General Terrorism Discussion

[Rapid]

I think that any mass shooting is terrorism, regardless of the motivations of the shooter. Workplace violence??? Nope, that shit is terrorism, school shootings..? Terrorism. The point may not be an underlying political ideology, but their point is to terrorize nonetheless.

So we're just doing away with definitions now?

Not all spree shooters aim to terrorise. Some are just severely fucked in the head. Those people aren't in a mental state that would allow them to fully appreciate what they're doing. That's what separates them from the 'logical thinking' terrorists. 'Logical thinking' only in the sense of how they plan out their actions and how they are clear in their intent.

We can do a LOT more to fix how we care for, monitor and treat those who are severely unstable. We nearly always know who they are; with those few who do go on a rampage, it's nearly always a case of the system (including their parents) having failed them. On the other hand, you can't do much to fix people who harbor an ideology that's rotten to the core, hiding in the shadows, waiting for the right moment to strike. All we can do is try to avoid creating more of them, wherever reasonable.

 

[TLDR20]

So we're just doing away with definitions now?

Not all spree shooters aim to terrorise. Some are just severely fucked in the head. Those people aren't in a mental state that would allow them to fully appreciate what they're doing. That's what separates them from the 'logical thinking' terrorists. 'Logical thinking' only in the sense of how they plan out their actions and how they are clear in their intent.

We can do a LOT more to fix how we care for, monitor and treat those who are severely unstable. We nearly always know who they are; with those few who do go on a rampage, it's nearly always a case of the system (including their parents) having failed them. On the other hand, you can't do much to fix people who harbor an ideology that's rotten to the core, hiding in the shadows, waiting for the right moment to strike. All we can do is try to avoid creating more of them, wherever reasonable.

Do you live in a country where there are mass shootings every couple of months?

We in America seem incapable of even saying there is a problem.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

Do you live in a country where there are mass shootings every couple of months?

We in America seem incapable of even saying there is a problem.

I don't think anyone here is saying there is not a problem with nut-job mass killers. Hell yes we have a problem, and absolutely it needs to be addressed. But one group thinks its a gun control issue and the other thinks its a crazy people problem.

That said, the United States is not the only country that deals with nut-job mass killers. It's just much more publicized here in the states.

 

[TLDR20]

I don't think anyone here is saying there is not a problem with nut-job mass killers. Hell yes we have a problem, and absolutely it needs to be addressed. But one group thinks its a gun control issue and the other thinks its a crazy people problem.

That said, the United States is not the only country that deals with nut-job mass killers. It's just much more publicized here in the states.

I don't know how true that is.

Obviously other countries have them. But we have a whole lot more than anyone else.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

Come on bro, I know you know better than that, specifically in Mexico. There are historic mass killing beyond anything the United States has ever seen, all throughout central/south America's, Africa, Indonesia, etc, etc. Historically, our mass shooting ain't shit compared to the rest of the world. I mean in all honesty Paris isn't that large of a mass shooting, historically speaking...

 

[pardus]

I don't know how true that is.

Obviously other countries have them. But we have a whole lot more than anyone else.

Nonsense.
I would give you credit if you'd said First World/Western countries maybe. But as a blanket statement, nonsense.

Come on bro, I know you know better than that, specifically in Mexico. There are historic mass killing beyond anything the United States has ever seen, all throughout central/south America's, Africa, Indonesia, etc, etc. Historically, our mass shooting ain't shit compared to the rest of the world. I mean in all honesty Paris isn't that large of a mass shooting, historically speaking...

Yup.

 

[TLDR20]

Nonsense.
I would give you credit if you'd said First World/Western countries maybe. But as a blanket statement, nonsense.



Yup.

That is what we are talking about is it not? Obviously we don't compare to Iraq, in anything. Mexico is basically a warzone in parts, I didn't feel the need to clarify because I thought it was that obvious.

 

[Rapid]

Do you live in a country where there are mass shootings every couple of months?

We in America seem incapable of even saying there is a problem.

