Listening to the GOPers, they're all talking as if Farook's radicalization is like some alien curse

[MrScorpio]

Last edited Fri Dec 4, 2015, 09:30 AM - Edit history (1)

Some infection that has to be eradicated with a healthy dose of semantics and foreign intervention.

And the guns. Oh, the guns, those precious innocents were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. For shame... But let's leave them out of the discussion, shall we?

The problem with that narrative is that we have the constant implementation of one particular equation; radicalization plus tons of easily obtainable firearms equals mass shootings. So, does one kind of armed radical, who's hellbent on killing lots of people, really matter versus another kind? The end result is pretty much the same, right?

One armed radical, with very little regard for other people's rights and humanity pretty much acts the same as another. Ignoring these incidents as being part of the fabric of our great society and using a particular kind rhetoric against certain people that will never be used for others is nothing more than furthering one's own political agenda. An agenda, such as engendering support for bombing brown people into smithereens in some far off dirt pile, this is nothing more than disingenuous Neocon cheer leading.

And let's not forget that the NRA's checks have cleared for those who are completely unwilling to do anything about the deluge of firearms in this country. The guns themselves are both sacrosanct and innocent. As a matter of fact, some of them are saying that everyone should been armed, that there would have been so many gunshot victims had they been strapped themselves.

You know, I've never been in a gun fight before, but I would hazard a guess that a roomful of armed civilians, all shooting at each other might have created more chaos and dead bodies than the alternative. That teachers shooting over the heads of their pupils might great more carnage. That using the 2nd Amendment as a ready excuse to carry around firearms for any old reason whatsoever would create more and more scenarios where anyone can get shot for any reason under the sun.

Armed radicals shoot people, that's what they do. They really don't need any justification other than their own radicalization to do that, so cherry-picking one kind of armed, murderous, radical thug from another only demonstrates how far one will go to be intellectually dishonest.

Face the facts, this country has a sick society, where people can get radicalized at the drop of a hat and also we're a society that's infested with firearms. Mix the two and we have a recipe for carnage.

I have a theory why this country is so willing to drench itself in bloodshed. I'll have to do a little more thinking about it before I write it.

Otherwise, have a safe Friday everyone.

[ck4829]

1. They want to say radicalization is bad, and they have no problem attacking where radicals live, but

at the end of the day, radicalism will still be there.

Until people take on the following:
* Seeing the world in black and white
* Those who disagree with you aren't just wrong, but evil or not even human
* Us vs them thinking taken up to an extreme
* Utilizing confirmation bias as the way to perceive your world
* Violence as the first resort
* YOU have the one single truth and everyone else is just living a lie

There will be radicalism, bombs and guns aren't going to destroy it. But the mind just might.

[Maeve]

34. There is an old saying "Might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb"

Sometimes "for a wolf as a lamb"---if folks treat you like a guilty attacker even when you are innocent, you might just decide to become what they accuse you of being. And so it begins again...

The only true way to destroy an enemy is to make a friend of him.

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. Not what that phrase means, though

If the penalty for two offences is the same, you might as well commit the more serious one, especially if it brings more benefit.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/you-may-or-might-as-well-be-hanged-for-a-sheep-as-for-a-lamb

A sheep being larger than a lamb. It's for when you've already decided to do something against the rules (or law), and so you may as well do what gets you the greatest benefit for the same risk of being caught and punished.

I have no idea what anyone would mean if they said 'wolf' - since wolves aren't anyone's property, it wouldn't make any sense.

[Maeve]

55. That's a limited version of how it's been used in the US

But then the US and Britain have always been two contries seperated by the same language....over here, it has been used as I said, the wolf version being substituted to make the point clearer, that you're already condemned so might as well deserve it. Altho, in some minds, being Muslim is a crime already...

[treestar]

57. +1

Great list. Spot on

[MrScorpio]

79. Bingo! nt

[Snarkoleptic]

2. It's quite a toxic recipe-

One part- Squeezed Middle Class
Two parts- Meddlesome US Foreign Policy
Three parts- Fascist-Leaning Paranoid Gun Culture
Add a dash of- Any Available Choice of Invisible Sky Wizard Who Wants People to Kill

[Yorktown]

3. this country has a sick society?? Blame the victim..

this country has a sick society, where people can get radicalized at the drop of a hat

Where does this radicalization stem from? From the Muslim countries ruled by a totalitarian ideology that severely punishes anyone who criticizes Islam.

But no, that would be too easy. For you, the sick society is the one that welcomed that immigrant. And it's that society which causes radicalisation at the drop of a hat?

Gee, sure looks like the US is a bad country which fosters radicalization..

