why does america lose its head over terror, but ignore its daily gun deaths?

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Apr 22, 2013 3:46 pm

a question many of us have been asking for a long time.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/21/boston-marathon-bombs-us-gun-law

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Apr 22, 2013 3:47 pm

related question -- why is boston terrorism, but not sandy hook, aurora, tucson and columbine. i'd like to add milwaukee to that. in fact milwaukee strongly qualifies as terrorism.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/22/boston-marathon-terrorism-aurora-sandy-hook

by Hellsangel Mon Apr 22, 2013 3:57 pm

What were the motives in Boston? And what were the motives in the other places you mentioned? What were the motives of the perpetrators of 9/11?

Sure, you can give me the usual spiel about 'that is for a court of a law to decide'.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Apr 22, 2013 3:58 pm

hate and the desire to terrorize people were the motives in all of these cases.

by Hellsangel Mon Apr 22, 2013 4:02 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:hate and the desire to terrorize people were the motives in all of these cases.

Perhaps you love to blindly ignore the fact that in the Boston case that the people they wanted to terrorize were terrorized for no other reason than that they were considered citizens of this country. Maybe you did not read about the carjacking episode.

Anyway, we both know where this is going with your shrill gun-control rants.

by Idéfix Mon Apr 22, 2013 4:03 pm

What WERE the motives in Boston? To antagonize Americans on behalf of the Chechen people? To kill some infidels? To get America to withdraw from Chechen lands it does not occupy? To make Americans aware of the plight of Chechens in Russia? To scare Americans into supporting Chechen independence? I hope you have a direct line to the minds of the brothers, because most people don't know what the actual motives were.

by Hellsangel Mon Apr 22, 2013 4:05 pm

Idéfix wrote:What WERE the motives in Boston? To antagonize Americans on behalf of the Chechen people? To kill some infidels? To get America to withdraw from Chechen lands it does not occupy? To make Americans aware of the plight of Chechens in Russia? To scare Americans into supporting Chechen independence? I hope you have a direct line to the minds of the brothers, because most people don't know what the actual motives were.

Yes. Those poor bleeding-heart liberals.

by Idéfix Mon Apr 22, 2013 4:06 pm

You seem to think you know. Why don't you tell us and why.

by Hellsangel Mon Apr 22, 2013 4:08 pm

Idéfix wrote:You seem to think you know. Why don't you tell us and why.

Please continue to act naive.

by Rishi Mon Apr 22, 2013 4:09 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:a question many of us have been asking for a long time.

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/21/boston-marathon-bombs-us-gun-law

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/21/boston-marathon-bombs-us-gun-law[/quote[/url]]

For some inexplicable reason, I find the rape of the 5 year old in Delhi horrifying than the death of a 5 year old due to gun violence.

by Idéfix Mon Apr 22, 2013 4:12 pm

I honestly don't know why they did it. The options I have all seem plausible to me. There may be other plausible motives too. So now what do you think the true motive was, and how do you know that for sure?

by Hellsangel Mon Apr 22, 2013 4:14 pm

Idéfix wrote:I honestly don't know why they did it. The options I have all seem plausible to me. There may be other plausible motives too. So now what do you think the true motive was, and how do you know that for sure?

Sure. They did not like the layout of MIT and wanted to protest that.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Apr 22, 2013 4:18 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:hate and the desire to terrorize people were the motives in all of these cases.

Perhaps you love to blindly ignore the fact that in the Boston case that the people they wanted to terrorize were terrorized for no other reason than that they were considered citizens of this country. Maybe you did not read about the carjacking episode.

Anyway, we both know where this is going with your shrill gun-control rants.

the milwaukee shooter did what he did for no other reason than the people who worshipped at the gurudwara wore turbans and looked like muslims to him. why is that not terrorism?

and let's not forget one of the boston bombers, the one who is alive, is an american citizen. in principle this is no different from any of the shootings on my list. all the perpetrators were american citizens. same with the dc snipers.

by Petrichor Mon Apr 22, 2013 4:20 pm

if legal or illegal aliens carry out bombings, murder more than 2 individuals on US soil, it is terrorism.

if US citizens( that are wacko), carry out mass killings then depending on if the guns were purchased legally, then it is a mental health issue. if the guns were illegal, guvment should hand out assault rifles to all citizens 5 and older.

protect the homeland at all costs!

