off topic The politics of terrorism

[shrader]

If ISIS actively seeks to inspire people outside their membership to carry out acts of violence, are the people who carry them out "lonewold copycat type" or is it genuine terrorism?

 

Honestly, I'm getting fed up with the terrorism label being thrown at everything.  It's too generic a label at this point.  Whether it's ISIS conducted, ISIS inspired, or just a frustrated person out for revenge, I'm much more interested in specific labels like that.  You get a much stronger idea of their reasoning.

[Doohicksie]

To your last, i vote genuine terrorism.

 

Oh me too.  I think use of the term copycat is used in the media to dismiss the "validity" of motives of the perpetrators, as in "It wasn't really terrorism, they were *just* copycats."  At least that's the intent I infer from use of the word.

[Doohicksie]

Honestly, I'm getting fed up with the terrorism label being thrown at everything.  It's too generic a label at this point.  Whether it's ISIS conducted, ISIS inspired, or just a frustrated person out for revenge, I'm much more interested in specific labels like that.  You get a much stronger idea of their reasoning.

 

I think that speaks to my statement above about "Any solutions need to take into account [current] conditions."  There seems to be several factors driving these mass shootings.  One is isolation of the perpetrator, which is a combination of the personality of the person and the way society interacts with them.  A second is propaganda that is targeted to individuals who are open to influence due to their isolation and desire to belong to something bigger than themselves.  Then there seems to be some triggering event that drives them to action.

 

The propaganda comes from all sides and is present on social media.  There's radical Muslim content, radical Christian content, radical anti-religious content, etc.  Due to free speech rights people can post this stuff and it's difficult, if not impossible, to tie these "lone wolf" actors back to the sites and therefore difficult to shut them down.

[darksabre]

I really think there are several contributing factors to these gun attacks, whether they are done by Christians or Muslims or atheists or whatever.

 

1. Violence in movies and video games that glorifies and desensitizes people to it.

2. Polarization of media and inflammatory rhetoric.*

3. Polarization of politics & rhetoric.*

4. Social media which seems to amplify political political differences and popularity (and conversely, isolation).

5. The person who uses violence is isolated and uses violence to participate in a larger cause.

 

There are others I'm sure, and how much each of these really contribute can be debated, but this, such as it is, is the society we live in.  Any solutions need to take into account these conditions (as sucky as they are).

 

 

* I think the media doesn't even realize they do this.  For example, there was a report in the local paper about Texas Gov. Abbott [R] visiting Cuba to discuss trade and the article went right in to implications that he's aligning with Obama.  I commented on the article that rather than implying some "grading" of the move based on political rhetoric, the paper should have evaluated the trip on its own merits (i.e., not whether it aligned him with Dems or Repubs, but whether it's good policy).

 

 

 

If ISIS actively seeks to inspire people outside their membership to carry out acts of violence, are the people who carry them out "lonewold copycat type" or is it genuine terrorism?

I think point 5 is pretty valuable here. Isolation, in any number of areas, can drive people to violence. As we've become a more connected and global society in the digital sense, we've also become less connected at the personal level. I don't think we're dealing with each other as well as we could be. I don't know if I find it surprising that the rise of the internet, the rise of easily disseminated information, the rise of connectivity to like-minded people, has come with a rise in "special" violent crimes. I can't think of a better way to phrase crimes from Oklahoma City to this. 

The urge to carry out violence against other humans doesn't strike me as surprising. I think many individuals have no trouble rationalizing it. And carrying it out. 

 

But there's a pervasive feeling of dehumanization hanging in the air this last decade or so. I wasn't aware of it when I was a 12 year old kid learning how to shelter in place after Columbine, or when I logged on to AIM for the first time, or when I got my first cell phone. But I see it in the manner in which we're surprised when our neighbors talk to us. When Josie and I take walks people seem shocked that we say hi. 

 

I get the distinct feeling that this drives the violence that we've come to see as normal. Maybe it's the predictable outcome of closing our doors and our minds. 

[shrader]

Oh me too.  I think use of the term copycat is used in the media to dismiss the "validity" of motives of the perpetrators, as in "It wasn't really terrorism, they were *just* copycats."  At least that's the intent I infer from use of the word.

 

It's another vague term, but it's definitely out there.  I don't think it's a stretch to think that people would model an attack after a previous one in hopes of hiding their true intent.  That or the cases where some idiot thinks a previous event was "cool" and wants to do the same.  This garbage is definitely out there.  Anyway, I just included it in my list as an example of the numerous types of attacks we are seeing, an intentionally vague example.

 

edit:  Actually, I'd wager a guess that these are the kind of plots that the police wind up preventing well in advance.  You get some clueless person having now idea what he or she is doing and they send up a million red flags.