[hobbit709]

5. WTF?!

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

6. We're a country that has been at war all but 15 years of our existence.

And have, for much of the last 100 years, been screwing over Muslim countries with colonialist exploitative foreign policy, supporting oppressive dictators, arming jihadists, and extracting resources for our own enrichment.

Where do many of these terrorists come from? From Saudi Arabia, whose totalitarian leaders are close personal friends of our leaders, who exchange kisses with the Bushes. A country whose rulers we support as they grind their people into the dirt.

From other countries, whose people we murder with impunity from the air, whose governments we overthrow or attempt to overthrow, whose lands we steal to hand to those who hate them.

The US has been a 'bad country that fosters radicalism' for at least the last hundred years. We're not some sweet and innocent little victim. We're simply seeing our foreign policy chickens come home to roost.

[Yorktown]

10. Are you talking of the US or Europe? colonialist exploitative foreign policy?

What were the American colonies the past 100 years?

I would grant that the US was overbearing in South America,
but where is the US colonialism of the past 100 years in Muslim countries?

And the Iraq invasion wasn't colonialism, it was the folly of one nutter, GW, who embarked all onboard with lies about WMDs and links to 9/11.

[bullwinkle428]

14. You can begin with the U.S.'s deposition of Mossadegh in Iran in 1953,

and continue on down the line from there.

[Yorktown]

15. Not very convincing. Risk of Communism raised by Churchill.

The British government had grown increasingly distressed over Mosaddegh's policies and were especially bitter over the loss of their control of the Iranian oil industry. Repeated attempts to reach a settlement had failed, and, in October 1952, Mosaddegh declared Britain an enemy and cut all diplomatic relations.[40]

Engulfed in a variety of problems following World War II, Britain was unable to resolve the issue single-handedly and looked towards the United States to settle the matter. Initially, the USA had opposed British policies. After mediation had failed several times to bring about a settlement, American Secretary of State Dean Acheson concluded that the British were "destructive, and determined on a rule-or-ruin policy in Iran."[41]

The American position shifted in late 1952, when Dwight D. Eisenhower was elected U.S. President. In November and December, British intelligence officials suggested to American intelligence that the prime minister should be ousted. British prime minister Winston Churchill suggested to the incoming Eisenhower administration that Mossadegh, despite his open disgust with socialism, was, or would become, dependent on the pro-Soviet Tudeh Party,[42] resulting in Iran "increasingly turning towards communism" and towards the Soviet sphere at a time of high Cold War fears.

[ArtiChoke]

43. Churchill said

RED

That's your answer?

[Yorktown]

46. Is potato your favorite color?

Your question is along those lines.

[ArtiChoke]

67. Um...

you went down the path to incoherence, not I.

[Yorktown]

69. No, I just quoted wiki on the topic

If you find that incoherent, fine.

[Oneironaut]

62. No argument here, but it's too late to unring that bell.

The lunatics escaped the asylum and are everywhere now. It's not like, if the U.S. suddenly stopped meddling in the Middle East, ISIS would stop attacking us. They hate everyone who doesn't follow their version of Islam.

Sadly, now it becomes a tit-for-tat thing. The cycle of revenge never ends.

[tk2kewl]

8. .

[Yorktown]

11. ..

I was answering directly to one sentence in the OP.

if that sentence was off topic, say so to the person concerned.

[MrScorpio]

12. I have no idea what you're talking about

I think a bus has been missed here.

By the way, the point was about 350+ mass shootings in a year, many by armed radicals of different stripes. Not to mention pouring more guns on top of that fire. If that's not a sign of a sick society, I don't know what is.

I have feeling that everyone else got was I was sayings.

[Yorktown]

16. I am talking about one sentence of yours: " this country has a sick society"

It struck me the US should be blamed as one cause of the San Bernardino shootings.

[MrScorpio]

20. San Bernadino wasn't an isolated incident

The carnage was well precedented.

I'm sure that there are plenty more San Bernadinos to come. Especially since no one will lift a finger to prevent them.

[Yorktown]

21. Except that radical Islam is the same in Paris, Nigeria or San Bernardino

That's why it struck me you should invoke a 'sick USA' as a factor.

The overriding factor is radical Islam which just needs anything non islamic to ignite.

[MrScorpio]

22. Did you bother reading the entire OP?

Because I pointed out when armed radicals of any stripe mow down people for whatever reason in this country, we ought to look at the bigger picture, rather than targeting one demographic over ignoring others.

Perhaps the problem is more about the processes of radicalization themselves rather than just about Islam.

Perhaps it has to do with things that are going on in this country, where we have so many mass shootings in a given year, than any other western industrialized nation.

