cybercoma Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) Over the weekend a plot to commit mass murder in Halifax was uncovered and stopped. The people involved were in court today facing charges of not terrorism, but conspiracy to commit murder. Terrorism is ill defined, particularly in the media. It took almost 6 months before the media referred to the plot to bomb the BC legislature as terrorism. Meanwhile, a lone gunman who kills a single person in Ottawa is immediately defined as a terrorist. A guy who runs down two military personnel in Quebec is immediately defined as a terrorist. Terrorism is constructed in the media and it doesn't seem to matter what the attack is, its severity nor its purpose. Muslim criminals are immediately terrorists, while others, especially white middle-class men who go on murdering sprees, are immediately defined as mentally ill, insane, or given some sort of benefit of the doubt that suggests they went off the rails somewhere. White mass murderers are almost always treated with shock and it becomes a personal tragedy about wasted potential. This is almost never the case with minority criminals, not just Muslims. When you begin to unpack the narratives presented in these stories, it's clear that we're constructing folk devils. This often leads to full on moral panics, which we can see for example in the discussion surrounding Niqabs at immigration ceremonies. None of this is logical and objective in nature, despite the appeal to legislation as if it were some black and white inarguable truism. If that were the case, then the philosophy of legal pragmatism wouldn't exist. The theory goes that the law is whatever the judge/jury interprets the law to be. That until the moment a judgment is rendered, neither accused, victim, nor counsels know what the outcome will be. The point being that terrorism and other legal definition are not objectively defined. There is a tacit, unwritten definition that is used daily in the media and public consensus, which I'm arguing surrounds the social construction of Muslim people, all Muslims, as folk devils. Edited February 17, 2015 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 None of this is logical and objective in nature, despite the appeal to legislation as if it were some black and white inarguable truism. If that were the case, then the philosophy of legal pragmatism wouldn't exist. It would obviously reduce fear if people had a rational and logical way to assess dangers, but this societal condition is more of a journey than a destination. That means, for example, that we're not really afraid of witchcraft any more, and we mostly believe in the science of vaccines but not 100% in climate science, and not at all in rational risk assessment processes. The introduction of new and contentious ideas has to happen with a subset of "the" public first, and has to be done with a minimum of political rewards for rational players who benefit from sowing irrational doubt. If the system of public discourse were better designed (by conservatives, liberals, and free thinkers) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty AC Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) Western media terrorism is certainly any crime committed by a Muslim. However, if actual terrorism is the use of violence, fear or intimidation to achieve political aims, then do the tactics used by our government to strip away privacy protections and increase state power over citizens make them terrorists? Fear is a powerful motivator particularly among the aging, conservative minded population. Which makes it the go to technique for media and the political right when influencing this crowd. So there's actual terrorism and manipulative terrorism, the latter is what we experience every day to keep us tuning in or falling in line. Edited February 17, 2015 by Mighty AC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 If terrorism is the use of violence, fear or intimidation to achieve political aims, then do the tactics used by our government to strip away privacy protections and increase state power over citizens make them terrorists? No....state power comes from the people through elected representatives and constitutional process. There are no privacy protections for many voluntary behaviours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 If terrorism is the use of violence, fear or intimidation to achieve political aims, then do the tactics used by our government to strip away privacy protections and increase state power over citizens make them terrorists? No it suggests that our government is pretending it's policies are not one of the objects of the terrorists aims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 17, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 No....state power comes from the people through elected representatives and constitutional process. There are no privacy protections for many voluntary behaviours.In a Republic it comes from the people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty AC Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 No....state power comes from the people through elected representatives and constitutional process. There are no privacy protections for many voluntary behaviours. No it suggests that our government is pretending it's policies are not one of the objects of the terrorists aims. Attempting to use fear to sell the removal of privacy rights, thus achieving their political aims is a little bit like terrorism itself. The PM would have to be brown or have a middle name like Hussein for it to be actual terrorism though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 17, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 The introduction of new and contentious ideas has to happen with a subset of "the" public first, and has to be done with a minimum of political rewards for rational players who benefit from sowing irrational doubt. If the system of public discourse were better designed (by conservatives, liberals, and free thinkers)I'm having a hard time understanding what you mean because I don't think the system is intentionally designed and I'm not sure that political actors or "rational players" intentionally sow irrational doubts. As tough as it is for me to admit it, I honestly think Harper and his Conservatives are doing what they believe is best for the country. The problem I'm having at the moment is the discourse around "terrorism," how ill defined it is, and what the ramifications are for that. There's a wealth of literature on moral panics and folk devils. Given your knowledge of media, you might find some of it interesting looking at it through the lens of public discourse and the construction of narratives about these folk devils. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 17, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 Attempting to use fear to sell the removal of privacy rights, thus achieving their political aims is a little bit like terrorism itself. The PM would have to be brown or have a middle name like Hussein for it to be actual terrorism though.Playing on people's fears and using violence, that is the practice of violence, are fundamentally different. That's not to say that it's a good thing to play on people's fears. It's just not the same thing as murdering people to scare the survivors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 Attempting to use fear to sell the removal of privacy rights, thus achieving their political aims is a little bit like terrorism itself. The PM would have to be brown or have a middle name like Hussein for it to be actual terrorism though. Now you're getting to the heart of it! . