domestic terrorism? Yes. The trouble with calling it that is that people might draw a connection to organized terrorism when it's actually completely different. Based on the evidence this guy's motivation seems to be based in mental instability, not a specific ideology that we can track and discuss. The effect, violence and murder, is the same, but the cause isn't comparable at all. [editline]29th November 2015[/editline] It would be sort of similar to calling abortion 'killing.' I mean, it's technically true. An abortion does kill the fetus, but it's so different from the common conception of killing that the description doesn't really add to the discussion.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49211890]Is this domestic terrorism? Yes. The trouble with calling it that is that people might draw a connection to organized terrorism when it's actually completely different. Based on the evidence this guy's motivation seems to be based in mental instability, not a specific ideology that we can track and discuss. The effect, violence and murder, is the same, but the cause isn't comparable at all. [editline]29th November 2015[/editline] It would be sort of similar to calling abortion 'killing.' I mean, it's technically true. An abortion does kill the fetus, but it's so different from the common conception of killing that the description doesn't really add to the discussion.[/QUOTE] There [I]is[/I] a specific ideology that prompted his actions though. Anti-Abortion figures, spreading heinously misinformed, or outright fabricated ideas of what abortion is lead to him acting in what he thought was the correct manner to stop it. If you genuinely believed that Adolf Hitler was the president of the United States, regardless of how you got that belief, you would probably act to stop the Nazi Chancellor from bringing our great nation to ruin. This man got to his beliefs, not because of mental illness, but because of a political ideology. If you try to slide the blame sideways on to mental illness, for instance, "well no sane person would shoot up the clinic," that's just blatantly dumping responsibility on something else without any critical reasoning. His mental illness might have contributed to his decision, but the political goals of his actions clearly were a crucial part of taking that act.
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;49211924]There [I]is[/I] a specific ideology that prompted his actions though. Anti-Abortion figures, spreading heinously misinformed, or outright fabricated ideas of what abortion is lead to him acting in what he thought was the correct manner to stop it.[/QUOTE] That may have prompted dislike of PP, but that didn't cause the attack. A mentally stable person doesn't go out and murder a bunch of people, some of whom aren't even associated with PP, in order to stop PP. That's not a logical conclusion of the belief. If the negative info had called for active violence on PP, then I would be right with you, but that's simply not the cause. In the same way I wouldn't blame negative attack adds against Trump if a mentally unstable person attempted to assassinate him. [editline]29th November 2015[/editline] Or for another example: I wouldn't blame Bernie Sanders and Occupy Wall Street if a mentally unstable person murdered a Wall Street executive. Why? Because neither of those groups propose violent action as an appropriate response.
[QUOTE=Ridge;49210145]Lots of lefties have a hard on to call this terrorism for some reason, probably regarding the concern about Syrian refugees or something.[/QUOTE] So if "righties" don't consider this guy a terrorist, what do they consider him? A hero?
[QUOTE=Zeke129;49212098]So if "righties" don't consider this guy a terrorist, what do they consider him? A hero?[/QUOTE] Probably a mentally unstable murderer, if I were to guess.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;49212098]So if "righties" don't consider this guy a terrorist, what do they consider him? A hero?[/QUOTE] They prolly consider him a left wing crazy since he was trans and part of a radical left wing anti-fascist group.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;49209242]It has everything related to this, actually. When a Islamic extremist attacks something for political/religious reasons, he is labelled as a terrorist. When a generic non-denominational person attacks something for political/religious reasons, it's a mental health issue.[/QUOTE]I'd consider a Muslim who went insane and did this to be mentally deranged rather than a terrorist, but then again I don't live in a crazy bizarro world of absolutes and other such bullshit.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;49212737]They prolly consider him a left wing crazy since he was trans and part of a radical left wing anti-fascist group.[/QUOTE] You realize this wasn't true and originated from someone misspelling "he" as "she", right?
