Azalin Posted June 23, 2016 Posted June 23, 2016 Why does it have to be coordinated by? Why not just inspired by? I mean ISIS has a crazy amount of propaganda out there for a reason. You beat me to the question: why does it have to be in coordination with, and not simply "inspired by"?
FireChan Posted June 23, 2016 Posted June 23, 2016 (edited) You beat me to the question: why does it have to be in coordination with, and not simply "inspired by"? Because anyone can be inspired by anything. You could have some loon who starts chopping off arms because he felt inspired by "David." Is that a case of Michaelangelo Terrorism? The already fuzzy lines become even blurrier. Edited June 23, 2016 by FireChan
Deranged Rhino Posted June 23, 2016 Posted June 23, 2016 You beat me to the question: why does it have to be in coordination with, and not simply "inspired by"? The vagueness of the term is how the federal government is justifying their overreach. We shouldn't help them.
Azalin Posted June 23, 2016 Posted June 23, 2016 Because anyone can be inspired by anything. You could have some loon who starts chopping off arms because he felt inspired by "David." Is that a case of Michaelangelo Terrorism? The already fuzzy lines become even blurrier. Yeah, that makes sense. The vagueness of the term is how the federal government is justifying their overreach. We shouldn't help them. Perhaps I'm making it too easy, because I don't see much of anything vague about it.
4merper4mer Posted June 23, 2016 Posted June 23, 2016 Because anyone can be inspired by anything. You could have some loon who starts chopping off arms because he felt inspired by "David." Is that a case of Michaelangelo Terrorism? The already fuzzy lines become even blurrier. Are you aware of whether or not David has a plan to inspire people to chop off the arms of others? Because ISIS has a plan to inspire others to violence against the west.
DC Tom Posted June 23, 2016 Posted June 23, 2016 You beat me to the question: why does it have to be in coordination with, and not simply "inspired by"? Because most crimes are "inspired by" (or "motivated by") something. Calling a crime "inspired by" something "terrorism" makes the definition so overly broad that it becomes virtually meaningless (or worse, inappropriately meaningful). It also confuses the concepts of motivation and operation: terrorism is an operational activity, and as such occurs in a context that I'd best define as "doctrinal" (though that may be a poor definition - again, an associational bias based on my reading; in armed forces, "doctrine" is not always, but usually a body of operational - as opposed to strategic or tactical - practices.) Terrorism has never, however, been defined in motivational terms until very, very recently. The danger inherent in that is that it ends up demonizing concepts rather than actions...and that's always a slippery slope, as it's not just overly broad but overly subjective. And I know that's kind-of incomplete. But I just started working on the paper...you'll have to wait for a better definition.
DC Tom Posted June 23, 2016 Posted June 23, 2016 Are you aware of whether or not David has a plan to inspire people to chop off the arms of others? Because ISIS has a plan to inspire others to violence against the west. It's an interesting question. On the one hand, does a broadcast message by a group with a coherent operational purpose make terrorists out of people who listen to and follow the message but have no other active association with the group? Historically...maybe. I can think of examples that go either way, most of which depend on which side you were on. Again, it's very subjective. On the other hand...it's again so overly broad that it leads to easily labeling groups like Operation Rescue or Black Lives Matter as terrorist groups. In each of those two examples, there were instances of people being inspired by the message of the group to go out and commit murder in furtherance of the group's operational purpose.
Azalin Posted June 23, 2016 Posted June 23, 2016 (edited) Because most crimes are "inspired by" (or "motivated by") something. Calling a crime "inspired by" something "terrorism" makes the definition so overly broad that it becomes virtually meaningless (or worse, inappropriately meaningful). It also confuses the concepts of motivation and operation: terrorism is an operational activity, and as such occurs in a context that I'd best define as "doctrinal" (though that may be a poor definition - again, an associational bias based on my reading; in armed forces, "doctrine" is not always, but usually a body of operational - as opposed to strategic or tactical - practices.) Terrorism has never, however, been defined in motivational terms until very, very recently. The danger inherent in that is that it ends up demonizing concepts rather than actions...and that's always a slippery slope, as it's not just overly broad but overly subjective. And I know that's kind-of incomplete. But I just started working on the paper...you'll have to wait for a better definition. Sometimes I'm guilty of simplifying things too much in an effort to strip away secondary and tertiary BS and get to the heart of an issue. Therefore, nuance isn't always a part of my reasoning process. I'd be interested to see what you come up with, but for now, I consider pretty much any semi-sane individual who plots and executes a plan to murder any plurality of people to be an act of terrorism (ala Dylann Root, Timothy VcVeigh, the 911 hijackers, etc). Perhaps I'm wrong, but if I am, I'm having difficulty seeing the distinction. Besides, isn't Venus De Milo the one without arms? Edited June 23, 2016 by Azalin
DC Tom Posted June 23, 2016 Posted June 23, 2016 Sometimes I'm guilty of simplifying things too much in an effort to strip away secondary and tertiary BS and get to the heart of an issue. Therefore, nuance isn't always a part of my reasoning process. I'd be interested to see what you come up with, but for now, I consider any semi-sane individual who plots and executes a plan to murder any plurality of people to be an act of terrorism (ala Dylann Root, Timothy VcVeigh, the 911 hijackers, etc). Perhaps I'm wrong, but if I am, I'm having difficulty seeing the distinction. Besides, isn't Venus De Milo the one without arms? Leonard Lake and Charles Ng? Gary Ridgway? Charles Manson? Jim Jones? Roy DeMeo? (Actually, Manson's an example I'm considering using. He's a bizarre edge case.)
