Terrorist Kills 6 in Philadelphia

[Big Guy]

A red bearded terrorist with no turban has been involved in the killing of at least 6 people in Philadelphia.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/15/us/pennsylvania-shootings/index.html

These terrorist attacks are getting out of control!

Our federal government has to bring in harsher anti-terrorist legislation. It is only a matter of time until they come here. We need boots on the ground in Iraq and Syria. If we don't stop them there then we won't stop them here. More money needed for military planes and stuff. Your turbaned neighbor to-day could be your neighborhood terrorist tomorrow.

Time to change our profile of terrorist. Looks like he could have a red beard and not wear those Arab thingys.

Wait, I might be getting hysterical and need a time out.

Back to the rubber room for a while.

Edited December 15, 2014 by Big Guy

[Shady]

Domestic dispute with no political motive doesn't equal terrorism. Come'on man.

[Black Dog]

Domestic dispute with no political motive doesn't equal terrorism. Come'on man.

And that's the point.

[Moonbox]

What's the point? I'm with Shady on this one and don't think Big Guy really has a clue.

We know only too well that terrorism isn't reserved for Islamic extremists. We have a long history of it in Canada and the US. We've had eco-terrorism, the FLQ, people try to blow up the House of Commons and all sorts of bad stuff. The Americans have had Oklahoma City and the unabomber. No Arabs there, but all terrorism. The common theme was that they were all politically motivated.

This, as far as we know so far, is just a guy snapping and killing his family. Terrorism =/ killing a bunch of people. Sometimes killing a bunch of people is just killing a bunch of people.

[bush_cheney2004]

What's the point? I'm with Shady on this one and don't think Big Guy really has a clue.

Uh-huh...what does a garden variety mass murder in Philadelphia have to do with Canadian Federal Politics ? If it was a clever ploy to make a point about terrorism and Canadian policies, it falls flat.

[dre]

Terrorism is not even a useful word anymore. Its more of just a universal epithet for everything bad, much the same as "facism".

At one point it was a real word that basically meant "non state actor that uses fear to achieve a political objective". Now, depending on ones outlook, it includes state actors like Iran and Israel, criminals, the mentally ill, drug addicts, etc.

In general... on policital forums the number of times people use that word is an inverse representation of their intelligence.

[Derek 2.0]

Ginger terrorists??? Tiocfaidh Ár Lá......Sing up the 'Ra!!!

[August1991]

And that's the point.

WTF? Domestic dispute? Random violence?

If I am sitting in a Second Cup and some whacko makes me a hostage, that's one thing.

If my ex-husband takes me hostage, that's another.

But in this case in Sydney, that's not what happened. A Muslim took control of a coffee shop in a "Christian/Western" country and made people hostages. That's a hate crime. This guy targetted Christians/Westerners.

====

The real story here is that we have good, liberal, Western, Enlightenment principles and yet many among us seem unwilling to defend these principles. Sadly, Leftists/Progressives are more likely to denigrate these principles because they perceive them as "dominant".

Edited December 16, 2014 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

A Muslim took control of a coffee shop in a "Christian/Western" country and made people hostages. That's a hate crime. This guy targetted Christians/Westerners.

You're declaring a principle here, which is that the declared motivations of the criminal are to be taken as the truth. Principles are tricky because they are geometric, ie. objective.

So a madman who declares his motivation is now to be believed, under that principle. Marc Lepine really did commit a gender crime against women, because he said so and there's the reason. John Hinckley was just a misguided romantic.

We are actually more sophisticated that that, in that we can look at things with context. In this case, I would say these are religious people who are unhinged, and susceptible to being incited to violence.

[Peter F]

WTF? Domestic dispute? Random violence?

If I am sitting in a Second Cup and some whacko makes me a hostage, that's one thing.

If my ex-husband takes me hostage, that's another.

But in this case in Sydney, that's not what happened. A Muslim took control of a coffee shop in a "Christian/Western" country and made people hostages. That's a hate crime. This guy targetted Christians/Westerners.

====

The real story here is that we have good, liberal, Western, Enlightenment principles and yet many among us seem unwilling to defend these principles. Sadly, Leftists/Progressives are more likely to denigrate these principles because they perceive them as "dominant".

It is the Action that determines criminality - not the motivation. That a Muslim takes control of a place in a Western country is no different than if any one else takes control of a place in a western country. Who gives a shit what their motivations are? The state re-action should be the same because its not the motivation thats the danger but the actual taking over by armed and dangerous people thats the danger.

The real story here is that we have good, liberal, Western, Enlightenment principles and yet many among us seem unwilling to defend these principles.

Obviously false. Please do provide some example of anyone - anyone - suggesting that many among us seem unwilling to defend these principles.

How does claiming the perp in Sydney is not a terrorist affect anything at all? How does claiming the perp to be a terrorist affect anything at all?

[Boges]

I think an objective observer would concede that terrorism would have something to do with political or religious motivation. This incident does not.

