Thoughts on the Inane Political Reaction to San Bernardino

[Loren Pechtel]

That's not actually true at the domestic level. The KKK, the Kurdistan Workers Party and the PFLP never had material support from abroad. Neither did the Tamil Tigers, for that matter.

I wouldn't really call the KKK a terrorist movement.

I don't know anything about the funding of the KWP, I'll skip that one.

PFLP--all the terrorist movements over there had Islamist funding.

Tamil Tigers--originally from India, later from extorting Tamils that had moved elsewhere.

The only problem with this theory is violent fundamentalists don't actually disguise themselves as refugees for infiltration purposes; it would take them YEARS to establish themselves in their new community well enough to actually begin planning attacks like we saw in Paris.

Some of the Paris attackers came in pretending to be refugees.

 

[maxparrish]

And note the San Bernardino shooting seems to have involved guns that aren't California-legal. Gun laws do basically nothing about smuggling in guns.

All four guns were obtained legally under current laws. (That's the problem).

Or do you mean the problem is that guns are even legal is the problem ? In their original form, they were functionally equivalent to all semi-automatic long rifles and hand-guns. Or are you proposing that all long and handguns be converted to single shot bolt actions?

Or do you mean that the problem is that the public can buy guns at all (assuming they pass a background check)?

The two handguns were legally purchased by Syed Farook from a San Diego gun shop prior to his marriage. The two assault rifles were legally purchased by a third-party from a different gun shop in California. Although California has a ban on assault weapons, these assault rifles are allowed under what they call the "button bullet loophole"...

California legislation to close the "button bullet loophole" was very recently shot down by gun-nuts and their Republican politicians. Even if passed, it would have been too late to stop these shooters, but doesn't it just make you feel all warm and fuzzy that the next wanna-be domestic terrorist can go buy one (or ten) of these assault rifles with no problem?

Since one or more of the bullet button(s) were removed, and handguns don't even have bullet buttons, why are you attacking a straw man? The modifications of magazine size and improved magazine swapping were already illegal under California law - whether or not the "loophole" exists.

Moreover "Assault rifles" are not much different than other semi-automatic rifles, the differences being irrelevant to the shooting. The absence of pistol grips, threaded barrels, bayonet mounts, etc. (some of the characteristics of such rifles) would have made no material difference in this (or other) shootings.

The fact that the third-party purchased them, were never reported stolen, yet ended up in the hands of these mass-murderers is another one of those loopholes sensible gun-control people want closed, but the NRA and gun-nuts go insane about when suggested.

There was no reason to assume they were stolen. And if the shooters stole them, it didn't make a difference to the shooters. Once more, you're attacking a straw man.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I wouldn't really call the KKK a terrorist movement.

Really? What would YOU call an organization that spent over a hundred years harassing, intimidating and murdering black people in order to impose white supremacist political hegemony over the entire region, occasionally participating in riots, massacres, arson, and finally guns and bombs to push their agenda?

Let me guess: "Civil rights activists"?

PFLP--all the terrorist movements over there had Islamist funding.

The PFLP didn't. In the first place because Islamism wasn't really a thing back then and in the second place because Islamists have a tendency not to support communists.

Tamil Tigers--originally from India, later from extorting Tamils that had moved elsewhere.

In other words, they had no "backers," only a source of income.

The only problem with this theory is violent fundamentalists don't actually disguise themselves as refugees for infiltration purposes; it would take them YEARS to establish themselves in their new community well enough to actually begin planning attacks like we saw in Paris.

Some of the Paris attackers came in pretending to be refugees.

Nope.

ONE of them had refugee status indicated on a EUROPEAN passport. All of them, however, were E.U. citizens. He may have posed as a refugee for travel purposes, but he was already LIVING in Paris prior to planning the attacks.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Since one or more of the bullet button(s) were removed, and handguns don't even have bullet buttons, why are you attacking a straw man?

That's not what "strawman" means, Max.

But to the point: because the RIFLES were purchased under the loophole (he already owned the handguns previously).

Moreover "Assault rifles" are not much different than other semi-automatic rifles, the differences being irrelevant to the shooting.

Which is one of the reasons why semi-automatic rifles should be either banned or extremely tightly regulated. California does neither.

you're attacking a straw man.

 

[laughing dog]

I wouldn't really call the KKK a terrorist movement.

Would you call them "thugs"?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Righto old boy! There ain't nothing about martyrdom in Christianity except:
View attachment 4930
The whole fucking thing. Christians and Jews both have no trouble killing infidels. They have the LRA in Ugands, the IDF in Israel, and of course a lot earlier the Zealots at Masada. It is all one big tangled mess of hatred and infidel labeling. Of course the worst of all...I have heard our political leaders tell us "You won't find an Atheist in a foxhole." A proper reply to that would be UNLESS A BUNCH OF CHRISTIANS OR MUSLIMS ARE TRYING TO KILL THEM.