GG Posted June 23, 2016 Posted June 23, 2016 It's an interesting question. On the one hand, does a broadcast message by a group with a coherent operational purpose make terrorists out of people who listen to and follow the message but have no other active association with the group? Historically...maybe. I can think of examples that go either way, most of which depend on which side you were on. Again, it's very subjective. On the other hand...it's again so overly broad that it leads to easily labeling groups like Operation Rescue or Black Lives Matter as terrorist groups. In each of those two examples, there were instances of people being inspired by the message of the group to go out and commit murder in furtherance of the group's operational purpose. Why shouldn't the definition be updated? It's a corollary to declaration of war when the enemy is no longer part of a formal state. If you can admit that a confederation of fighters taking orders from a decentralized command structure is a new form of warfare, why shouldn't a lone wolf operator who's inspired by a call from violence by an admittedly terrorist organization be considered a terrorist?
FireChan Posted June 23, 2016 Posted June 23, 2016 Leonard Lake and Charles Ng? Gary Ridgway? Charles Manson? Jim Jones? Roy DeMeo? (Actually, Manson's an example I'm considering using. He's a bizarre edge case.) Nat Turner?
4merper4mer Posted June 23, 2016 Posted June 23, 2016 (edited) It's an interesting question. On the one hand, does a broadcast message by a group with a coherent operational purpose make terrorists out of people who listen to and follow the message but have no other active association with the group? Historically...maybe. I can think of examples that go either way, most of which depend on which side you were on. Again, it's very subjective. On the other hand...it's again so overly broad that it leads to easily labeling groups like Operation Rescue or Black Lives Matter as terrorist groups. In each of those two examples, there were instances of people being inspired by the message of the group to go out and commit murder in furtherance of the group's operational purpose. Here's the thing....actions speak louder than words. I personally do not consider BLM or Greenpeace or other groups terrorist and I understand the danger in labeling them as such. I do think acts by ISIS inspired morons are terrorist acts. I could be wrong about either or both and arguing about it may be of marginal use....but actions speak louder than words. An attack like this leading to Obama ignoring the obvious, twisting reality and grabbing for guns is as wrong as it was predictable. All that was needed was a suggestion of the possibility of a grain of a thread of a chance that it wasn't related to ISIS or Islam at all and......bam...gun grab. That kind of crap is going to continue to happen. Defining it like porn might not be the worst idea....I can't define it but I know it when I see it. Yeah, I know that's a bad idea but the alternatives we're getting suck too. Nat Turner? That's a stretch. Don't get me wrong, beating the $%% out of Tina was bad, but not terrorism. Edited June 24, 2016 by 4merper4mer
Deranged Rhino Posted June 24, 2016 Posted June 24, 2016 That's a stretch. Don't get me wrong, beating the $%% out of Tina was bad, but not terrorism.
Joe Miner Posted June 24, 2016 Posted June 24, 2016 But in reality, any terrorist in this country would be stupid not to commit their crimes with a gun. Not only do you get the benefit of killing those you hate, but if they push enough, Americans will give up their rights. That's an even bigger win than 50 dead people.
KD in CA Posted June 24, 2016 Posted June 24, 2016 it's really that simple..................... Yup. Thomas Jefferson quoting the Tripoli Ambassador regarding captured American sailors in 1786: "It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise."
B-Man Posted June 24, 2016 Author Posted June 24, 2016 Where the hell did THAT narrative go ??? FBI has found zero evidence Omar Mateen had gay lovers, used gay chat apps, or ever visited Pulse as a customer. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-orlando-gay-fbi-20160623-snap-story.html Since the shooting at an Orlando nightclub last week that left 49 people dead, reports have emerged that gunman Omar Mateen frequented the gay club, used gay dating apps and had gay lovers. But the FBI has found no evidence so far to support claims by those who say Mateen had gay lovers or communicated on gay dating apps, several law enforcement officials said. Well, to be fair, (as Tom would say) they also can't find his wife. . .
Maury Ballstein Posted June 24, 2016 Posted June 24, 2016 Who made up the gay angle ? Ho Lee shhhhht.
unbillievable Posted June 24, 2016 Posted June 24, 2016 Who made up the gay angle ? Ho Lee shhhhht. The right is saying he's a Muslim. The left is saying he's an NRA member. I'm guessing it must be the Canadians.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 24, 2016 Posted June 24, 2016 Who made up the gay angle ? Ho Lee shhhhht.
Recommended Posts