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Apr 22, 2013 4:21 pm

Muezzin-Bar'chu wrote:if legal or illegal aliens carry out bombings, murder more than 2 individuals on US soil, it is terrorism.

if US citizens( that are wacko), carry out mass killings then depending on if the guns were purchased legally, then it is a mental health issue. if the guns were illegal, guvment should hand out assault rifles to all citizens 5 and older.

protect the homeland at all costs!

please read my comment above. dzhokar tsarnaev is an american citizen.

p.s: i know you were being saracastic.

by Petrichor Mon Apr 22, 2013 4:24 pm

Muezzin-Bar'chu wrote:if legal or illegal aliens or first gen immigrants carry out bombings, murder more than 2 individuals on US soil, it is terrorism.

if US citizens( that are wacko), carry out mass killings then depending on if the guns were purchased legally, then it is a mental health issue. if the guns were illegal, guvment should hand out assault rifles to all citizens 5 and older.

protect the homeland at all costs!

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Apr 22, 2013 4:26 pm

Muezzin-Bar'chu wrote:
Muezzin-Bar'chu wrote:if legal or illegal aliens or first gen immigrants carry out bombings, murder more than 2 individuals on US soil, it is terrorism.

if US citizens( that are wacko), carry out mass killings then depending on if the guns were purchased legally, then it is a mental health issue. if the guns were illegal, guvment should hand out assault rifles to all citizens 5 and older.

protect the homeland at all costs!

what about this guy?

by Hellsangel Mon Apr 22, 2013 6:04 pm

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005

Definitions
There is no single, universally accepted,
definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal
Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons
or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian
population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or
social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

The FBI further
describes terrorism as either domestic or international, depending on
the origin, base, and objectives of the terrorist organization. For the
purpose of this report, the FBI will use the following definitions:

Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use,
or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based
and operating entirely within the United States or Puerto Rico without
foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or
coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in
furtherance of political or social objectives.
International terrorism involves violent
acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the
criminal laws of the United States or any state, or that would be a
criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United
States or any state. These acts appear to be intended to intimidate or
coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of a government by
assassination or kidnapping. International terrorist acts occur outside
the United States or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means
by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to
coerce or intimidate, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate
or seek asylum.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Apr 22, 2013 6:17 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
There is no single, universally accepted,
definition of terrorism.

so just make it up as we go? that's what i thought. they should probably reclassify all the KKK scumbags and the david duke types as terrorists.

by Hellsangel Mon Apr 22, 2013 6:18 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
There is no single, universally accepted,
definition of terrorism.

so just make it up as we go? that's what i thought.

Sorry, Il Professore, that it does not fit neatly into your lofty Liberal thoughts.

PS: I am sure Al Qaeda does not consider themselves terrorists but as martyrs for a cause. And Hizb-Ul-Mujahideen, Hamas et al see themselves as freedom fighters.

by Sandee2020 Mon Apr 22, 2013 6:25 pm

Terrors acts are carried out by the mentally ill, be it Sandy Hook or 9/11 and others.

by Guest Mon Apr 22, 2013 6:28 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:related question -- why is boston terrorism, but not sandy hook, aurora, tucson and columbine. i'd like to add milwaukee to that. in fact milwaukee strongly qualifies as terrorism.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/22/boston-marathon-terrorism-aurora-sandy-hook

1. The boston guys didn't shoot ppl like the other guys did. They left quietly after they left their backpacks with bombs to kill people.

2. The other guys were not indoctrinated/influenced by other terrorist organisations. They acted on their own due to their own issues. There was no ideology or religion influencing them. The ideology or religion influenced violence is more dangerous than some nutjob going on a shooting spree.

by Nila Mon Apr 22, 2013 6:45 pm

If only India acted like America in handling terrorism...they don't want some third world country influencing their ppl given that they have gun issues to deal with. Especially the terrors give nothing economically. Guns are a profitable industry mamu.

by Idéfix Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:04 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:I honestly don't know why they did it. The options I have all seem plausible to me. There may be other plausible motives too. So now what do you think the true motive was, and how do you know that for sure?

Sure. They did not like the layout of MIT and wanted to protest that.

Well, you are insinuating that you know their motives for sure. I don't, and I am not pretending ignorance. I have a suspicion you are pretending knowledge, and now I am at a computer instead of a phone, so I can format the question better for you and call your bluff.