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 So it takes a terrorist to know a terrorist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 Attempting to use fear to sell the removal of privacy rights, thus achieving their political aims is a little bit like terrorism itself. The PM would have to be brown or have a middle name like Hussein for it to be actual terrorism though. The Muhajedeen were freedom fighters before they were terrorists!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty AC Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) Playing on people's fears and using violence, that is the practice of violence, are fundamentally different. That's not to say that it's a good thing to play on people's fears. It's just not the same thing as murdering people to scare the survivors. I know. I was just commenting on the amusing use of manufactured fear by the Harper Government to achieve a political end, all in the pretense of fighting terrorism. The media uses the word terrorism to manufacture fear to achieve its own ends as well. Keep 'em scared and keep 'em stupid! Edited February 17, 2015 by Mighty AC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 I know. I was just commenting on the amusing use of manufactured fear by the Harper Government to achieve a political end, all in the pretense of fighting terrorism. The media uses the word terrorism to manufacture fear to achieve its own ends as well. Keep 'em scared and keep 'em stupid! I guess we should not be surprised that the government seems to terrorize us more than the terrorists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 Playing on people's fears huh? To take away rights n such huh? Sounds like climate change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 Playing on people's fears huh? To take away rights n such huh? Sounds like climate change. Now yer getting it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 Playing on people's fears huh? To take away rights n such huh? Sounds like climate change. It sure does...how's that working for them ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 It seems to be working quite well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) Our Government is constructing the "folk devils" here! They have determined that someone running over a soldier with his car is a terrorist, and yet all the cases mentioned here....including this planned 'Valentine's Day Massacre' in Halifax, are not: 'A group of murderous misfits' "We have averted a true tragedy here in Halifax," Justice Minister Peter MacKay told reporters after the arrests. "It would have marked our city and province forever." When asked if the suspects had "Columbine" beliefs, MacKay responded, "I cannot confirm that, but what I can tell you is that this appeared to be group of murderous misfits … prepared to wreak havoc and mayhem on our community." Who wants to wager that if the guy had a beard and went to mosque recently, and the girl started wearing a head scarf, that dickless McKay would have been talking about the dangers of homegrown terrorism? Edited February 17, 2015 by WIP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 Oh good, another topic for the conspiracy loonies to run amok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 Our Government is constructing the "folk devils" here! They have determined that someone running over a soldier with his car is a terrorist, and yet all the cases mentioned here....including this planned 'Valentine's Day Massacre' in Halifax, are not: 'A group of murderous misfits' "We have averted a true tragedy here in Halifax," Justice Minister Peter MacKay told reporters after the arrests. "It would have marked our city and province forever." When asked if the suspects had "Columbine" beliefs, MacKay responded, "I cannot confirm that, but what I can tell you is that this appeared to be group of murderous misfits … prepared to wreak havoc and mayhem on our community." Who wants to wager that if the guy had a beard and went to mosque recently, and the girl started wearing a head scarf, that dickless McKay would have been talking about the dangers of homegrown terrorism? Careful now, youll confuse Argus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) It would obviously reduce fear if people had a rational and logical way to assess dangers They do... they just choose to ignore it. Neither the people or our political leaders engage in any kind of real analysis. Its all based on emotion and fear. If you took the same methodology used by insurance adjusters to calculate how much someone should pay to insulate themselves against a certain risk, then they would charge you more to insure against a lightening strike than a terrorist attack. And theres also objective ways to assess the efficacy of our response, that gets ignored as well. Terrorism was rapidly decreasing until 2004 and our response has been so incredibly stupid and counter productive we actually turned things around. By infuriating people around the world and making them think we the GWOT is our own "jihad" against Muslims, we have been the best friends terrorists ever could have had, and our actions have been the ultimate recruiting tool. And we spent 5 trillion dollars to do it. Its the most expensive project, and largest missapropriation of resources, in the history of the human race. The ONLY reason anyone supports it, it because they are afraid, or angry, and when you are afraid or angry lashing out "feels" right. Heres what we spent 5 trillion dollars on... Africa... Asia The Middle East Afghanistan Iraq Thats data from from the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) Global Terrorism Database – part of a joint government-university program on terrorism hosted at the University of Maryland. Edited February 17, 2015 by dre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 Wow..."we" sure did spend a lot of money ! Good thing the Canadian dollar is only worth 80 cents U.S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 I'm having a hard time understanding what you mean because I don't think the system is intentionally designed and I'm not sure that political actors or "rational players" intentionally sow irrational doubts. You're probably right about "the system". And you don't think that political actors intentionally sow doubt ? You're more positive than I am, perhaps. As tough as it is for me to admit it, I honestly think Harper and his Conservatives are doing what they believe is best for the country. The problem I'm having at the moment is the discourse around "terrorism," how ill defined it is, and what the ramifications are for that. There's a wealth of literature on moral panics and folk devils. Given your knowledge of media, you might find some of it interesting looking at it through the lens of public discourse and the construction of narratives about these folk devils. I like the idea of 'folk devils'. Such a thing has a real use to leaders. The UN has tried to define terrorism, but has failed so far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poochy Posted February 18, 2015 Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 Which of the Muslim ahh criminals have not been easily linked to actual ahh terrorists? (maybe) With either their own words or through evidence found by the authorities? Some seem to believe that this is an epidemic problem, so which Muslims have been accused of terrorism without any evidence against them that relate to the definition of terrorism? I don't know, maybe someone here does, shed some light on this growing epidemic, it should be easy. Or could this just be another way of defending an ideological hypocrisy without facing up to it? Nah couldn't be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.