BREAKING: Shooting at a Wisconsin temple, 20+ shot, 4 dead, kids being held hostage?

This is an act of terrorism.

From wiki: Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).

An abiding characteristic is the indiscriminate use of violence against noncombatants for the purpose of gaining publicity for a group, cause, or individual.

Without even knowing the full details of what has happened, the facts that we are aware of very easily show that this was an act of terrorism.


"Police see Sikh shooting as "domestic terrorist" incident

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/05/us-usa-wisconsin-shooting-terrorism-idUSBRE8740PG20120805

 

Strange coincidence of headlines:

Guilty Plea Expected in Tucson Shooting Rampage
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/06/us/guilty-plea-expected-in-tucson-shooting-rampage.html

The decision by Mr. Loughner to plead guilty came after psychiatric evaluations found him competent to stand trial in a case in which prosecutors most likely would have argued for a death sentence if he was convicted.

I always assume that these are acts of insanity. Isn't it insane just to do it at all?

Then again I have no problem with the death penalty for the criminally insane. At some point a body forfeits the right to exist and be a danger to other people.

 

Maybe, because they aren't quite as large as those other groups.

 

Gee, I don't know. I think someone who would be willing to fly a plane into a building or anyone who would mastermind a plan to fly a plane into a building would have a better stake at an insanity plea, but I don't think most Americans would agree with that. So why is it that we are always believing that these [predominantly white] shooters are simply "insane"?

Hmmmm... I wonder, I wonder...

 

I didn't actually say that, way to twist my words sweetie, but the descriptions that some of people in the church gave ... they said it was a white male with 9/11 tattoo and he was bald.

Originally (responded to another poster who identified them as Muslims), I just said it was Sikh temple (and obviously not Muslims), and assailants were identified as white by some of accounts of the people in the church (who we've come to find out maybe only one person, who is probably not Muslim).

 

Some might argue that religious zealots have crossed a line past rational.

It must take some psychopathic degree to be able to not value the people you are killing and not feel the pain you are inflicting.

So I think, yes they are insane, but I approve Jack Baur'n they ass anyway.... with due process.

 

Quick question: remember that African-American guy who was sniping people off with his son in D.C. how was he labeled by the media? Anyone remember? Was he labeled as insane or a terrorist or something else?

 

He was Muslim. So terrorist.

 

Well how about this. Do you feel that a Muslim who straps on a bomb belt and detonates in a busy marketplace killing tens of people is "past rational"? Do you feel that a white man who walks armed into a Sikh temple and shoots 20+ people is "criminally insane"?

I think that that would be a totally unfair distinction to make. The former distinction still allows the perpetrator to be convicted with the full force of the law (after all, he's only past rational) and the latter then falls back on his "insanity" to deflect blame.

They're either both "criminally insane" or they are both simply and utterly terrorists. I lean towards terrorists.

 

I think a large part of people's desire to label these shooters as "insane" is because they cannot come to terms with the fact that regular people with shades of rationality could actually be driven to commit acts that most would consider to be outright "evil". The same goes for people like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc, and anyone under them. "They simply must've been crazy! There's no way someone sane could ever authorize/command/perpetrate those kinds of atrocities!"

In reality, I think that the rational human is capable of a lot more evil than we give ourselves credit for. Stop making excuses for these curs and toss them in the supermax and get it done with. The minute you start saying these shooters are insane, the minute you have to start looking at those terrorists (or at least the ones who are actually terrorists) in Gitmo with the same attitude, or else you're essentially starting a race war/culture war.

 

Malvo said a lot of crazy ****, but a lot of the crazy **** he said had to do with their desire to do jihad-related stuff. For whatever that's worth.

 

Can we stop the whole "Oh he's got mental issues thing."?

I mean no **** Sherlocke....but they did just kill innocent people with lives unlived ahead of them. Who the **** are you to judge that they should die?

IMO these types of killers should be hanged and quartered...in public. That's what they wanted anyway right? Attention?

 

As a percentage of the world's population, they could conceivably all be insane. It's just what % you draw the line at. (Mine is real big)
But (above) the Tuscon court found Loughner sane for trial. I assume that is going to be the precedent.

So, are they suicidal? They know they are walking into their deaths.

Maybe we need a War On Mental Illness.

 

Sure, simply by uttering Jihad related stuff he does automatically latch himself onto the Islamist train-of-thought, or at least one would think so, but what about people like the recent Batman shooter? They also have manifestos. They also have rhetoric. They also have ideologies. Just because someone's rhetoric doesn't align to a pre-existing movement means that they can hide under the guise of insanity? That hardly seems fair at all. I think it's as clear as day that this country is willing to damn people when they align to something alien/foreign, but the minute it's a domestic, the murmurings of "he must've been insane!" start to surface.

McVeigh was portrayed as some crazed lunatic by the media, when he himself was highly intelligent and time and time again took full, sober credit for what he had done and believed. Even when Breivik had done what he did, the "insane" talk commenced. Again, he denied it, he knew what he was doing and he knew damn well what he believed in. Kaczynski as well denied insanity though his lawyers were trying to shoot for that angle. He even had his own manifesto to boot. Because these men are Caucasians in a first-world nation, it simply must be some mental defect as far as society is concerned; after all, what could drive someone to such savagery?

The pattern is there for all to see, yet people still claim that these people are crazy. Well, if they're crazy then Malvo is crazy too. If they're crazy than bin Laden/Zawahiri must be crazy too. If they're crazy then Khalid Sheikh Muhammad must be crazy too. If they're crazy then Muhammad Omar must be crazy too. Yet the minute an American gets their hands on any of the aforementioned, well, all the "insanity" talk will most assuredly go straight out of the window.

 

Great post.

You brought up alot of good points:

1. Lone individual shooter/murderer vs. State-sponsored mass murderers. I believe the latter is alot scarier, because it is endorse by the state and even the status quo of a given country. It's scary how much people are complicity during genocidal regimes, both within and outside of countries. Even when it comes to World War II, I don't even think Holocaust near one of the main reasons for the US and other Allied Powers to go to war with Nazi Germany until personal stakes were involved.

2. People often disassociate evil from human beings in general, although people are as capable of being good as they are of being evil. Moreover, one does not have to be insane to commit an evil act. Any person is susceptible to it, just consult any Holy religious book or text. Every human is partial to transgressions to where sin/corruption does lead to evil, not necessarily insanity. There are many insane and psychotic people in the world who aren't or have even thought about killing anyone.

3. I agree with the culture/race war developing from the characterization of shooters. I sometimes have problem characterizing every shooter as a "loner"/"socially inept"/"INSANE." Because, shooters or murderers come wide range of backgrounds, persuasions, and upbringings. Most loners are not psychotic and deranged killers, or necessarily inept socially. Just as, most socially inept people aren't necessarily insane or have longing for punish humanity (misanthropic). Moreover, not all insane and even psychotic people don't necessarily possess homicidal tendencies.

 

They have a dude on CNN and he keeps saying we are not muslim. He must really think lowly of muslims.

 

I didn't interpret it that way, because he also discussed how individuals target Muslims irrationally, but don't really have a way of identifying someone who is Muslim/Islamic. Though, they might perceive the thick beards and turbans and associate such a person as a Muslim.

 

Or maybe it's not the first time he's had to explain that he isn't. Most of america are uneducated when it comes to vast cultural religions. They see a brown man with foreign accent and think, "Muslim".

 

Or anyone speaking Spanish "wetback"

 

So he was insinuating that the bald white man meant to attack Muslims but got mixed up?