The semantics of Terrorism vs the Lone Gunman.

This forum is for non aviation related topics, political debate, random thoughts, and everything else that just doesn't seem to fit in the normal forums. ALL FORUM RULES STILL APPLY.

Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako

Locked
User avatar
Icebound
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 740
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2005 1:39 pm

The semantics of Terrorism vs the Lone Gunman.

Post by Icebound »

..

An interesting perspective by an Australian-born "lawyer, academic and Rock Musician"


http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2808618.html


"Already you can see the rhetorical slide. What began as an unambiguous act of terrorism is slowly becoming the work of a "lone gunman"."


...
---------- ADS -----------
 
azimuthaviation
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1409
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 9:34 pm

Re: The semantics of Terrorism vs the Lone Gunman.

Post by azimuthaviation »

The word "terrorist" is reserved for certain races, not the tactic or action. This has been clear for some people for a while, others are a little slower to catch on, much to their own detriment.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Expat
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2383
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 3:58 am
Location: Central Asia

Re: The semantics of Terrorism vs the Lone Gunman.

Post by Expat »

+1
---------- ADS -----------
 
Success in life is when the cognac that you drink is older than the women you drink it with.
azimuthaviation
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1409
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 9:34 pm

Re: The semantics of Terrorism vs the Lone Gunman.

Post by azimuthaviation »

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plu ... _blog.html
American anti-Islam bloggers aren’t to blame for the Norway Massacre. But their response to the attacks is nonetheless revealing, in that they are now demanding the kind of nuanced analysis of the Norway shootings that they’ve always failed to offer when implicating jihadism or all Muslims for terror attacks.

As the news of terrorist attacks in Oslo broke on Friday, the conservative media were quick to place the blame on al Qaeda even though the details weren’t fully known. Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin wote that the attacks were “a sobering reminder for those who think it’s too expensive to wage a war against jihadists.”

At first, it wasn’t unreasonable to reach that conclusion. Given the way the attacks unfolded — multiple targets being hit within a short time period — it was reasonable to assume that Islamic extremists were responsible, rather than anti-Muslim extremist Anders Behring Breivik.

When the truth became known, Rubin, like many others on the right, tried to downplay the right-wing anti-Muslim ideology driving the alleged shooter. She was suddenly far more generic in how she described Breivik’s motive, referring to it as “undiluted evil.”

What’s notable about the response by conservatives to the attack is that their primary worry was that the anti-Islam cause might be tarnished. Bruce Bawer, writing in the Wall Street Journal, was beside himself that “this murderous madman has become the poster boy for the criticism of Islam.” He then casts Breivik’s concerns, if not his actions, as defensible, describing “the way he moves from a legitimate concern about genuine problems to an unspeakably evil `solution.’”

It would be hard to imagine a conservative showing such empathy for Hamas, concluding that while terrorism is evil, they are nevertheless acting out of legitimate concerns about Palestinian suffering. What’s pathetic is not so much their reasoning, but the knowledge that their arguments would be the same in substance, if more enthusiastic, had Muslim extremists been responsible.

The most telling reaction was from the anti-Muslim bloggers Breivik cited by name in his manifesto.


Pamela Geller, who along with Professional Islamophobe Robert Spencer has been active in opposing the construction of mosques in the U.S., wrote: “This is just a sinister attempt to tar all anti-jihadists with responsibility for this man’s heinous actions.” Spencer, for his part, wrote: “as if killing a lot of children aids the defense against the global jihad and Islamic supremacism, or has anything remotely to do with anything we have ever advocated.”

Most of Geller and Spencer’s blogging consists of attempts to tar all Muslims with the responsibility for terrorism. At CPAC last year, Geller and Spencer drew a large crowd for their documentary referring to the proposed community center near Ground Zero as “the second wave of the 9/11 attacks.” Yet they’re now pleading for the world not to do what they’ve spent their careers doing — assigning collective blame for an act of terror through guilt-by-association. What’s clear is that they understand that the principle of collective responsibility is a monstrous wrong in the abstract, or at least when it’s applied to them. They are now begging for the kind of tolerance and understanding they cheerfully refuse to grant to American Muslims.