Which of these do you think was the motive of the Boston bombers?

a. To antagonize Americans on behalf of the Chechen people
b. To kill some infidels
c. To get America to withdraw from Chechen lands it does not occupy
d. To make Americans aware of the plight of Chechens in Russia
e. To intimidate Americans into supporting Chechen independence
f. To protests the layout of MIT
g. To intimidate coerce the US government into changing its policy regarding Chechnya
h. To acquire asylum for themselves in America, Russia, or another country

Feel free to add others to the list. Now, which of the above is the motive? And how can you be sure that what you chose, not the others, is the real motive? Did the brothers send you a list of political demands that they neglected to share with CNN?

by Idéfix Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:12 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
There is no single, universally accepted,
definition of terrorism.

so just make it up as we go? that's what i thought. they should probably reclassify all the KKK scumbags and the david duke types as terrorists.

It is interesting that the FBI opens its definition with the statement that there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism.

The Milwaukee gurdwara attack certainly fits the FBI's definition. The attack on the political event of a Democratic Congresswoman in Arizona also fits the FBI's definition of terrorism.

by truthbetold Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:23 pm

Is fbi saying gurdwara incident not á terror incident?
Fbi concluded their investigation that the killer acted alone and the killings wete a hate crime. This incident was listed as an act of domestic terror on many websites.
Check wm johnston's list of terror incidents.
Incidents were classified as terror, criminal acts, hate crime etc.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:24 pm

Idéfix wrote:
The Milwaukee gurdwara attack certainly fits the FBI's definition.

yes not classifying that as terrorism makes the US govt sound very hypocritical.

here is the fbi's final word on the gurudwara shooting.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:29 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:I honestly don't know why they did it. The options I have all seem plausible to me. There may be other plausible motives too. So now what do you think the true motive was, and how do you know that for sure?

Sure. They did not like the layout of MIT and wanted to protest that.
Well, you are insinuating that you know their motives for sure. I don't, and I am not pretending ignorance. I have a suspicion you are pretending knowledge, and now I am at a computer instead of a phone, so I can format the question better for you and call your bluff.

Which of these do you think was the motive of the Boston bombers?

a. To antagonize Americans on behalf of the Chechen people
b. To kill some infidels
c. To get America to withdraw from Chechen lands it does not occupy
d. To make Americans aware of the plight of Chechens in Russia
e. To intimidate Americans into supporting Chechen independence
f. To protests the layout of MIT
g. To intimidate coerce the US government into changing its policy regarding Chechnya
h. To acquire asylum for themselves in America, Russia, or another country

Feel free to add others to the list. Now, which of the above is the motive? And how can you be sure that what you chose, not the others, is the real motive? Did the brothers send you a list of political demands that they neglected to share with CNN?

As a Fakular leader you will never have the open-mind to admit to this real reason:

To fight for iSlam and Koran and fight the great Satan as brainwashed by his koranic mother, and reap the 72 virgins in the heavens as promised by Koran.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:31 pm

truthbetold wrote:Is fbi saying gurdwara incident not á terror incident?
Fbi concluded their investigation that the killer acted alone and the killings wete a hate crime. This incident was listed as an act of domestic terror on many websites.
Check wm johnston's list of terror incidents.
Incidents were classified as terror, criminal acts, hate crime etc.

FBI must have mistaken the Sikhs for Talibans... Razz

after all it is well know that Pentagon bigwigs were confused how 'Yellow Sea" could cause problems for India and Pakistan up in the mountainous Kashmir.

by truthbetold Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:39 pm

Since ha is busy to respond to you let me expose my foolishness by suggesting a motive.
There is some story doing rounds in media suggesting tamarlane lost an acquaintance in recent years. This loss of life may have triggered a switch. But no one has any further details. So let us park this theory for future exploration.

The motive in my opinion is that causing great harm to american citizens is a form of revenge. The need for revenge may have been from perceived aggression by great satan usa against islam and its traditions. In his radicalized mind us culture, us role in conflicts in his native land or other islamic countries is against the will of allah. So fighting against such enemy makes one more loved by allah.

by Idéfix Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:42 pm

MS and TBT, I summarized both the motives you propose under "kill some infidels," item b.

Now, MS, how can you be certain that that was their motive, not any of the others I listed (or the one TBT added to the list)?

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:49 pm

hey saami -- is it possible for you to not put that imbecilic and incongruous smilie in a post involving death and destruction?

