• Planned Parenthood Shooting Suspect Made Comment About 'No More Baby Parts': Sources
    76 replies, posted
[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] Well, if the co-ordinated cleaning and reconstruction efforts determines how powerful your country is, and not your military's power which has nothing to do with surviving a domestic terrorist attack, then yes I suppose your country is.. about as powerful as almost any other country in the world!
[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] So because it's not Islamic extremism, it's too confusing and/or not serious enough to call terrorism, despite being, [I]in every possible sense[/I], terrorism? "It wasn't Muslims, so it's not [I]really[/I] terrorism, is it?"
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49214480]So because it's not Islamic extremism, it's too confusing and/or not serious enough to call terrorism, despite being, [I]in every possible sense[/I], terrorism? "It wasn't Muslims, so it's not [I]really[/I] terrorism, is it?"[/QUOTE] 4 posts up I said: [QUOTE]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] So, no, being Muslim has nothing to do with my description of at terrorist. Extremist Islam is just one of many example of an organized ideology that commits terrorist actions.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;49213102]That's a load of bullshit, Robert is registered to vote as a female[/QUOTE] There is not a single reputable source for this. The only people attemping to make this claim are right wing nutters and Ted Cruz. (Is there an echo?) Your claim that he was part of a radical political group is also bullshit because by all accounts the man was a complete recluse who lived in a hut patched together with tree branches.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49214971]4 posts up I said: So, no, being Muslim has nothing to do with my description of at terrorist. Extremist Islam is just one of many example of an organized ideology that commits terrorist actions.[/QUOTE] So it's just a pointlessly arbitrary distinction on your part, then? A lone guy committing what can only described as a terrorist attack to further a political ideology in opposition of abortions, using violence and intimidation to try to effect change, is [I]still a terrorist.[/I] Organizational backing has nothing to do with terrorism. The Oslo shooter in Norway was also acting independently. Is he not a terrorist?
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49215912]So it's just a pointlessly arbitrary distinction on your part, then? A lone guy committing what can only described as a terrorist attack to further a political ideology in opposition of abortions, using violence and intimidation to try to effect change, is [I]still a terrorist.[/I] Organizational backing has nothing to do with terrorism. The Oslo shooter in Norway was also acting independently. Is he not a terrorist?[/QUOTE] So you're saying his motive was to farther a political ideology? Well the cops seem to disagree at the moment: [QUOTE] The day after a gunman killed three people and shot nine others at a Colorado Planned Parenthood office, officials tell NBC News [B][U]a motive remains unclear[/U][/B], but say the suspect talked about politics and abortion. Robert Lewis Dear, a North Carolina native who was living in a trailer in Colorado, made statements to police Friday at the scene of the Colorado Springs clinic and [B]in interviews that law enforcement sources described as rantings[/B]. [/QUOTE] Also: [QUOTE]Hood said Dear rarely talked but when he did, he offered unsolicited advice, like recommending that Hood put a metal roof on his house so the U.S. government couldn't spy on him, the AP reported. [/QUOTE] Tell me, which political ideology pushes for people to install metal roofs on houses to prevent government spying? Sounds more like a nutcase conspiracy theorist who decided to try and act on his delusional thoughts, not somebody trying to further a political ideology.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49215912]So it's just a pointlessly arbitrary distinction on your part, then? A lone guy committing what can only described as a terrorist attack to further a political ideology in opposition of abortions, using violence and intimidation to try to effect change, is [I]still a terrorist.[/I] Organizational backing has nothing to do with terrorism. The Oslo shooter in Norway was also acting independently. Is he not a terrorist?[/QUOTE] As I've already agreed, this is technically terrorism. I just don't think calling these loner attacks terrorism is more useful than just calling them murderers whereas defining organizational attacks based on ideology terrorism, as opposed to general criminal activity, is useful because it allows us to differentiate those ideologies and organizations as dangerous. You might disagree with the differentiation that I'm making, but it's clearly not arbitrary. My main issue with classifying these lone attackers in the same category as organizational ideologies is that you lose the key differences between terrorism and regular criminal activity (like murder). An individual who goes out and kills people for their own, personal, reasons is simply a murderer. To call them a terrorist doesn't help us to react in a better way because there's no organization or specific ideology to follow up on. On the other hand, if we know that specific ideologies coming from specific organizations leads to terror attacks, then we can react against that organization and ideology appropriately. Not making this distinction leads to the very confusion seen in the thread, namely, that people blame generalized ideologies (like anyone against abortion) for the attack instead of placing the blame where it should lie: with the loner who did the attack.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;49215408]There is not a single reputable source for this. The only people attemping to make this claim are right wing nutters and Ted Cruz. (Is there an echo?) Your claim that he was part of a radical political group is also bullshit because by all accounts the man was a complete recluse who lived in a hut patched together with tree branches.[/QUOTE] So CNN is right wing now? News to me
[QUOTE=-nesto-;49216400]So CNN is right wing now? News to me[/QUOTE] What article are you talking about? At no point has CNN wrote about Dear being a woman or a part of a leftist extremist group I mean ffs the inmate record is linked in OP's article where its clearly says "male". He's not registered as female
[B]sgman91 regarding a Muslim responsible for shooting up a military base:[/B] [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.[/QUOTE] [B]sgman91 regarding a white man responsible for shooting up a planned parenthood:[/B] [QUOTE=sgman91;49211960]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,[/QUOTE] Hey dude, cut the fucking shit.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49216269]I just don't think calling these loner attacks terrorism is more useful than just calling them murderers[/QUOTE] I agree with this. What is this supposed to accomplish? Okay, you've labeled him a terrorist, now what? The trial is longer and more expensive, since it becomes a federal case? The guy gets shipped off to Gitmo when he's found guilty? What does any of this accomplish?