Perhaps radicalization and mass shooting are like one big apple pie that anyone can take a bite from.

As far as radicalized Muslim shooters, those guys are way down the totem pole versus, let's say, white guys who shoot up abortion clinics. But either way, we have dead bodies lying in our streets, right?

Hundreds of mass shootings in a year, many by armed radicals of different stripes... It's no less sicker by non-Muslims than by the few Muslims. This is an American epidemic.

[Yorktown]

24. Well, I also disagree with the rest of the post, but that's another point

I was just stunned the proposition 'the US is a sick society' should happen in a discussion about San Bernardino.

And if you refer to gun violence, the US is in the world average for homicides, but fares rather well in the overall World Happiness Index commissioned by the United Nations:

1 Switzerland 7.587 Decrease -0.233
2 Iceland 7.561 Increase 0.263
3 Denmark 7.527 Increase 0.303
4 Norway 7.522 Increase 0.054
5 Brazil 7.427 Increase 0.171
6 Finland 7.406 Increase 0.032
7 Netherlands 7.389 Decrease -0.283
8 Sweden 7.378 Increase 0.247
9 New Zealand 7.364 N/A
10 Australia 7.350 Increase 0.040
11 Israel 7.301 Increase 0.293
12 Costa Rica 7.257 Steady 0.000
13 Austria 7.221 Decrease -0.210
14 Mexico 7.144 Increase 0.410
16 United States 7.143 Increase 0.535
15 Canada 7.088 Increase 0.633
17 Luxembourg 7.082 Decrease -0.283

[Rex]

27. The guy was born and raised in America, he is an American. Why do you avoid the facts?

I am stunned at how you cherry pick what to be outraged about.

[ck4829]

29. Conditioning. "Terrorists" are set up in a way that they are supposed to be foreign, other

When they are your neighbors, your friends, all bets are off now. Nobody is safe!

We can't have that apparently, years of being told who and what a terrorist is by media, by politicians, by the experts and the 'experts'. It's just 'safer' for a lot of people apparently that a terrorist is someone who has foreign allegiances, a different skin color, has different beliefs, etc.

It results from the social construction of "terrorist".

[Yorktown]

30. Well, in a discourse, if there is an odd element sticking out, that causes reactions

More than would the absence of asperity in a completely reasonable paper or post.

[Skittles]

80. that one conveniently has all the NRA talking points

oh yes

[MrScorpio]

28. We're not living in any of those other countries

We can only speak to our own.

And to be blind to many of the general ills of this country, part of which is demonstrated by our penchant for gunning ourselves to death, is quite a short sighted thing to do.

America pretty much has always been a sick place to live in many ways, from the land that was stolen, to racism, inequality and slavery, to wars we've waged during our entire history as a country, to guns flooding the streets... We're not as happy go lucky as we delude ourselves to be.

We've got a lot of problems in this country and the utter unwillingness to do anything about most of them until it's too late.

Personally, I think the reason is that we behave like a nation of spoiled, entitled brats.

With all the treasure and luck we have in this country, we squander it and slaughter ourselves willy-nilly, not to mention the way we've slaughtered others around the world. We're the Merchants of Death, begging for global adoration and fear.

Frankly, I've been sick of this shit for decades.

[Yorktown]

31. I suppose you never stayed overseas much

I would hesitate to call the US society 'sick'

Because, if you do, you would need much stronger words for lots of other places.

[MrScorpio]

33. I lived two years in Korea and four years in Europe...

Coming back to this country, with fresher eyes after being away for so long, gave me much more of a perspective on our collective sickness than I have time to write about just now.

[Yorktown]

36. Democracies.

Besides, there are aspects in Europe which are problematic too:
- UK: why should nobility own huge swathes of land?
- Italy: 10% of the GDP is mafia-controlled
- Belgium: radicalized Moelenbeck
etc, ad lib.

Yes, the Scandinavian democracies + Switzerland have lots of plus points.
But Europe as a whole is graying and in need of an immigration which will unsettle it.

Lastly, besides Europe and the handful of Asian democracies,
I'm sure you can think of a hundred countries more sick than the US.

[MrScorpio]

38. The point being that this country is all we Americans have...

And we've been doing a piss poor job of taking care of all of ourselves, instead of just the privileged few.

I'm sure that we could have done a much better job of it if we weren't so intent on subjugating the rest of the planet with soft and hard power for the last 120 years.

[Yorktown]

41. I must disagree here too, I'm afraid

we could have done a much better job of it if we weren't so intent of subjugating the rest of the planet with soft and hard power for the last 120 years.

Yes, nobody's perfect, and the US isn't/hasn't been.

