Texas church shooting leaves many dead

[Up_Tilt_390]

I'm not sure anyone else can draw this parallel, but after these kind of mass shootings, the same people who don't want to do anything about Islamic terrorism and insist on not politicising the issue are quick to point out the need for gun control. That kind of stuff was out not a single day after Las Vegas. On the contrary, the people now insisting that the gun laws aren't the problem and don't want to do anything about them, complaining about the people politicising the issue, are often guilty of doing the same thing after, you guessed it, acts of Islamic terrorism.

The same attitude from both sides is "carry on as usual. Doing nothing eventually will do something". The United States hasn't half become a hopeless nation in recent years. The fact that Donald Trump was elected might sound awful, but then you realise that the other option was Hillary Clinton who was just going to do the same things as before which many people were tired of. Is there any hope for the so-called "land of the free and home of the brave"? I think there might be if a cultural and attitude change comes about soon, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

 

[fowler9]

Strictly speaking a terrorist usually uses violence or intimidation to achieve a political goal, and quite often these white attackers aren't found to have a political motive. How a motive can be established is another question, and how they'd expect to get the Las Vegas shooter's motive is kind of... hopeless?

Strictly speaking then the only terrorist attacks against the US have been by the likes of Timothy McVeigh. 9/11 was a religious attack, depending on how you look at it. I get your point though.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Strictly speaking then the only terrorist attacks against the US have been by the likes of Timothy McVeigh. 9/11 was a religious attack, depending on how you look at it. I get your point though.

That Oklahoma City atrocity had a death toll of 168 people. After the trial when the guilty verdict was reached, McVeigh was executed by the means of a lethal injection.

 

[fowler9]

That Oklahoma City atrocity had a death toll of 168 people. After the trial when the guilty verdict was reached, McVeigh was executed by the means of a lethal injection.

I'm talking about if it was viewed as terrorism.

 

[najaB]

... and quite often these white attackers aren't found to have a political motive.

The Charleston shooter, Dylan Roof, specifically said his intention was to start a race war in order to effect change to government policies that were threatening the survival of the White race. But he wasn't a terrorist, apparently.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

The Charleston shooter, Dylan Roof, specifically said his intention was to start a race war in order to effect change to government policies that were threatening the survival of the White race. But he wasn't a terrorist, apparently.

Whether one likes it or not, it fits the very definition...

 

[fowler9]

Whether one likes it or not, it fits the very definition...

So there is a white gunman that has a political motive along with Timothy McVeigh. Anders Breivik (Obviously not American) is another but they never get called terrorists.

 

[Harbouring]

the perpetrator in Charlottesville also not a terrorist and that bloke who murdered people in Portland Oregon shouting racist epithets...

Of course the personal profile of these crimes are similar whoever’s name they are doing it in. Isolated post adolescent men radicalised through the internet.

 

[AlterEgo]

So there is a white gunman that has a political motive along with Timothy McVeigh. Anders Breivik (Obviously not American) is another but they never get called terrorists.

McVeigh and Breivik are routinely called terrorists in the discourse I've seen.

 

[DarloRich]

Strictly speaking a terrorist usually uses violence or intimidation to achieve a political goal, and quite often these white attackers aren't found to have a political motive. How a motive can be established is another question, and how they'd expect to get the Las Vegas shooter's motive is kind of... hopeless?

I thought they were sick, mentally deranged individuals when they are American & undertake mass shootings and other definitions when they are from a foreign country............

 

[Groningen]

We have a cartoon in a newspaper where normally God is holding the 10 commandments, but in the USA it is a gun box with a gun and 10 bullets.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

It seems like America is just so use to mass shootings that it no longer do considers it an act of terrorism. Even the Orlando shooting was called a “mass shooting”. It also seems that terrorism has become more associated with bombs than than guns. The Boston bombers have been called terrorists before.

Come to think of it, mass shootings, even with the political motive, don’t seem to be classified as terrorism anymore. I don’t think you’d find many of them on a list...

 

[najaB]

Come to think of it, mass shootings, even with the political motive, don’t seem to be classified as terrorism anymore. I don’t think you’d find many of them on a list...

Paris, Mumbai and Kabul come to mind - all reported (correctly) as terrorism.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Paris, Mumbai and Kabul come to mind - all reported (correctly) as terrorism.

Was meaning to refer more to America since mass shootings are a norm there, but in this case yes. A correct report.

 

[nlogax]

It's a domestic non-conversation that's gone on as long as I remember. White US national with a truck-load of weaponry? Mentally ill. Dark-skinned and/or of a different nationality or religion? Terrorist.

However, since Trump kicked off his presidential campaign with his continued, steadfast refusal to condemn all acts in an equal manner, mainstream media has started taking notice of the language used and some have been labeling such acts as what they are - terrorism. Mind you, how acts of terror are legally defined in the US is open to interpretation. Good article here; http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/06/us/what-is-terrorism-definition-trnd/index.html

 

[Bromley boy]

I thought they were sick, mentally deranged individuals when they are American & undertake mass shootings and other definitions when they are from a foreign country............

I think that's a little unfair. The Orlando shooting is generally not referred to as a terrorist event, but as a mass shooting, although it was a terrorist act by almost any definition.