Edited December 3, 2015 by shrader

[Claude_Verret]

But there's a pervasive feeling of dehumanization hanging in the air this last decade or so. I wasn't aware of it when I was a 12 year old kid learning how to shelter in place after Columbine, or when I logged on to AIM for the first time, or when I got my first cell phone. But I see it in the manner in which we're surprised when our neighbors talk to us. When Josie and I take walks people seem shocked that we say hi. 

 

 

Reminds me of a restaurant sign I saw on my FB feed this weekend.

 

No We Don't Have Wifi

Pretend like it's 1995 and talk to each other.

[darksabre]

Reminds me of a restaurant sign I saw on my FB feed this weekend.

 

No We Don't Have Wifi

Pretend like it's 1995 and talk to each other.

I haven't figured out how to link this idea yet, but I can't help but feeling in my gut that it plays a role. Something changed with the internet, and I'm not sure we fully know what that change was yet. 

[wjag]

I haven't figured out how to link this idea yet, but I can't help but feeling in my gut that it plays a role. Something changed with the internet, and I'm not sure we fully know what that change was yet. 

 

I see it as a godsend and a bane at the same time.  It's been a few  *cough* years since I studied geometry.  So when it comes time to help my kids with their homework, I google how to solve the problems, in essence teach myself, then a I help them with their homework.  I can't imagine life without it.  That's the upside.  The downside is I see it as an isolater.  Look around the society you live in. Just about everyone, and I mean everyone, is heads down on their phones.  I was in a restaurant the other day.  I took a count. Out of 35 patrons, I saw 32 phones.  Of the 32 phones, 21 were actively being checked and the other 11 were a finger tip away.  The three I could not see were one child and two apparent septuagenarians. There have been a few inventions that have dramatically changed society from one of neighbors know their neighbors to one where neighbors may not know or flat out don't care about whole lives next door.  They are: air conditioning, television and now cell phones/computers.

[MattPie]

I haven't figured out how to link this idea yet, but I can't help but feeling in my gut that it plays a role. Something changed with the internet, and I'm not sure we fully know what that change was yet. 

 

On the surface, you can say the internet allows you to find other people to reinforce and encourage whatever type of crazy you are a lot easier than if you had to do it locally.

[Stoner]

The telegraph machine will be the death of us! And Tele Visions will eat our babies.

[SarasotaSabre]

Links?

 

Also being Muslim and doing this because of Islam are 2 entirely different things.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3344350/Devout-Muslim-citizen-Saudi-wife-living-American-Dream-identified-heavily-armed-duo-burst-office-holiday-party-slaughtered-14-leaving-baby-mother.html

 

described it be devout Muslims; not implying that was the root cause but my inference would be this is a case of self-radicalization. That is what is making the current strain of Jihadist attacks so difficult to identify & contest.

[LastPommerFan]

CNN reporting that Syed had recent contact with people under investigation for terrorism, potentially radicalized.

[SwampD]

So how long are we going to pretend that this wasn't a Muslim terrorist attack?

Okay. Let's say it was. Then what? We need to find new answers to the questions that follow. The ones of the past haven't worked.

[Weave]

Okay. Let's say it was. Then what? We need to find new answers to the questions that follow. The ones of the past haven't worked.

 

If this turns out to be a domestically grown, radicalized Muslim terrorist attack, I think one thing that will come of it is, it will change the discussion re: gun control.  I see the conversation evolving just like it did regarding security post 9/11 and the resulting Patriot Act.  

 

I'm not yet sure this will be a good thing.  

[nfreeman]

Okay. Let's say it was. Then what? We need to find new answers to the questions that follow. The ones of the past haven't worked.

 

This is a critical point.  I don't agree with your conclusion insofar as I don't think the only possible solution, which was and remains a long-term military commitment to fighting militant Islam at its source and on the ground, has been tested.

 

As I and others here have previously posted, although the correct solution was initiated, the American people tired of it and elected a president who promised, and delivered, a pullout that was at least 2 generations too early.  This has led to predictably disastrous results.

 

The longer we wait, the worse it will get.

[LGR4GM]

This is a critical point.  I don't agree with your conclusion insofar as I don't think the only possible solution, which was and remains a long-term military commitment to fighting militant Islam at its source and on the ground, has been tested.

 

As I and others here have previously posted, although the correct solution was initiated, the American people tired of it and elected a president who promised, and delivered, a pullout that was at least 2 generations too early.  This has led to predictably disastrous results.

 

The longer we wait, the worse it will get.

You know I suppose it doesn;t matter.

Edited December 3, 2015 by LGR4GM

[SarasotaSabre]

Amazingly insightful & informative...

 

You want the simple one-sentence explanation for what caused ISIS?