And you fail to understand that terrorist movements always have backers. No backers, no terrorism.

And your reference to Masada shows your anti-semitism. The Jews weren't out to kill anyone at Masada. They were the ones being attacked!

You mean that the First Jewish Roman War had no Roman casualties and Masada had no relationship to that war?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Ya, because there's nothing in Christianity which celebrates martyring themselves for their faith.

I meant the distinction between a Christian martyr and an Islamic one. A Christian martyr is killed for holding onto the faith despite the consequences. A Muslim martyr is killed while killing (or attempting to kill) infidels.

Christian martyrs don't have 72 virgins as a prize.

I'm sure why you bring up the 72 internet forum posters, but Christians have believed in very specific awards in Heaven as well as being placed very highly.

As for the myth of peaceful Christian martyrs I bring you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Bartholomew's_Day_massacre

Many of these people were promised many rewards for killing others in the name of their religion. I might also point out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_colonization_of_the_Americas was going on at the same time also with brutal conversion of religion.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I wouldn't really call the KKK a terrorist movement.

Would you call them "thugs"?

The KKK is most definitely a terrorist organization. Anyone who thinks it isn't really needs to have their head checked.

 

[untermensche]

I wouldn't really call the KKK a terrorist movement.

It is because you also want to pretend the US government and the Israeli government are not engaged in terrorism.

You have double standards.

The way rich advanced nations conduct terrorism is not terrorism, according to your standards.

Terrorism is only the way poor oppressed people conduct terrorism.

If you drop a bomb and kill innocent civilians, according to your twisted immorality, that is not terrorism.

If you lynch innocent people only because of their race, according to your twisted immorality, that too is not terrorism.

If you blow yourself up and innocents as well, because you are oppressed, somehow to you that IS terrorism.

Ultimately, what you have to say about terrorism is so twisted and prejudiced it is worthless, even if like a broken clock you are right once in a while.

 

[fast]

If you drop a bomb and kill innocent civilians, according to your twisted immorality, that is not terrorism.

Well, it's one thing if the killing of innocent civilians is something we really want to happen, but if a few hundred are killed by a lil oops here or there and innocent civilians are not the primary target, then with the absence of any intent to instill terror in the minds of the innocent, maybe the dropping of a bomb that still kills a couple thousand or so isn't terrorism.

 

[untermensche]

If you drop a bomb and kill innocent civilians, according to your twisted immorality, that is not terrorism.

Well, it's one thing if the killing of innocent civilians is something we really want to happen, but if a few hundred are killed by a lil oops here or there and innocent civilians are not the primary target, then with the absence of any intent to instill terror in the minds of the innocent, maybe the dropping of a bomb that still kills a couple thousand or so isn't terrorism.

The bombs are dropped intentionally.

If they are dropped in an illegal and immoral endeavor then it is terrorism.

If Poland drops bombs on the invading German Army and some German civilians are killed then that is not terrorism.

We justify things done in self defense that are not justified in blatant acts of aggression.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Really? What would YOU call an organization that spent over a hundred years harassing, intimidating and murdering black people in order to impose white supremacist political hegemony over the entire region, occasionally participating in riots, massacres, arson, and finally guns and bombs to push their agenda?

Their extremists sometimes engaged in terrorism. The average KKKer at most harassed.

PFLP--all the terrorist movements over there had Islamist funding.

The PFLP didn't. In the first place because Islamism wasn't really a thing back then and in the second place because Islamists have a tendency not to support communists.

Islamists hate Jews. They'll fund whoever is fighting them.

Tamil Tigers--originally from India, later from extorting Tamils that had moved elsewhere.

In other words, they had no "backers," only a source of income.

India is not a backer?

And what I was talking about was outside funding. Narcoterrorism doesn't have a backer, either--but it does have outside funding.

The only problem with this theory is violent fundamentalists don't actually disguise themselves as refugees for infiltration purposes; it would take them YEARS to establish themselves in their new community well enough to actually begin planning attacks like we saw in Paris.

Some of the Paris attackers came in pretending to be refugees.

Nope.

ONE of them had refugee status indicated on a EUROPEAN passport. All of them, however, were E.U. citizens. He may have posed as a refugee for travel purposes, but he was already LIVING in Paris prior to planning the attacks.

Not a rebuttal--some of them are recorded as coming in as refugees. Having a EU passport doesn't change this--they were slipping in as refugees because they figured their real names were on watch lists.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Would you call them "thugs"?

The KKK is most definitely a terrorist organization. Anyone who thinks it isn't really needs to have their head checked.

There certainly are KKK terrorists.

Think of the pro-life movement. The rank and file harass, nothing more. Not terrorism. Some radicals go much farther.

I see the KKK the same way--there are terrorists within it's ranks but it's not a terrorist organization itself.