The perpetrator was American born, but was of Afghan heritage, and had sworn allegiance to Islamic state, so wouldn't be considered American by Fox News, etc.

I think the previous comment is right, mass shootings in the states are so common that this is uppermost in the mind when they are reported. The Bataclan attack and Mumbai attacks, for example also involved mass shooting, but are more commonly referred to terrorism.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The perpetrator was American born, but was of Afghan heritage, and had sworn allegiance to Islamic state, so wouldn't be considered American by Fox News, etc.

Would the word "traitor" be more apt to use noting where I have emboldened parts of the posting above? Britain had Burgess, Maclean, Philby et all who seemed to fall under that category, in a British sense.

 

[najaB]

Would the word "traitor" be more apt to use noting where I have emboldened parts of the posting above?

I believe it might. In US law, treason is defined thusly:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

I'm not sure anyone else can draw this parallel, but after these kind of mass shootings, the same people who don't want to do anything about Islamic terrorism and insist on not politicising the issue are quick to point out the need for gun control. That kind of stuff was out not a single day after Las Vegas. On the contrary, the people now insisting that the gun laws aren't the problem and don't want to do anything about them, complaining about the people politicising the issue, are often guilty of doing the same thing after, you guessed it, acts of Islamic terrorism.

I don't think anyone argues against trying to stop Islamic Terrorism. People argue against knee-jerk reactions and exploiting the case to push through tenuously connected laws that would probably have done nothing to stop the attack.

After the recent New York attack, Trump went on a massive rant against laws allowing people (ie. Muslims) to come to the country with relatives and wanted "extreme vetting", although given that the perpetrator was apparently radicalised since coming to the US, it is hard to know what they were expected to find.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

After the recent New York attack, Trump went on a massive rant against laws allowing people (ie. Muslims) to come to the country with relatives and wanted "extreme vetting", although given that the perpetrator was apparently radicalised since coming to the US, it is hard to know what they were expected to find.

Not to mention how apparently said Mosque or individual was already on the watchlist. This happens far too much not just in the US, but especially in the UK, terrorists being known to the intelligence agencies but doing nothing about it. I reckon Trump is probably wanting to exploit that for his questionable vetting laws on a questionable selection of countries. It can't be for the common reason of not wanting to be seen as intolerant, because quite frankly it's far too late for him to do that.

Never will you hear any Republicans bring up any form of gun control after Las Vegas and Texas though, because guns not being able to shoot people by themselves is a good enough reason to sign an executive order to allow mentally ill people to buy them. They've got nothing to lose with Muslims because most of them don't vote for him, but if they dare upset the NRA and other gun lobbyists, Trump's pretty much going to be saying goodbye to his presidency by the time of the next election. Little do both Trump and the NRA know that the founding fathers meant for the Second Amendment to have a well regulated militia like Switzerland and not a market of easily obtainable firearms designed to kill people to be easily obtained by trigger-happy common people untrained to use them. Not every gun owner is that irresponsible, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be any discussion.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

Not to mention how apparently said Mosque or individual was already on the watchlist. This happens far too much not just in the US, but especially in the UK, terrorists being known to the intelligence agencies but doing nothing about it. I reckon Trump is probably wanting to exploit that for his questionable vetting laws on a questionable selection of countries. It can't be for the common reason of not wanting to be seen as intolerant, because quite frankly it's far too late for him to do that.

What they don't say is that these watchlists probably contain thousands of people - people who have attended the same mosque as a radicaliser, been seen speaking to someone else on a watchlist or known to harbour more extreme views. 99% of them never do anything.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

What they don't say is that these watchlists probably contain thousands of people - people who have attended the same mosque as a radicaliser, been seen speaking to someone else on a watchlist or known to harbour more extreme views. 99% of them never do anything.

Still a bit concerning that radicalisation happens in the same certain places. Saying that, could you call it a breach of the right to Freedom of Religion to investigate and potentially do anything about it before anything happens?

 

[Tim R-T-C]

Still a bit concerning that radicalisation happens in the same certain places. Saying that, could you call it a breach of the right to Freedom of Religion to investigate and potentially do anything about it before anything happens?

Holding radical views is very much open to interpretation and of the thousands of people out there who hold radical views, only a tiny minority will actually act to commit violence based on them. Once you start locking people up for holding views, things get very oppressive.

If the US want to act on people who pose a threat with their radical views, surely they should equally keep an eye on the NRA who similarly radicalise young people with their message of gun ownership and proclaim to be in favour of 'peace'. Their actions cause myriad more deaths per year in the US that Islamic inspired terrorism.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

How much attention will the "Gun Lobby" in the USA take of any view expressed by people from outside the USA, let alone in it?

 

[Tim R-T-C]

How much attention will the "Gun Lobby" in the USA take of any view expressed by people from outside the USA, let alone in it?

None. They believe that the USA is divinely positioned as the greatest country in the world and many genuinely believe that the President is ordained by God.

So the rest of us are just lowly heathens.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Holding radical views is very much open to interpretation and of the thousands of people out there who hold radical views, only a tiny minority will actually act to commit violence based on them. Once you start locking people up for holding views, things get very oppressive.

