San Bernardino shootings, today. Terrorism or not?

etky

Thu, Dec 03 2015, 11:46 am

Sadie wrote:

Yes that's true but the sheer carnage of a gun attack like this one can't be replicated with a knife. We have had many many people here who were victims of knife attacks and survived. If I had to choose I would prefer to be at the scene of a knifing than a shooting.

True.
My point was that gun control alone can't be a panacea for terrorism.
It has to be uprooted and treated at the source.
If not guns and explosives then it will be more primitive weapons like knives, scissors and screwdrivers.
A prolonged persistent rash of unceasing stabbings, in varying locations and situations of everyday life can also generate fear and instability, disrupt life, create an economic downturn,and divert precious resources and manpower from other important needs.
Low intensity, small scale terror is less sensational but if prolonged, it can have a corrosive effect and can also be very traumatic for the affected populations.

dancingqueen

Thu, Dec 03 2015, 11:49 am

etky wrote:

Seperately from the question of defining terrorism in this crime, I can't believe that anyone in the US doesn't support at least some gun control here. I am so sick of hearing about mass shootings constantly.

MagentaYenta

Thu, Dec 03 2015, 1:18 pm

IMHO mass shooting such as this are all terrorist since they invoke fear in people. Now what are the roots of this terrorist act? Politics, mental illness, religious fervor? Perhaps we should wait and see what the LE investigation reveals.

morah

Thu, Dec 03 2015, 1:28 pm

MagentaYenta wrote:

Terrorism is by definition a politically motivated act. That is the definition used by academics who study it and the DOJ deciding how to prosecute. Religion is often a driver in those politically motivated acts, but not always, nor is all religious violence necessarily political (hence the category of hate crime).

MagentaYenta

Thu, Dec 03 2015, 1:45 pm

morah wrote:

You missed the IMHO part of my post. I'm not an authority and have long since retired from academia.

sky

Thu, Dec 03 2015, 1:51 pm

CNN is claiming that he was radicalized.

Quote:

Syed Rizwan Farook -- one-half of the couple behind the San Bernardino shooting massacre -- was apparently radicalized and in touch with people being investigated by the FBI for international terrorism, law enforcement officials said Thursday.

Farook's apparent radicalization contributed to his role in the mass shooting, with his wife Tashfeen Malik, of 14 people Wednesday during a holiday party for the San Bernardino County health department, where Farook worked, sources said.

Mevater

Thu, Dec 03 2015, 1:56 pm

dancingqueen wrote:

Like drugs, whether legal or not, those who need it/want it will find it.

morah

Thu, Dec 03 2015, 1:57 pm

MagentaYenta wrote:

You missed the IMHO part of my post. I'm not an authority and have long since retired from academia.

I did notice your opinion Smile

It wouldn't count for much though in deciding how to prosecute had the shooters lived. In any event, a lot of posters here are clearly not up on the definition. We don't know yet what was behind all this. Maybe it was terrorism, maybe it wasn't. But the fact that they were religious Muslims or the fact that they killed a lot people, the fact that they were armed to the hilt, and the fact that they caused feelings of terror for all of us are just not part of the determination of whether or not this qualifies as a terror attack. It does have a very specific definition.

Mevater

Thu, Dec 03 2015, 1:58 pm

sky wrote:

CNN is claiming that he was radicalized.

Quote:

How long will it take for the US govt to call this a terrorist act? Rolling Eyes

MagentaYenta

Thu, Dec 03 2015, 2:37 pm

dancingqueen wrote:

According to news reports the guns used were purchased legally. Things like the black powder they used for the ieds and pipe bombs can also be purchased legally.

dancingqueen

Thu, Dec 03 2015, 3:05 pm

MagentaYenta wrote:

According to news reports the guns used were purchased legally. Things like the black powder they used for the ieds and pipe bombs can also be purchased legally.

Right, so wouldn't it be better if it weren't quite so easy to get those kinds of things legally in our country. Our rate of mass shootings is just out of control for a first world country.

Amarante

Thu, Dec 03 2015, 3:05 pm

I have insufficient information to form any opinion.

I don't see how shooting up a holiday party of your co workers who are employed checking for contaminated pools is the action of anyone but an insane individual. I can't think of any political organization that would target this group.

It doesn't even work as an act of symbolic terrorism as it seems more like the classic work place lunatic or kids who shoot up schools or movie theaters.

They all have their rationalizations but to me this has nothing to do with domestic terrorists.

I think his being a Muslim is a complete red herring as I think he and his wife were engaged in a folie aux deux having nothing to do with region or politics.

etky

Thu, Dec 03 2015, 3:37 pm

Amarante wrote:

In America, attacking your co-workers or classmates is indeed usually a hallmark of mental instability rather than a political statement. But if this is radical Islamist terror and the coworkers are 'infidels' working for the government of the Great Satan (the US ) then I can see the motivation, moreover while they are in the midst of celebrating a Christian holiday.

Heyaaa

Thu, Dec 03 2015, 3:40 pm

dancingqueen wrote:

Right, so wouldn't it be better if it weren't quite so easy to get those kinds of things legally in our country. Our rate of mass shootings is just out of control for a first world country.

It's a very big Country. Different attacks have happened thousands of miles from one another but they happen to be in the same country.

MagentaYenta

Thu, Dec 03 2015, 3:49 pm

dancingqueen wrote:

Right, so wouldn't it be better if it weren't quite so easy to get those kinds of things legally in our country. Our rate of mass shootings is just out of control for a first world country.

Unfortunately, here in the US the phrase gun control means just that and it doesn't take into account the myriad substances that can be legally purchased to make an IED. CA has one of the toughest gun control laws in the states and these folks bought their weapons legally.

Outlawing guns in the US is a process that requires us to modify our constitution and that's not going to happen while the NRA is a major lobbiest funded by the weapons industry.

I read a lot of regional news and news stories not in my geographic area. I read lots of news from red states and the comments on the articles. These folks resist any regulation of weapons. The also resist tightening the mental health loopholes, calling it an infringement on privacy.

worknights1313

Thu, Dec 03 2015, 5:12 pm

Most of the mass shootings in the US have taken place in locations where guns are not permitted. Gun control has nothing to do with this. If evil people want weapons, they will obtain them.

I'd much rather my fellow citizens be armed. The victims have a better chance of surviving an attack.

Rubber Ducky

Thu, Dec 03 2015, 7:21 pm

Amarante wrote:

...I don't see how shooting up a holiday party of your co workers who are employed checking for contaminated pools is the action of anyone but an insane individual. I can't think of any political organization that would target this group...

Yikes! Remember this recent quote from John Kerry?

Quote:

"There's something different about what happened from Charlie Hebdo, and I think everybody would feel that," Kerry told the group. "There was a sort of particularized focus and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of -- not a legitimacy, but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow and say, okay, they're really angry because of this and that."

Kerry went on to describe the Friday terror attacks in Paris as "indiscriminate" and unlike the Charlie Hebdo attack, not to "aggrieve one particular sense of wrong. It was to terrorize people."

Perhaps the center was chosen simply because it's a "soft target," it was right by a freeway entrance and easy to escape from, and because the male killer knew the layout of the place.

sky

Thu, Dec 03 2015, 9:01 pm

Amarante wrote:

The party was a holiday party. Celebrating a belief and religion contrary to his own. That in itself could have been a reason to target this group.

He had recently returned from Saudi Arabia. Typically you don't hear that people return from France, England, Aruba and go and shoot up a place.

What sane individual would shoot up a concert in France?

What about ISIS murdering and raping women and children and taking them as slaves? Its hard to think that any political organization would behave in such a manner.