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49212774]I'd consider a Muslim who went insane and did this to be mentally deranged rather than a terrorist, but then again I don't live in a crazy bizarro world of absolutes and other such bullshit.[/QUOTE] That's the difference, the public expects terrorism to fit a certain mold. Hence why the public sees Maj. Hassan as a terrorist (to which he is) and this guy a crazy white man (to which he is too, but he's also a terrorist). This is why in a week or two no one will remember his name or face. Of course one could speculate that since this guy doesn't meet the "mold" he will not be presented as a terrorist, but as a sick old crazy white guy. It's hard to build anomocity against a percieved (or actual) enemy when someone who doesn't fit the build commits atrocities that you'd rather have your enemies commit.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;49212924]You realize this wasn't true and originated from someone misspelling "he" as "she", right?[/QUOTE] That's a load of bullshit, Robert is registered to vote as a female
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;49213036]That's the difference, the public expects terrorism to fit a certain mold. Hence why the public sees Maj. Hassan as a terrorist (to which he is) and this guy a crazy white man (to which he is too, but he's also a terrorist). This is why in a week or two no one will remember his name or face. Of course one could speculate that since this guy doesn't meet the "mold" he will not be presented as a terrorist, but as a sick old crazy white guy. It's hard to build anomocity against a percieved (or actual) enemy when someone who doesn't fit the build commits atrocities that you'd rather have your enemies commit.[/QUOTE] Did any actual evidence or example of mental instability ever come out? I know he was actively working as an army psychiatrist and that he was known for espousing his extreme Islamic views, but I don't remember reading any specifics that would entail actual mental issues. I definitely could be wrong about this, though. It's been a while now.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49213106]Did any actual evidence or example of mental instability ever come out? I know he was actively working as an army psychiatrist and that he was known for espousing his extreme Islamic views, but I don't remember reading any specifics that would entail actual mental issues. I definitely could be wrong about this, though. It's been a while now.[/QUOTE] I'm not necessarily trying to imply that that was the case. I was simply compairing two events of domestic terrorism and how they were portrayed in the media. Reguardless of mental illness both at their core were caused by religious/political ideologies.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;49213146]I'm not necessarily trying to imply that that was the case. I was simply compairing two events of domestic terrorism and how they were portrayed in the media. Reguardless of mental illness both at their core were caused by religious/political ideologies.[/QUOTE] I really don't agree. This attack was caused by mental instability, and only mental instability. There's a reason literally tens of millions of people who really dislike or even hate PP, but don't violently attack it or even support people like the guy in question. On the other hand, there's also a reason that extremist Muslims do often support the violence committed in the name of Islam. The rhetoric of those against PP doesn't call for violence, but the rhetoric of extremist Islam often does call for violence. That's why these are completely different situations. One is the result of a person who doesn't think clearly, and therefore came to an illogical and crazy conclusion and one is the result of logically following a certain ideology. [editline]29th November 2015[/editline] To make it more clear: If you take the mental instability out of this specific situation and left the rest intact you likely wouldn't see the same result. The same cannot be said for someone like Nadal Hasan.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49213179]I really don't agree. This attack was caused by mental instability, and only mental instability. There's a reason literally tens of millions of people who really dislike or even hate PP, but don't violently attack it or even support people like the guy in question. On the other hand, there's also a reason that extremist Muslims do often support the violence committed in the name of Islam. The rhetoric of those against PP doesn't call for violence, but the rhetoric of extremist Islam often does call for violence. That's why these are completely different situations. One is the result of a person who doesn't think clearly, and therefore came to an illogical and crazy conclusion and one is the result of logically following a certain ideology. [editline]29th November 2015[/editline] To make it more clear: If you take the mental instability out of this specific situation and left the rest intact you likely wouldn't see the same result. The same cannot be said for someone like Nadal Hasan.