However, the US has been a rather benevolent power:
- the Marshall Plan
- the defense of western Europe vs the Soviets, ditto for South Korea
- the firm support for decolonisation
- the rather generous policy towards Japan, incl. reconstruction help
- policing international waters, USAID,

Yes, the US tried to leverage some of its power for financial gain, but no one really expects anyone to be pure angels.

All in all, far from perfect and disinterested, but not too shabby either.

[MrScorpio]

45. Frankly, I don't know how could begin to address such a level of naïveté.

It really is astounding to see so much of it at one time.

I will suggest you check out the collective works of Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Ward Churchill, Phillip Agee and John Stockwell for starters.

[Yorktown]

47. I prefer FDR, Keynes, JFK, Clinton and Obama.

These guys were Democrats (Keynes, by association),

but they did not apologize for the US actions first, regardless of what others do.

[MrScorpio]

48. I'm wondering, dude, how old are you?

It's a serious question.

[Yorktown]

49. A difference of opinion isn't a sign of immaturity

[MrScorpio]

52. Embarrassed?

Just to let you know, I'm 54. Even so, I don't profess to know everything.

Be that as it may, I know that there's always more to learn. Such as, you learn a lot more when you depend on more than just those who are in control of things to teach you about how the world works.

Another thing, never stop asking questions, even when you may not like the answers.

If you don't want to state your age, so be it. You probably have a perfectly good reason not to.

[Yorktown]

54. Well, we agree on one thing: never stop asking questions

[MrScorpio]

58. I have one last thing for you to consider...

There really is no question that American society is pretty sick. Any answer about how sick we are depends really on who you ask. The hows and whys generally lack any kind of consensus, but based on perspectives, the conclusions are pretty much acceded to.

If you were to Google "Is America Sick?," you'd get a whole host of reasons and examples from one end of the political spectrum to the other. It's all out there, only if you wish to see it for yourself.

The key thing to remember here is that you have choices. But those choices are only limited to what you can see. If you refuse to expand the scope of what you see, you'll only have nothing more than what you know.

Your portion of our entire exchange here has been just that, where you're only debating from your own limitations. Instead of asking questions to at least expand your scope, you're just making declarative statements, most of which have been debunked by myself and others.

What you need to realize here is whether or not you're being persuasive in your arguments. If you find yourself in direct contradiction with everyone else, perhaps the problem isn't with everyone else.

When I asked you how old you were, rather than telling me in a direct way that you'd rather not, you had resorted to some rhetoric about maturity, you should know that such a thing isn't going to be viewed as very mature. Your response didn't achieve your desired effect, simply because mature people tend to avoid rhetorical gamesmanship.

If you didn't want tell me how old you are, just say so. That would have been a perfectly acceptable answer.

Again, my advice to you is that you should expand your base of knowledge. Also, it's best to not chime on things when it's clear that you're missing out on any of the nuance. Lastly, it's OK not know everything, it's quite tiresome when it looks as if you're the only one digging holes in a thread trying to prove your point that no one else is accepting.

Now, if you want to expand your base of knowledge, the folks here are usually eager to help you out.

[Yorktown]

63. I disagree with many of your statements here #58

• you have not debunked any of my arguments summed up below.
• the majority opinion of the few participants on one thread is not validation
• you assume I take my opinion for infallible: not the case

Anyway, it's not the point: I was objecting to calling the US society 'sick' relative to others.
Like I already wrote, if one calls the US society sick, one will need stronger words for most of the rest of the world. Without mentioning the obvious (poor Africa, the Muslim world, India, China), I pointed out that many European democracies have severe problems (riots or car burnings, mafia, royalty, etc), with only Scandinavia and Switzerland leading the way.

Though imperfect, the US remains quite an enviable place to be for most of its citizens.
Therefore, calling it a sick society is a gross misrepresentation.

[MrScorpio]

66. You're right and everyone else is wrong... Yeah, I get that.

Ain't it always the case?

[Yorktown]

68. No, no, no, the US is sick and I am wrong

Please suggest to me a healthier society (apart of the European and Asian democracies)

I'm all ears.

[MrScorpio]

71. You're really defensive about this, aren't you?

This isn't a contest.

If you're having difficulty perceiving this country's deep seeded problems, ones where guns are awash and people are being killed all over the place and NOT understanding that this is due to something seriously wrong and sick with this country...

I don't know what else to tell you.

[Yorktown]

72. I already mentioned the US is far from perfect

All I'm saying is that 'sick' is a term which compares to a standard of 'healthy'

In that sense, calling the US 'sick' doesn't make sense.

Unless you kindly point to me 'healthy' countries besides Scandinavia and Switzerland.

