<BREAKING> Active Shooter in San Bernardino, California

The problem is that hundreds of millions of followers of mainstream Islam hold many of the same beliefs at this point, e.g. killing of apostates, gays, subjugation of women and other aspects of Sharia law. This is the fertile ground on which the more violent followers of the ideology operate. You cannot say that it is only a tiny group that has nothing to do with the rest of Islam. When you analyze the Pew polls and other opinion polls, you will find that there is "connected tissue" with regard to these beliefs between mainstream Islam and the fundamentalist extremists.

It would be inaccurate to paint it as just a tiny group that has nothing to do with the rest of Islam.

 

I know this has been discussed before but this is the kind of vitriol that makes so many people sick.

 

Good to see that tweet is what makes people sick rather than people who buy ar 15s and use them whenever they get upset and we stand by and do absolutely zero because freedom

 

So, for those of you who were quick to adopt the view that Robert Dear committed an act of terrorism in Colorado Springs, surely you will say this was an act of terror.

Right? And if not, on what basis do you justify jumping to that conclusion on the first incident, and refraining from doing so on this incident, especially in light of how much more we already know about these people and their planning for this event in San Bernadino?

 

Anytime anybody takes a gun and starts indiscriminately killing people - which now happens with depressing frequency in this country - is an act of terrorism

The fact that you and a segment of the population need me to tell you this is yet another depressing sign and probably contributes to its frequency.

 

Obviously, the FBI and the international security community have a more narrow and specific view. So the fact that they apparently need you to instruct them on this must be even more depressing to you, especially since they are more likely to laugh in your face than take instructions from you on this or any other topic.

So, then. What is terrorism?

This does not have to be the final word on this, as dictionary writers get it wrong sometimes too, but here is the Merriam Webster's definition

Terrorism: the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

That appears to be correct to me. I was not one of the people that prematurely ejaculated on the Robert Dear killings and I will not do so here either. I don't think we can say for certain if either of these acts were motivated by a political goal, like the 9/11 attacks clearly were.

However, in this case it appears more likely than the first one, because of the planning that was involved and because of some of the history of the personal information we now have on the suspects, their beliefs and their recent activities. We have so much less to go on in the Colorado Springs killings.

Nevertheless, many of you were quick to assign motives and considered the Colorado Springs incident an act of terrorism (not using Sam Fisher's silly definition of the term), so surely you do in the San Bernadino incident also, right?

 

You didn't ask the "FBI and the international security community" - you addressed your question to

I count myself among those, and yes I do think this and every other mass shooting is a per se act of terror, as you suggest.

Not sure why this has set off a mini-b****fit of yours; don't ask the question if you don't like the answer, which is odd because it's the answer you wanted

Anyway THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS to the victims because freedom.

 

I have no problem with calling terrorism for what it really is. When a person attacks a random group of people, its terrorism, regardless of the intention.

What I dont like is the loose definition of what law enforcement can get away with when it comes to terrorism.

 

This was a terrorist act. We still don't know the motivation. It could have been a Jihadist type of action, it could have been because he was the victim of work place bullying, or anything other insane reasons the lunatic came up with.

Right now, we just don't know.

 

Now the liberals are doing their other favorite activity: Christian bashing.

The mocking of "thoughts and prayers" is truly disgusting.

 

That's when they thought it was a white guy.

Now they're busy ignoring the issue or praying because of Islamophobia

Instead of ignoring the issue or praying, why don't they do something about Muslim extremism?

 

It appears that the looser definition here is yours. According to you, basically anytime two are more people are "attacked," whatever the definition of that word is in your view, that is terrorism. Having the definition of terrorism be what you say might seem "easier," but it is not really a helpful definition for any practical purpose.

So if your definition were accepted, we now need a new word for the ideologically motivated terrorism that is typically what the FBI, the international security community and most people have generally regarded terrorism as. And that word has been useful for a number of very practical reasons.

Once again, the Merriam Webster's definition of terrorism:

Terrorism: the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal.​

 

There is a good chance this is terrorism related to middle east. Saudi sucks, we should ban travelling to that country.

 

There have been 355 mass shootings this year, but lets go bomb some middle eastern country that may or may not have something to do with terrorism.

Well I guess we only have 354 mass shootings instead of 355. Mission Accomplished.

 

But we might have 356 next year, because some family that was minding their own business in the nation we bombed now hates us, and would come over and start another mass shooting.

I'm all for doing something about Islamic terrorism, but I don't want to do it the stupid way we've been doing it, because it hasn't been successful. Bombing other nations doesn't really combat terrorism in an effective manner.

That's not directed at you, because I know you weren't saying to do that. If was just tacking the part on in addition to agreeing with what you posted.

 

I see. So you aren't ready to call yesterday's shooting terrorism yet, because we have no idea the motivation behind it. We don't know whether it was a political motive or not.

Interesting. I'm ready to call it terrorism now, just like when I first heard about it.

 

That's a bit chicken and egg. As a much younger (and more conservative) man, I was definitely made to feel unwelcome in my county Republican Party as a Precinct Chairman because I wasn't sufficiently "Christian enough" which of course, made me a "liberal" because of what I'd politely call a difference of opinion on what limited government meant.

It will never, ever stop being strange being lectured about the morality contained within the Bible by people who can't read Hebrew and made to feel like I'm the one that doesn't get it.

But more to the point, people are tribal and will make irrational excuses for anyone in their in-group. It's universal, it's wired in us, but it's of no help to the progress of human society.

 

I'm just quoting the widely accepted definition of terrorism (which differs from the one SamFisher invented). It doesn't make much, if any, difference for the victims and their relatives, for them it is of course horrible and "terrorizing" either way.

 

I think anyone who kills for any reason other than self-defense is a criminal, but I would suspect the vast majority of terrorists (motivated by a political cause) believe what they're doing is an act of self-defense. Unless you are a principled pacifist (I certainly am not one) we all make exceptions (and usually not the most rational ones) to permit it.