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:51 pm

there are a couple of boston area neuroscience profs who have proposed examining the older guy's brains carefully. he underwent very sudden personality changes. this sort of thing is apparently often associated with taking blows to the head and concussions. this guy was a boxer, so it is not inconceivable.

by truthbetold Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:52 pm

Ide,
in a logical mind that reasoning posted above sounds absolute nonsense but in a radicalized mind it may make perfect sense.
In addition, incidents involving him or his close acquaintences may contribute to sense alienation and increase for revenge. Another story doing rounds is his mothers arrest for shoplifting. His own citizenship was delayed due to a domestic voilence record.

Are these sufficient reasons for him to act? For most people there are not reasons to become violent but tamsrlane is not most people. He is radicalized muslim.

Your turn.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:54 pm

http://www.boston.com/sports/marathon/2013/04/20/researchers-urge-special-brain-autopsy-bombing-suspect/UoZExTff0K4olSTyIV5WGL/story.html

by truthbetold Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:58 pm

Ide,
Question: how do you know what ms suggested was wrong?

by Idéfix Mon Apr 22, 2013 9:06 pm

truthbetold wrote:Your turn.

I think there is something different from Al Qaeda or LTTE-style terrorism at work here. It is more than likely that the brothers were influenced or inspired by Islam and the hate of the west propagated by radical Islamists. But I see these bombers as more like Jared Loughner -- the crazy guy who shot Gabrielle Giffords -- than like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or Mohammed Atta. Like Loughner, this guy needs to be punished for his crimes. But like in Loughner's case, we don't know the true motive behind the act because the perpetrators have not clearly articulated one. All of us can guess at a motive, but my guess is as good as yours or HA's. Contrast this with 9/11: the motives were clearly expressed by the mastermind of the attack.

by Idéfix Mon Apr 22, 2013 9:07 pm

truthbetold wrote:Ide,
Question: how do you know what ms suggested was wrong?

I don't. I am trying to find out what rationale MS can offer for jumping to the conclusion in favor of one motive, when several plausible ones exist, and the perpetrators have not spoken about their motives.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Apr 22, 2013 9:10 pm

Idéfix wrote:
I am trying to find out what rationale MS can offer for jumping to the conclusion in favor of one motive....

as one very habitually keen observer on this forum observed before, he belongs to the M team. that is sufficient motive for the under-the tree- (un)enlightened one.

by truthbetold Mon Apr 22, 2013 9:48 pm

Ide,
We are all looking for more information. If one calls ms's opinion unenlightened, another person could easily label jared louhgner suggestion equally ludicrous. End of discussion.

Tamarlane is no shaikh md but the philosophy behind the actions drives all of them in the same direction, indiscriminate violence against innocent people. I would be surprised if this guy has a dramatically different reason for his actions. Unknowns are the triggering events but rest is likely to follow pattern.

by Hellsangel Mon Apr 22, 2013 10:36 pm

This is another discussion that will go nowhere. The liberal apologists will want to turn a blind eye to the 600 lbs gorilla also known as Islamic terrorism. Wild horses won't drag them away from that position.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Mon Apr 22, 2013 10:42 pm

Idéfix wrote:MS and TBT, I summarized both the motives you propose under "kill some infidels," item b.

Now, MS, how can you be certain that that was their motive, not any of the others I listed (or the one TBT added to the list)?

Wait.. I am always certain...Just that others take time to find proof for what I already stated.

until you prove otherwise, it is the theory, proof and everything rolled in.

What can I say....I am so so right that I am ashamed to be so perfect

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Apr 22, 2013 11:05 pm

Hellsangel wrote:This is another discussion that will go nowhere. The liberal apologists will want to turn a blind eye to the 600 lbs gorilla also known as Islamic terrorism. Wild horses won't drag them away from that position.

you have never heard me criticize the motivations for going to afghanistan. there are a lot of things that went wrong later in afghanistan, but i have never questioned the original reasons for sending troops.

by Idéfix Mon Apr 22, 2013 11:18 pm

Hellsangel wrote:This is another discussion that will go nowhere. The liberal apologists will want to turn a blind eye to the 600 lbs gorilla also known as Islamic terrorism. Wild horses won't drag them away from that position.

I think it is you who has reached a position that you don't even want to articulate, and are unwilling to be dragged away from it. Labels are cheap, but won't get you very far in understanding what is going on.

https://such.forumotion.com/t12582-why-does-america-lose-its-head-over-terror-but-ignore-its-daily-gun-deaths#97303

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Mon Apr 22, 2013 11:30 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:http://www.boston.com/sports/marathon/2013/04/20/researchers-urge-special-brain-autopsy-bombing-suspect/UoZExTff0K4olSTyIV5WGL/story.html

yeah rite...anyone's brain can be dissected and come up with a frikkin DSM -IV code, and thus provide the defense lawyers with a insanity tool.