 

Embedded image permalink (click)

[Doohicksie]

But there's a pervasive feeling of dehumanization hanging in the air this last decade or so. I wasn't aware of it when I was a 12 year old kid learning how to shelter in place after Columbine, or when I logged on to AIM for the first time, or when I got my first cell phone. But I see it in the manner in which we're surprised when our neighbors talk to us. When Josie and I take walks people seem shocked that we say hi. 

 

I get the distinct feeling that this drives the violence that we've come to see as normal. Maybe it's the predictable outcome of closing our doors and our minds. 

 

Yes, agree with this.  I've written similar things.  Dehumanization is a closely related concept to the isolation I mentioned above, and it makes it that much easier to commit these heinous crimes.  If people have been rejected by society as less than human in some sense, it's easy for them to respond in kind and not consider the rest of society as human.  So all of us are like zombies in a video game to them because their reality has been altered by rejection and social media and violent video games.

I haven't figured out how to link this idea yet, but I can't help but feeling in my gut that it plays a role. Something changed with the internet, and I'm not sure we fully know what that change was yet. 

 

Right.  That's why I mentioned that any solution needs to take into account current conditions.  That's one of the big ones right there.

[LGR4GM]

I challenge your notion that Violent Video Games are a main cause.

 

Several studies have indicated that aggression may actually decrease after playing a violent video game. The studies also suggest that specific violent prone ppl are going to be more susceptible to violence in video games.

http://psp.sagepub.com/content/37/12/1644.full.pdf+html

Edited December 3, 2015 by LGR4GM

[Doohicksie]

I see it as a godsend and a bane at the same time.  It's been a few  *cough* years since I studied geometry.  So when it comes time to help my kids with their homework, I google how to solve the problems, in essence teach myself, then a I help them with their homework.  I can't imagine life without it.  That's the upside.  The downside is I see it as an isolater.  Look around the society you live in. Just about everyone, and I mean everyone, is heads down on their phones. 

 

Not just an isolator, but an aggregator.  What are they doing on the phone?  Who are they communicating with?  Are they simply absorbing the rhetoric/propaganda/ideas of other like-minded people?  Are they becoming more and more like those like-minded people?  Are they being motivated by what they read to bring about the ideals of those people?  This can be good (save the whales, help pay someone else's medical bills so they don't lose their house), or it can be bad, depending on what those ideals are.

[darksabre]

Yes, agree with this. I've written similar things. Dehumanization is a closely related concept to the isolation I mentioned above, and it makes it that much easier to commit these heinous crimes. If people have been rejected by society as less than human in some sense, it's easy for them to respond in kind and not consider the rest of society as human. So all of us are like zombies in a video game to them because their reality has been altered by rejection and social media and violent video games.

 

 

Right. That's why I mentioned that any solution needs to take into account current conditions. That's one of the big ones right there.

I just want to note that I disagree with the violent video game theory. There's a lot of research out there that shows no connection between violence in games or movies and criminal behavior. It's a bogeyman. We see just as much violence blamed on religious texts as well, when we know it's the people, not the content, that is the issue. Video games are easy to blame, and in my opinion, falsely so.

Edit: Liger beat me to it.

[Doohicksie]

I challenge your notion that Violent Video Games are a main cause.

 

Several studies have indicated that aggression may actually decrease after playing a violent video game

http://psp.sagepub.com/content/37/12/1644.full.pdf+html

 

I'm not saying they are a main cause, but rather a contributing factor.  Remember that people who commit mass shootings are already outliers on several other spectra.  I think they may also be the outliers here. 

 

By the way, your link us unreadable without a subscription.

 

And I can even concede that maybe you're right.  It could be that the real damage is the pervasiveness of violent images in our society.  I'm not sure how you could select that out in a scientific study.

Edited December 3, 2015 by The Big Johnson

[Stoner]

This is a critical point.  I don't agree with your conclusion insofar as I don't think the only possible solution, which was and remains a long-term military commitment to fighting militant Islam at its source and on the ground, has been tested.

 

As I and others here have previously posted, although the correct solution was initiated, the American people tired of it and elected a president who promised, and delivered, a pullout that was at least 2 generations too early.  This has led to predictably disastrous results.

 

The longer we wait, the worse it will get.

Are you arguing that the less military/political involvement we have in that region, the more we will be attacked? I take it if we finally achieved energy independence and totally pulled out of the region, and told Israel and Israel's enemies to have at it, enjoy roasting in Hell, we'd be devastated by terrorist attacks. Because... they hate us for our freedom?

[SarasotaSabre]

Amazingly insightful & informative...

 

You want the simple one-sentence explanation for what caused ISIS?

 

Embedded image permalink (click)

sorry, I hit an embedded page - here goes:

 

https://twitter.com/KarlreMarks/status/671689425739456512/photo/1

[Doohicksie]

sorry, I hit an embedded page - here goes:

 

https://twitter.com/KarlreMarks/status/671689425739456512/photo/1

 

That blames ISIS on everything and actually says nothing.