These bloggers are not directly responsible for the actions of Anders Behring Breivik. But make no mistake: Their school of analysis, which puts the blame on all Muslims for acts of terrorism perpetrated by Islamic extremists, has been fully discredited — by their own reaction to the Oslo attacks. While it’s obvious that few if any of them will take this lesson to heart, the rest of us should — terrorist acts are committed by individuals, and it is those individuals who should be held responsible
---------- ADS -----------
 
niss
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6745
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 8:54 pm
Location: I'm a CPL trapped in a PPL's Body.
Contact:

Re: The semantics of Terrorism vs the Lone Gunman.

Post by niss »

I imagine the Tea Party would lend their support should he try to run for POTUS, something tells me they wouldn't care about his birth certificate.

Absolute tragedy, and proves that militant extremism isn't tied specifically to Islam.
---------- ADS -----------
 
She’s built like a Steakhouse, but she handles like a Bistro.

Let's kick the tires, and light the fires.... SHIT! FIRE! EMERGENCY CHECKLIST!
grimey
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2979
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: somewhere drunk

Re: The semantics of Terrorism vs the Lone Gunman.

Post by grimey »

I agree with the guy with respect to what happened in Norway, that was clearly a terrorist act. Jared Loughner wasn't a terrorist though, he was just a completely deranged psychopath. The fact that he directed his insanity towards a politician is simply a coincidence, he could easily have targeted some member of the media, or his next door neighbour.
---------- ADS -----------
 
no sig because apparently quoting people in context is offensive to them.
User avatar
Nark
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2967
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 6:59 pm
Location: LA

Re: The semantics of Terrorism vs the Lone Gunman.

Post by Nark »

Azimuth,
azimuthaviation wrote:The word "terrorist" is reserved for certain races, not the tactic or action. This has been clear for some people for a while, others are a little slower to catch on, much to their own detriment.
You are a moron.

I'm quite sure there are many thousands in Ireland that would disagree with you, also a few in Oklahoma. I'm also willing to bet a few in Scandinavia too.

Since you seem to have no idea about the subject, what "race" is the ETA, RAF, and Baadar-Meinhof groups?

What about the LTTE, FARC, Abu Sayyaf?

Expat,
I thought you were smarter that than...


Niss,

No educated person has ever said that extremism is tied solely to Islam.
Just because you can blog about a subject, doesn't make you an expert by any means.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
Semper Fidelis
“De inimico non loquaris male, sed cogites"-
Do not wish death for your enemy, plan it.
niss
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6745
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 8:54 pm
Location: I'm a CPL trapped in a PPL's Body.
Contact:

Re: The semantics of Terrorism vs the Lone Gunman.

Post by niss »

Nark wrote:
Niss,

No educated person has ever said that extremism is tied solely to Islam.
Just because you can blog about a subject, doesn't make you an expert by any means.
Actually, a few times on this forum a direct link was made between Islam & terrorism by certain posters.
---------- ADS -----------
 
She’s built like a Steakhouse, but she handles like a Bistro.

Let's kick the tires, and light the fires.... SHIT! FIRE! EMERGENCY CHECKLIST!
azimuthaviation
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1409
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 9:34 pm

Re: The semantics of Terrorism vs the Lone Gunman.

Post by azimuthaviation »

Well for the next 72 hours when people talk about airport security, ground zero mosque, immigration, afghanistan, religion etc we wont hear "I cant remember the last time a White Christian blew up a car bomb downtown/shot at a group of kids to further their political beliefs..." But Im pretty sure in a week the terrorist mold will not be broken, small minds dont have the capactity for a very long memory.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Nark
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2967
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 6:59 pm
Location: LA

Re: The semantics of Terrorism vs the Lone Gunman.

Post by Nark »

niss wrote:
Nark wrote:
Niss,

No educated person has ever said that extremism is tied solely to Islam.
Just because you can blog about a subject, doesn't make you an expert by any means.
Actually, a few times on this forum a direct link was made between Islam & terrorism by certain posters.

There is a massive link between Islam and Terrorism, however it is not synonymous.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
Semper Fidelis
“De inimico non loquaris male, sed cogites"-
Do not wish death for your enemy, plan it.
Locked

Return to “The Water Cooler”