[QUOTE=Ridge;49216501]I agree with this. What is this supposed to accomplish? Okay, you've labeled him a terrorist, now what? The trial is longer and more expensive, since it becomes a federal case? The guy gets shipped off to Gitmo when he's found guilty? What does any of this accomplish?[/QUOTE] There's a huge difference between a spur-of-the-moment murder and a targeted, politically-motivated shooting spree both in how it affects society and how we should deal with the perpetrator. It makes sense to differentiate between the two because they're, well, different. Or, to not mince words, murder is such a common occurrence in the United States that it's useful to sort them.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;49216462][B]sgman91 regarding a Muslim responsible for shooting up a military base:[/B] [B]sgman91 regarding a white man responsible for shooting up a planned parenthood:[/B] Hey dude, cut the fucking shit.[/QUOTE] What are you even talking about? The two people in question are different cases. There's no real evidence that Nidal was mentally unstable. He was actively working as a psychiatrist, and his peers didn't think they had enough reason to do a mental examination on him. In fact, they didn't even think they had enough to fire him from the program and/or didn't think it was a big enough deal to worry about it. We also know that Nidal ascribed to an extreme Islamic view based on his attempts to proselytize his patience and his connection with a known western supporter of Jihad. On the other hand this guy, by all early measures, seems to have had issues. He was socially awkward around people that knew him, he lived alone in the woods, he was known to mumble to himself, and a number of other antisocial behaviors. You're welcome to make an actual argument that I'm wrong, but trying to play some moral high ground means nothing. [editline]30th November 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Zeke129;49216530]There's a huge difference between a spur-of-the-moment murder and a targeted, politically-motivated shooting spree both in how it affects society and how we should deal with the perpetrator. It makes sense to differentiate between the two because they're, well, different. Or, to not mince words, murder is such a common occurrence in the United States that it's useful to sort them.[/QUOTE] How exactly does this effect society differently than a serial killer? Also we do sort this by calling it a mass murder. It seems a whole lot more comparable to something like columbine than 9/11 or the recent French attacks.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;49216530]There's a huge difference between a spur-of-the-moment murder and a targeted, politically-motivated shooting spree both in how it affects society and how we should deal with the perpetrator. It makes sense to differentiate between the two because they're, well, different. Or, to not mince words, murder is such a common occurrence in the United States that it's useful to sort them.[/QUOTE] Okay, but how do we know this was planned? The dude showed up with a gun and a bunch of ammo, but that's it. Didn't seem to have any specific targets, goals or an escape plan. It seems to me that it was more of "F these people!" and he grabbed a gun and went. That's practically a crime of passion, 2nd degree murder.
[QUOTE=Ridge;49218810]Okay, but how do we know this was planned? The dude showed up with a gun and a bunch of ammo, but that's it. Didn't seem to have any specific targets, goals or an escape plan. It seems to me that it was more of "F these people!" and he grabbed a gun and went. That's practically a crime of passion, 2nd degree murder.[/QUOTE] If you bring a gun and a bunch of ammo with you to a Planned Parenthood then you've planned to shoot it up. Second degree murder for an [i]obviously[/i] premeditated mass shooting that left 3 dead and 9 injured. You're unbelievable.
[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]I honestly can't disagree with you at all, I get what you're saying and you're right; regardless of the circumstances this guy will never be labeled as a terrorist (or at least it's unlikely) because there is preconception in our society. I wasn't really commenting on that though, I was saying how I personally see it because I understand things like: [QUOTE=UncleJimmema;49213392]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.[/QUOTE]This. People have this weird idea that extremism in the world, in reality the people who do horrible and reprehensible stuff have gone through enough shit that has led them to rationalize their actions in an intelligent manner. Religion, politics, socioeconomic conditions... all of these things and more are the driving forces between all sorts of things in our world, even the awful and tragic events that cause us to wring our fists in anguish and ask, "why?" I think anyone is capable of doing these things if given the right motivation and the right circumstances, maybe in another life I became a turbo crazy bible thumper and this story is about me over there. Maybe in an alternate universe I never concluded that white supremacy is bullshit and shot up a synagogue or something, who knows? I'm not a particularly violent or irrational person [U]now[/U] but that's not to say I couldn't have turned out that way or still won't turn out that way. Long and short of it is people are complicated things, and life itself is just this cacophony of little things bumping against each other in a symphony of chaos.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.