Tell me why would anyone who is NOT insane kill anyone. So, just by killing, a killer proves he is insane....

No need for any neuroscience profs.....to say something COULD have gone wrong in anyone's brain. if nothing they could attribute the change to once having fallen from a tricycle.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Mon Apr 22, 2013 11:33 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:hey saami -- is it possible for you to not put that imbecilic and incongruous smilie in a post involving death and destruction?

Is there a ban on that or some constitutional amendment to that effect?

I have heard Muslims are supposed to laugh and be happy (at least not cry) when someone dies. So what is wrong if someone laughs at the moronic Koranist being caught killing people for religion?

by Merlot Daruwala Tue Apr 23, 2013 12:51 am

Hellsangel wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:hate and the desire to terrorize people were the motives in all of these cases.

Perhaps you love to blindly ignore the fact that in the Boston case that the people they wanted to terrorize were terrorized for no other reason than that they were considered citizens of this country. Maybe you did not read about the carjacking episode.

Anyway, we both know where this is going with your shrill gun-control rants.

Speculating on the motivation to terrorize is IMO splitting hairs and completely irrelevant. Terror is terror. Going all Uppili over just one brand of terror while doing absolutely nothing to prevent the other brands is plain silly.

I'm not trying to deflect from your point about Islam and terror here - it is absolutely true that there is something about that religion, with its fetish around martyrdom, that inspires more terrorist acts globally than any other religion. But when you take a view on terror in the homeland, you should not let that get colored by distant events. The fact is is that after 9/11, more American blood has been shed in the homeland by domestic and very much Christian, very much Caucasian terrorists than by Islamists.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Tue Apr 23, 2013 12:56 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:hate and the desire to terrorize people were the motives in all of these cases.

Perhaps you love to blindly ignore the fact that in the Boston case that the people they wanted to terrorize were terrorized for no other reason than that they were considered citizens of this country. Maybe you did not read about the carjacking episode.

Anyway, we both know where this is going with your shrill gun-control rants.

Speculating on the motivation to terrorize is IMO splitting hairs and completely irrelevant. Terror is terror. ~~Going all Uppili over just one brand of terror while doing absolutely nothing to prevent the other brands is plain silly.~~

I'm not trying to deflect from your point about Islam and terror here - it is absolutely true that there is something about that religion, with its fetish around martyrdom, that inspires more terrorist acts globally than any other religion. But when you take a view on terror in the homeland, you should not let that get colored by distant events. The fact is is that after 9/11, more American blood has been shed in the homeland by domestic and very much Christian, very much Caucasian terrorists than by Islamists.

Irrelevant to the current situation and focus (on Boston Bombing).

by Merlot Daruwala Tue Apr 23, 2013 1:07 am

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:hate and the desire to terrorize people were the motives in all of these cases.

Perhaps you love to blindly ignore the fact that in the Boston case that the people they wanted to terrorize were terrorized for no other reason than that they were considered citizens of this country. Maybe you did not read about the carjacking episode.

Anyway, we both know where this is going with your shrill gun-control rants.

Speculating on the motivation to terrorize is IMO splitting hairs and completely irrelevant. Terror is terror. ~~Going all Uppili over just one brand of terror while doing absolutely nothing to prevent the other brands is plain silly.~~

I'm not trying to deflect from your point about Islam and terror here - it is absolutely true that there is something about that religion, with its fetish around martyrdom, that inspires more terrorist acts globally than any other religion. But when you take a view on terror in the homeland, you should not let that get colored by distant events. The fact is is that after 9/11, more American blood has been shed in the homeland by domestic and very much Christian, very much Caucasian terrorists than by Islamists.

Irrelevant to the current situation and focus (on Boston Bombing).

Unkil, I understand everything other than your anxieties about Muslims is irrelevant to you, so feel free to keep obsessing over safeguarding your virtue post 8pm. OP's question is probably too complex for you to understand anyway.

by bw Tue Apr 23, 2013 1:32 am

all you people are so heartless.

guns are victims too.

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/02/must_see_morning_clip_john_oliver_learns_that_guns_are_victims_too/

by Sponsored content