[/QUOTE] And your explaination right there is exactly why the public doesn't see his act as an act of terrorism. It doesn't fit the mold, even though by definition his act construes terrorism. It's also irrelevant as to what the mainstream ideology promotes (which mainstream Islam does not promote violence). Assuming that the Colorado shooter is mentally unstable he had to get his ideas from somewhere, more than likely right wing religious extremists, and something clicked in his head that said he needs to kill people. The same can be said for nadal hassan, since at some point the rhetoric he was hearing, that was not apart of mainstream islamic teachings but rather extreamists, caused something to click in his head that made him think he needs to kill people.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;49213224]And your explaination right there is exactly why the public doesn't see his act as an act of terrorism. It doesn't fit the mold, even though by definition his act construes terrorism.[/QUOTE] If you read the whole thread you'll see that I already agreed that this is, by the definition, an act of terrorism. My point is simply that to use that word in an equivalent sense in these two different types of scenarios makes the word too vague to be useful. [QUOTE]It's also irrelevant as to what the mainstream ideology promotes (which mainstream Islam does not promote violence). Assuming that the Colorado shooter is mentally unstable he had to get his ideas from somewhere, more than likely right wing religious extremists, and something clicked in his head that said he needs to kill people.[/QUOTE] Firstly, I'm not even talking about mainstream. I've literally never seen a real organization (beyond possible anonymous internet groups) that support the bombing and shooting of PP. If you have, then please give some sources. On the other hand, we can point to massive organization supporting actions like Nidal Hasan's. We also have connection between Hasan and people connected with those organizations. He was, for example, in an email correspondence with a known western supporter of Islamic Jihad. Secondly, the guy was mentally unstable, he doesn't need a "reason." That's the whole point. People with mental issues don't think logically. If you know of a connection between him and some right-wing extremist group that promotes violence, then please give some sources. [QUOTE]The same can be said for nadal hassan, since at some point the rhetoric he was hearing, that was not apart of mainstream islamic teachings but rather extreamists, caused something to click in his head that made him think he needs to kill people.[/QUOTE] He logically followed the extremist ideology. This is the big difference. One did violent acts because they were mentally unstable and made crazy extrapolations from basic information while the other bought into a known ideology and followed it to it's logical conclusion.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49213259]If you read the whole thread you'll see that I already agreed that this is, by the definition, an act of terrorism. My point is simply that to use that word in an equivalent sense in these two different types of scenarios makes the word too vague to be useful. Firstly, I'm not even talking about mainstream. I've literally never seen a real organization (beyond possible anonymous internet groups) that support the bombing and shooting of PP. If you have, then please give some sources. On the other hand, we can point to massive organization supporting actions like Nidal Hasan's. We also have connection between Hasan and people connected with those organizations. He was, for example, in an email correspondence with a known western supporter of Islamic Jihad. Secondly, the guy was mentally unstable, he doesn't need a "reason." That's the whole point. People with mental issues don't think logically. If you know of a connection between him and some right-wing extremist group that promotes violence, then please give some sources. He logically followed the extremist ideology. This is the big difference. One did violent acts because they were mentally unstable and made crazy extrapolations from basic information while the other bought into a known ideology and followed it to it's logical conclusion.[/QUOTE] It's not to say that that's precisely where he got his ideas from, but to believe that because there's no major group out there promoting the idea of violence against percieved threats against "Christianity" that he could not have come across a smaller group is incorrect. It would be one thing if he walked in, shot up the place, and said he saw Jesus in their eyes and Satan commanded it. It's another when (and if) you say "no more baby parts", which suggests he follows a particular ideology(unless it happens to be an incredible coincidence and that statement has nothing to do with planned parenthood and the controversial videos tied to it). While no one person or group may have specifically told him or spoke of committing acts of violence, all you have to do is listen to right wing Christian talk radio and its not to hard to see how he could percieved these things as attacks on his faith and beliefs. If he's mentally unstable it could be easily percieved as him trying to do something he sees as an attack on his faith and beliefs. That right there creates a connection to an ideology, not the mainstream view of that ideology, but an ideology none the less. In that instance he didn't need to subscribe to an ideology, such as Islamic extremism, he created his own. Hell if he wasn't unstable he may have even gotten others to follow his ideology.
[QUOTE=coldroll5;49210411]I'm middle left and this was defintley not terrorism.[/QUOTE] That's what I said a lot of them, not all of them. Only the Sith deal in absolutes.