There are a number of European countries where citizens are allowed to own firearms. There would be just as many shootings over there if it weren't for the fact that the mentally ill are generally better cared for & monitored, and also because they wouldn't be allowed to get a permit in the first place. You can work on those things and fix them, over time, if you have the will to do so.

Islamic extremism is different. It doesn't matter if it's only a "minority" of Muslims. When you bring in large numbers of them, say 10,000 people, there are bound to be some who could become a danger one day. And as events such as the Boston bombings show, it only takes one or two people. At best, you'll need increased surveillance to tackle that risk. You already have a number of dangerous people in your country. Why would you even risk bringing in more? The point here is that you have the choice. And if you wanted to bring in people who need protection because of what's been going on in the ME, I can think of a lot more deserving people (e.g., terps).

With Muslims, all you can do is hope to not radicalise even more of them. Even so, we can't just let extremists dictate every single thing we do. We can't hesitate on important matters just because we might upset the Islamic world. That's their fucking problem if they get upset -- there are other ways to air your grievances than terrorism. So perhaps the solution is to stop being so afraid of offending Muslims and to start telling them exactly what's wrong with their attitudes, i.e. the rampant conspiracy theories, the complaint culture, etc... the kind of stuff that drives 'moderates' to have more sympathy for their radical Muslim brothers than for the Kafir. They can't stamp out extremism in their communities until they start rejecting all that bullshit, point blank.

 

[TLDR20]

]

Top 5 Fallacies About Syrian Refugees To The US, Debunked
I'm just going to put this up here.

 

[x SF med]

The radical extremists are not solely aligned with the Islamic Jihad... throughout the late 70's and 80's, into the 90's the Red Army Faction, PIRA, Baader-Meinhof, Red Hand, Brigante Rosa, Shining Path, African Liberation Movement and a host of other 'politically' motivated extremeist terror organizations were very active... they got some newsplay, but not nearly the newsplay that ISIS is getting. Those aforementioned groups were the reason certain SMU's were created, and the SF mission was so focused on anti-terror and FID/UW/SR/TR.... It was the 'coldest part' of the Cold War... to the civilians, not in the SOF world.

Pull off some of the media coverage, and allow the specialists to combat them, and there might be a downturn in the acts of terror.... the first thing is to quit giving them the huge voice in the media.

 

[Blizzard]

Top 5 Fallacies About Syrian Refugees To The US, Debunked
I'm just going to put this up here.

So, would you give Syrian refugees preference over the thousands of interpreters/translators and their families that directly helped our troops in Iraq/Afghanistan, many of whom have waited years for special Visas to be approved while being persecuted in their own countries?

 

[TLDR20]

So, would you give Syrian refugees preference over the thousands of interpreters/translators and their families that directly helped our troops in Iraq/Afghanistan, many of whom have waited years for special Visas to be approved while being persecuted in their own countries?

I didn't say that. I think we have room for both. I think those terps should get to come here. It isn't the fault of the refugees that our government screwed the pooch on the terps.

 

[Blizzard]

Fair enough. But our government isn't seriously giving that issue any attention; and there is no legit explanation for the inaction. It's my standpoint that before there is any further discussion about taking on any other refugees, they solve that problem. We need to have the right priorities.

 

[Frank S.]

There would be just as many shootings over there if it weren't for the fact that the mentally ill are generally better cared for & monitored, and also because they wouldn't be allowed to get a permit in the first place. You can work on those things and fix them, over time, if you have the will to do so.