It would be like calling a Mob Hit terrorism.

[Big Guy]

But a mob hit is intended to instill terror into the group that the mob is targeting. Is terrorism not the act of instilling terror?

[Boges]

But a mob hit is intended to instill terror into the group that the mob is targeting. Is terrorism not the act of instilling terror?

I'm not an expert on the mob, but generally violence is an internal affair, similar to domestic violence. You may be trying to terrorize a competing faction but not the public.

The stated goal of these ISIS inspired attacks are to terrorize the public.

[Boges]

Now what's the stated goal of a group of people to blow up a school in Pakistan?

http://news.yahoo.com/pakistan-taliban-attack-military-school-kill-2-072153239.html

You people are trying to teach girls! We're going to kill you! That's terrorism.

Compare and Contrast that with a kid who's depressed because he can't get laid and decides to shoot up a school.

Quite different motive. IMHO

Edited December 16, 2014 by Boges

[cybercoma]

Domestic dispute with no political motive doesn't equal terrorism. Come'on man.

If only you used this kind of logic all the time, but your inconsistencies are your biases.

[The_Squid]

Why is this in the Canadian Federal Politics section? Are there no moderators anymore?

[Big Guy]

In answer to your apparent injured sensitivities, the Harper government currently has some restrictive anti-terrorist legislation pending. The question of the danger of terrorism in Canada is the platform for this federal legislation. It seems that my post did generate some discussion of just what can or should be attributed to terrorism. It has satisfied the intent.

You may feel as if this topic should be elsewhere - I do not. Please feel free to start your own discussion on this topic in any section that you feel appropriate. Personally, I am more interested in the content of posts than in their placement.

[dre]

But a mob hit is intended to instill terror into the group that the mob is targeting. Is terrorism not the act of instilling terror?

Yes those type of things often match the classic definition of "terrorism". But some people today subscribe to a NEW definition which goes something like this... "Terrorism: Acts of violence by Muslims against the west".

Its kinda funny because these people go on and on about how terrorism is an Islamic phenomenon, but they ignore the hotbed of terrorism right here in North America, in predominantly christian Mexico. Hundreds of thousands have been killed, and people routinely have their heads cut off and bowled into local bars with the express purpose of spreading fear and intimidating.

[bush_cheney2004]

...You may feel as if this topic should be elsewhere - I do not. Please feel free to start your own discussion on this topic in any section that you feel appropriate. Personally, I am more interested in the content of posts than in their placement.

If that's the case, then I look forward to additional posts in the Canada Politics > Federal Politics section with substantive examples from places like Liberty City, Florida or maybe Yuma, Arizona or how about Intercourse, Alabama.

[Argus]

What's the point? I'm with Shady on this one and don't think Big Guy really has a clue.

What he's trying to do is to say that since other people commit murders we should stop worrying about terrorism, and in particular, since redheads commit murder, we shouldn't even consider the possibility that we should be wary of Muslim terrorists.

[Argus]

Terrorism is not even a useful word anymore. Its more of just a universal epithet for everything bad, much the same as "facism".

At one point it was a real word that basically meant "non state actor that uses fear to achieve a political objective". Now, depending on ones outlook, it includes state actors like Iran and Israel, criminals, the mentally ill, drug addicts, etc.

In general... on policital forums the number of times people use that word is an inverse representation of their intelligence.

And in general, one can say the same about those who desperately try to pretend there is no such thing as terrorism, who try to pretend there is no fundamental immorality behind terrorism since, after all, western governments are all universally evil anyway. In general, such pathetic attempts at moral equivalency simply show the person has no judgement and no sense of morality whatsoever.

[Argus]

You're declaring a principle here, which is that the declared motivations of the criminal are to be taken as the truth. Principles are tricky because they are geometric, ie. objective.

One of the issues involved in these types of discussions is that people with a determined western secular mindset who are not at all religious (and tend to be fairly unimaginative) quite literally cannot believe people would commit extreme acts for a purely religious reason. So they tell themselves it's for some other reason, even inventing mental illness if necessary. For example, it's now completely established 'fact' to such people that Michael Zehaf Bibeau was mentally ill despite ZERO evidence to support that suggestion.

It derives from a fundamental and extraordinary degree of arrogance which believes that all people are just like them, and operate out of the same basic set of values and motivations. And after all, if anyone doesn't, well, there's gotta be something deeply disturbed about them!

[Argus]

del

Edited December 16, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

Yes those type of things often match the classic definition of "terrorism". But some people today subscribe to a NEW definition which goes something like this... "Terrorism: Acts of violence by Muslims against the west".

And some people will deny it endlessly, no matter what the terrorists say, because they see it as their noble calling as white liberals to defend those poor, misguided, ignorant brown people.

Isn't that right?

[dre]

And some people will deny it endlessly, no matter what the terrorists say, because they see it as their noble calling as white liberals to defend those poor, misguided, ignorant brown people.

Isn't that right?

No youre just having a conversation with a group of people that exists only your own head.