[QUOTE]It's not to say that that's precisely where he got his ideas from, but to believe that because there's no major group out there promoting the idea of violence against percieved threats against "Christianity" that he could not have come across a smaller group is incorrect. It would be one thing if he walked in, shot up the place, and said he saw Jesus in their eyes and Satan commanded it. It's another when (and if) you say "no more baby parts", which suggests he follows a particular ideology(unless it happens to be an incredible coincidence and that statement has nothing to do with planned parenthood and the controversial videos tied to it). While no one person or group may have specifically told him or spoke of committing acts of violence, all you have to do is listen to right wing Christian talk radio and its not to hard to see how he could percieved these things as attacks on his faith and beliefs. If he's mentally unstable it could be easily percieved as him trying to do something he sees as an attack on his faith and beliefs. That right there creates a connection to an ideology, not the mainstream view of that ideology, but an ideology none the less. In that instance he didn't need to subscribe to an ideology, such as Islamic extremism, he created his own. Hell if he wasn't unstable he may have even gotten others to follow his ideology.[/QUOTE] The ideology of abortion being wrong can't be blamed for violence committed in it's name. If you want to blame some specific extremist Christian ideology, then name it. Who holds it? Point them out. What arguments do they make? Like I said, if a mentally unstable follower of Bernie Sanders murdered a Wall Street executive I would be reacting in the same way. Sanders' ideology would NOT be responsible for that murder. The mental instability would be responsible for coming to a wrong conclusion extrapolated from that ideology.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49213336]Like I said, if a mentally unstable follower of Bernie Sanders murdered a Wall Street executive I would be reacting in the same way. Sanders' ideology would NOT be responsible for that murder. The mental instability would be responsible for coming to a wrong conclusion extrapolated from that ideology.[/QUOTE] Of course that fact would be paraded around by the right wing media, more than Benghazi perhaps.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49213349]Of course that fact would be paraded around by the right wing media, more than Benghazi perhaps.[/QUOTE] Oh, I'm sure it would, but I'm not a representative of the right wing media. I can see Sean Hannity going at it with a faux righteous fury right now. Of course they would be just as wrong. [editline]29th November 2015[/editline] To clarify: I think the sovereign citizen attacks are good examples of right-wing domestic terrorism. They are mentally stable people within organizations who follow a clearly set out ideology that can lead to violence. An example from the left might be the environmental terrorists. They also belonged to known organizations that taught, within their ideology, that violence could be the correct response.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49213336]The ideology of abortion being wrong can't be blamed for violence committed in it's name. If you want to blame some specific extremist Christian ideology, then name it. Who holds it? Point them out. Like I said, if a mentally unstable follower of Bernie Sanders murdered a Wall Street executive I would be reacting in the same way. Sanders' ideology would NOT be responsible for that murder. The mental instability would be responsible for coming to a wrong conclusion extrapolated from that ideology.[/QUOTE] Then at what point are we defining mental instability? Clearly the guy who shot up was mentally disturbed, but what if he had followers? What if 1,000 people who claim to follow Bernie sanders started a war for student rights and affordable healthcare? You're touting the idea that people willingly follow radical Islam, such as hasan, but why? No sane person wakes up one morning and says I'm going to go kill people. Most murders committed by those who aren't mentally disturbed are crimes of passion, heat of the moment stuff. So in the case of Mr.hasan what caused his turning point? It wasn't heat of the moment, it was cold and calculated. He may have been sane in a sense of standing trial, but not in the head. While he may be mentally competent and understand his actions and their ramifications that doesn't mean he was not Ill in another sense. Take a look at any cult, and they're pretty much all headed by a delusional person. Their followers may not be outright crazy, but theyre usually vulnerable and persuadeable. The difference between these two separate events is that one was a cult leader (not literally, but potentially), while the other was a follower. As I said the Colorado shooter created his own ideology, based on a warped perception of a mainstream one, where hasan followed one.
[QUOTE=Ridge;49210145]Lots of lefties have a hard on to call this terrorism for some reason, probably regarding the concern about Syrian refugees or something.[/QUOTE] How about the fact it's just an act of terrorism by definition man how do you manage to make everything about those evil lefties
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.