Here's a thing about care, monitoring and treatment of the mentally ill as I see it in the US. It's all wrapped up in one word and that is "dealing". Dealing with the mentally ill has devolved to Law Enforcement. A family in crisis calls 911 for a relative acting irrational/aggressive, cops will be dispatched. Afterwards if the situation escalated in the shooting death of said relative, people will clamor and rant against cops who, in perhaps minutes at best, have to basically diagnose, manage and de-escalate the situation.
People say they don't care how long it takes to accomplish if a human life is at stake.
Bullshit. Compassion extends only as far as the beginning of inconvenience. You block a freeway on ramp, or here in the Bay Area, a bridge due to a suicidal individual and I guarantee people will call out to the motherfucker to jump within five minutes of sitting in traffic. With their cell phones out just in case it gets gory.
I digress: there is no end to this.
As to terrorism it's always struck me as a blind men and the elephant problem. There isn't just one solution, there are nails, screws, pegs and other types of fasteners to be used with varying levels of pressure. Nothing is uniform and there are no shortcuts.
When the shit hits as it did in Paris,among other places recently, people will change their FaceBook profile pic to the French flag (like I did), go rah-rah for a few weeks and generally go through the expected motions. Ultimately they're just glad it happened elsewhere. I said it before, History is a car crash. You slow down just long enough to check out if there's still bodies in the wreckage and take a shot maybe a short clip. Then you speed back up, relieved it wasn't you. But as good as the show was, it was forgettable. Not unlike porn.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

]

Top 5 Fallacies About Syrian Refugees To The US, Debunked
I'm just going to put this up here.

Not sure who wrote the article, but seems the numbers are a bit off.

UNHCR Refugees/Migrants Emergency Response - Mediterranean

22% are children.
16% are women.
62% are men.

Unless I'm misreading the article and data, it would seem those numbers are a tad-bit off.

ETA: This figure is calling it 49.7% male with 50% female.

UNHCR Syria Regional Refugee Response

ETA2: Looks like the state department walked back on their "only 2% are males statement" and are now stating its 50/50 male/female, maybe more male.

"Half of the Syrian refugees brought to the U.S. so far have been children; a quarter [1] are adults over 60. And I think you will have heard that only 2 percent are single males of combat age. So we – there’s slightly more – it’s roughly 50/50 men and women, slightly more men I would say, but not – not a lot more men"

Background Briefing on Refugee Screening and Admissions

 

[Salt USMC]

Not sure who wrote the article, but seems the numbers are a bit off.

UNHCR Refugees/Migrants Emergency Response - Mediterranean

22% are children.
16% are women.
62% are men.

Unless I'm misreading the article and data, it would seem those numbers are a tad-bit off.

ETA: This figure is calling it 49.7% male with 50% female.

UNHCR Syria Regional Refugee Response

ETA2: Looks like the state department walked back on their "only 2% are males statement" and are now stating its 50/50 male/female, maybe more male.

"Half of the Syrian refugees brought to the U.S. so far have been children; a quarter [1] are adults over 60. And I think you will have heard that only 2 percent are single males of combat age. So we – there’s slightly more – it’s roughly 50/50 men and women, slightly more men I would say, but not – not a lot more men"

Background Briefing on Refugee Screening and Admissions

You're comparing two different data sets. The UNHCR figures are for refugees fleeing to Mediterranean countries. From the information disclaimer: "The figures on this website reflect only sea arrivals in the Mediterranean. The figures do not include persons arriving by other means and outside Mediterranean coasts." The numbers quoted in the Havok Journal article (ironically from the same source that you quoted) pulls their numbers from "the 2,500 Syrians we’ve [the US] taken in recently"

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

So am I wrong, didn't that DoS official state that the 2% figure is wrong. As it reads in the havoc article it states the 2% figure, however the same article they quote says that its actually 50/50 male/female and actually slightly more male.

Am I misreading that?

 

[Salt USMC]

Did you look at the other two links and the quote from the state department itself?

Yes. I looked at them. I saw it when it was quoted in the Havok Journal article on the second page. That's why I said that it was ironic that you cited it.

Edit: Okay, I see what you're talking about. Little bitty footnote at the bottom, where "a quarter" becomes 2.5%

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

Shit I edited my question too late.

 

[Salt USMC]

It is roughly 50/50 male/female, but only 22% of the total is what we would consider a "military-aged male". That is, to say, a male between 18-59. I suppose we could probably roll the 12-17 Male demographic into there, but that would only account for an additional 6%.