 

[fast]

Well, it's one thing if the killing of innocent civilians is something we really want to happen, but if a few hundred are killed by a lil oops here or there and innocent civilians are not the primary target, then with the absence of any intent to instill terror in the minds of the innocent, maybe the dropping of a bomb that still kills a couple thousand or so isn't terrorism.

The bombs are dropped intentionally.

If they are dropped in an illegal and immoral endeavor then it is terrorism.

If Poland drops bombs on the invading German Army and some German civilians are killed then that is not terrorism.

We justify things done in self defense that are not justified in blatant acts of aggression.

Of course they're dropped intentionally. What matters is why. If the anticipated gain is to terrify by intentionally inflicting death upon the innocent, that's one thing, but targeting enemy combatants while unfortunately and incidentally killing innocent people in the process is another thing entirely.

The condition of legality is irrelevant, but the condition of morality isn't; however, terrorism implying immorality doesn't mean immorality implies terrorism, so even if by chance the act of bombing was both illegal and immoral, then it's still not necessarily terrorism, as an act can be both wrong and not satisfy the conditions of terrorism.

 

[untermensche]

The bombs are dropped intentionally.

If they are dropped in an illegal and immoral endeavor then it is terrorism.

If Poland drops bombs on the invading German Army and some German civilians are killed then that is not terrorism.

We justify things done in self defense that are not justified in blatant acts of aggression.

Of course they're dropped intentionally. What matters is why.

No.

What matters is the legitimacy of the action.

If I am robbing a store and get spooked and shoot an innocent bystander I am not innocent because my only intention was to rob a store.

 

[fast]

Of course they're dropped intentionally. What matters is why.

No.

What matters is the legitimacy of the action.

If I am robbing a store and get spooked and shoot an innocent bystander I am not innocent because my only intention was to rob a store.

That is not the only consideration. You are not guilty of every wrong action known to man. It's only terrorism if it is.

 

[untermensche]

No.

What matters is the legitimacy of the action.

If I am robbing a store and get spooked and shoot an innocent bystander I am not innocent because my only intention was to rob a store.

That is not the only consideration. You are not guilty of every wrong action known to man. It's only terrorism if it is.

I don't say every action is terrorism.

Illegitimate violence that incites terror is terrorism.

Now we don't have to decide, basically with nothing as a guide, what is and isn't terrorism.

We have to decide what is and isn't legitimate violence.

I say unprovoked deliberate attacks are not legitimate and any violence used in them is illegitimate.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The KKK is most definitely a terrorist organization. Anyone who thinks it isn't really needs to have their head checked.

There certainly are KKK terrorists.

Think of the pro-life movement. The rank and file harass, nothing more. Not terrorism. Some radicals go much farther.

I see the KKK the same way--there are terrorists within it's ranks but it's not a terrorist organization itself.

What?! How many noted black civil rights need to be murdered before you consider them terrorists? Might as well call ISIS "non-terrorist" because only a few in the groups have carried out terror attacks.

 

[fast]

Illegitimate violence that incites terror is terrorism.

That hardly seems adequate. Suppose I concede illegitimate violence; that terror was incited is insufficient. Am I bombing to bring a reign of fear upon others, or am I bombing targets whereby subsequent fear is incidental? There is a difference between the bombs we use and the fear it brings. Trying to incite terror with the use of bombs is much closer to terrorism than using bombs that incite terror. Notice the "that." I didn't say, "to." There's not much difference between trying to incite terror with bombs and using bombs to incite terror, but there is a big difference between trying to incite terror with bombs than using bombs that incite terror. If bringing terror (to innocents) is apart of the plan, then bad (shame shame). However, if all you got is illegitimate violence that incites terror, then you just might have wrongful actions that although incited terror does not satisfy what might be properly regarded as satisfying the necessary conditions of terrorism.

We don't need an agreed upon definition. What we need is a well thought out analysis driven set of conditions. I think your proposed definition is way too broad and encompasses much more than it should.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Their extremists sometimes engaged in terrorism. The average KKKer at most harassed.

You approve the killing of Palestinians for even ASSOSCIATING with Hamas, but a Klansman isn't a terrorist because he didn't PERSONALLY bomb the 16th Street Baptist Church?

Islamists hate Jews. They'll fund whoever is fighting them.

Except for communists, whom they ALSO hate.

India is not a backer?

India ASSISTED them for five years, nearly a decade after their creation, and cut off all ties until the Tigers were finally routed 20 years later. Strictly speaking, the Tigers got less support from India than Al Qaida did from the CIA.

And what I was talking about was outside funding.

No, you were talking about backing. But go ahead and shift those goalposts as if it doesn't COMPLETELY negate your attempt to imply that the Palestinian terrorist groups are just proxies for Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Not a rebuttal--some of them are recorded as coming in as refugees...

ONE of them is recorded as CLAIMING to be a refugee on his passport, despite the fact that he was an EU citizen and had been living in Paris for years.

they were slipping in as refugees because they figured their real names were on watch lists.

... which they were, because the French police had started watching them and already suspected they were up to something.