If the US want to act on people who pose a threat with their radical views, surely they should equally keep an eye on the NRA who similarly radicalise young people with their message of gun ownership and proclaim to be in favour of 'peace'. Their actions cause myriad more deaths per year in the US that Islamic inspired terrorism.

Yeah well, as long as the Republicans are in power the NRA will never be considered a threat for radicalisation. You don't bite the hand that feeds you.

How much attention will the "Gun Lobby" in the USA take of any view expressed by people from outside the USA, let alone in it?

They will take into consideration many opinions. By many I mean all of the ones that argue what they want to hear, not what they don't want to hear...

 

[Bromley boy]

Would the word "traitor" be more apt to use noting where I have emboldened parts of the posting above? Britain had Burgess, Maclean, Philby et all who seemed to fall under that category, in a British sense.

Yes, it absolutely would*.

Apologies, my previous post was badly worded. I was responding to DarloRich’s comment that, from a US perspective, the term terrorism is only used when the perpetrator isn’t an American.

My rebuttal was that the Miami attack isn’t generally reported as a terrorist act. However the perpetrator certainly wouldn’t be considered American by most domestic measures, although he was US born.

*i can’t help but wonder, if the UK penalty for treason was still to be dragged by horse to a gallows, hanged, cut down while conscious before being disembowelled, testicles cut off and burned in front of your eyes, then your body hacked into four pieces, I doubt we would now have 1000+ Uk born Isis jihadists heading back to the UK from Syria for tea, sympathy and council flats, and future mass murder.

Sounds to me like the old ways were the good ways, in this instance. I guess that’s progress

 

[fowler9]

Yes, it absolutely would*.

Apologies, my previous post was badly worded. I was responding to DarloRich’s comment that, from a US perspective, the term terrorism is only used when the perpetrator isn’t an American.

My rebuttal was that the Miami attack isn’t generally reported as a terrorist act. However the perpetrator certainly wouldn’t be considered American by most domestic measures, although he was US born.

*i can’t help but wonder, if the UK penalty for treason was still to be dragged by horse to a gallows, hanged, cut down while conscious before being disembowelled, testicles cut off and burned in front of your eyes, then your body hacked into four pieces, I doubt we would now have 1000+ Uk born Isis jihadists heading back to the UK from Syria for tea, sympathy and council flats, and future mass murder.

Sounds to me like the old ways were the good ways, in this instance. I guess that’s progress

Can we stop drifting back to radical Islam when discussing a white non Muslim bloke with ready access to guns shooting up a Baptist Church in America.

 

[TheNewNo2]

Please delete

 

[TheNewNo2]

I'm not sure anyone else can draw this parallel, but after these kind of mass shootings, the same people who don't want to do anything about Islamic terrorism and insist on not politicising the issue are quick to point out the need for gun control.

That's not true, and it is also based on faulty assumptions.

First off, you will find few people who argue that we should do less to stop terrorism. The problem is what can we do? There was one coordinated airliner hijacking, and so cockpit security was stepped up. Someone tried to put a bomb in his underwear so now we can't take liquids on to planes. Fertiliser was being used to create explosives so we require reporting of large purchases of the stuff. There's a massive surveillance state out there which stops the big clever attacks (by and large anyway). What we're left with is people using cars and lorries as battering rams, and honestly what can you really do about that? Cars are a ubiquitous part of our life because they are useful for normal non-death-related purposes such as going to school or pretending you're still in your 20s. And as the past 15 years have taught us, going to the middle east and killing people doesn't really help matters. The fact is, to prevent terrorism we need to do less, or rather we need to stop killing innocent civilians, stop funding authoritarian regimes, try and address the root causes of terrorism which are generally legitimate grievances such as poverty and deprivation.

Now, compare with guns. Guns, like cars, are a ubiquitous part of American life. But what are they for? They're for killing and maiming. The only person who ever discovered a non-lethal use for guns was Homer Simpson when he used it to turn off the TV or get a ball off the roof. So, a deadly weapon which you not need to be trained to use (unlike a car), which generally have nothing to prevent unauthorised use (unlike a car) and which have no safety features to try and prevent accidents or harm (unlike a car). Now, what has been done to prevent the 30,000 gun deaths caused every year by guns in the US? On a national level over the past 20 years say. Well, a ban on assault weapons expired; congress made it easier for the mentally ill to buy guns, and also tried to make it easier to buy silencers. There has been some movement towards regulation at the state and local level, but that's cancelled out by other territories who made it significantly easier to acquire firearms, extended magazines and armour-piercing bullets.

That kind of stuff was out not a single day after Las Vegas.

Well given that the US is on track to average one mass shooting every single day of the year, it's kind of difficult to find a date when it's acceptable to talk about gun violence. After a tragedy is a great time to talk about political options to prevent future tragedies. The important thing is that the response not be knee-jerk, but instead be reasoned and proportional. 9/11 killed 4000 people, and because of it the world upended its security infrastructure and spent trillions invading the middle east. Now, given that that many people die in the US from guns roughly every six weeks, you wonder why we haven't done anything about that...