[MrScorpio]

74. I also mentioned before that sick is a relative term here, only in regards to ourselves.

If you think that America's penchant for gun violence and mass murder is a sign of a 'healthy' society, then it's quite clear that you and I are both operating under two different definitions of the word.

I don't don't care about Scandinavia, we don't live there.

[Yorktown]

75. Well, if you use words as they suit you, fine.

I disagree again, but we might agree to disagree and leave it here.

[morningfog]

78. Healthier society than European and Asian democracies?

That's quite a few that you discount as healthier, as a starting point.

[A Simple Game]

35. So would we be a "sick society" if we were talking about Columbine, Littleton, Atlanta bombings,

letter bombs, anthrax letters, etc., etc. instead? How about Oklahoma City, would that do it? Just how many more incidents can we have before we become a "sick society" in your estimation? Should our lack of enthusiasm to try remedies to fix the problem be factored into the "sick" scale? Should we factor in what seems to be a need to be at war all the time too?

Happiness index, really? Trying to divert much? I bet we rank high on which Country is the "greatest" too. How about healthcare, aren't we number 1 at that too?

[Yorktown]

37. Are letter bombs, anthrax letters a frequent occurence in the US?

Do you remember the 2011 British riots? Or the rape rings there?

Cars are set on fire in France every 14th of July and 31st of December. Sick society?

The hold of the mafia on Italy. Sick society?

Not saying the US is perfect or better, it isn't. But it ain't worse either.

[A Simple Game]

70. People dying from riots and car fires are a possibility not the intent. But when

people are sent bombs and anthrax the intent isn't property damage the intent is death of the recipient. I see you fail to address the other instances.

[Yorktown]

73. I answered in #72

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7414931

[treestar]

64. Their societies may be sick too

For various reasons. But Mr S was talking about our shootings.

Paris or France doesn't have a lot of French shooters and a rash if them.

It is disturbing to have Islamic terrorists do shorting rather than suicide bombs. In the US it will be so easy for th to get guns. As it is for other American mass shooters

[Rex]

26. So the guy that tried to blow up the PP building, you just going to avoid

talking about him? Yeah, much easier to blame this all on Islam and stick your head in the sand. America does have a sick society and if you did not know that, then you might want to catch up on current events. We have white conservative domestic terrorists running around blowing up and killing innocent people...but yeah all Islam all the time.

Your attitude is part of the problem, but it is expect from narrowminded people.

[Yorktown]

32. Try to ask questions when you do not know someone and their opinions.

I posted earlier today a thread blaming religions (Islam AND Christianity) for the recent shootings.

Before calling someone names, I suggest you know first the person and what they think.

[Rex]

39. You should too, your replies to the OP make you now sound completely hypocritical.

[Yorktown]

42. I challenge you to back that word hypocritical

I took issue with one sentence. In itself, it said nothing of the rest of the text.

And I feel it was very akward to write the US is a 'sick society' in absolute terms and in context.

[KittyWampus]

44. Why do you forget the radicalized Christians in this country? Where do they come from?

I've already noticed several posts by you today that reek of anti-Muslim sentiment.

[Yorktown]

50. I can prove to you I bash equally all religions in one link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218218523

[treestar]

59. Not all shooters are Muslims

You remember Dear? That was recent. Dylan Roof? The latest happened to be a Muslim. He was born and raise in this country. He is part of this culture. He's not a terrorist from abroad. He is more of a Roof than an Atta

[LanternWaste]

60. Poverty. The genesis of radicalism, extremism and crime.

"Where does this radicalization stem from?"

Poverty. The genesis of radicalism, extremism and crime throughout human history..

(Source: Understanding Poverty; A Cognitive Approach, Ruby Payne & Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty, Daron Acemoglu)

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

4. The thing I'm notibing this morning, on Morning Joke, is the desperation to blame Obama.

The incessant praise of Clinton for calling this terrorism, (ie, not domestic terrorism, but ISIS inspired) and attacks on Obama for not wanting to say that's what it is yet.

And yet, as multiple folks have pointed out, with the weaponry and ammo they had, they could have found a nearby target to deliver a much higher bodycount. Instead, they went back to where the guy had worked for years.

I think the possibility is that this was BOTH workplace violence and terrorism. That this guy did become radicalized, but decided to take out his frustrations with the very people he'd spent years working beside, figuring that that would work just as well in terms of terrorism as any other target.

[Freddie]

7. ^^^this^^^

Sounds like this was a perfect storm of radical Islam and disgruntled employee. Just read that he was having a beef with a fellow employee (now dead) over religious issues. Most likely the wife was following custom and doing what she was told.

[MrScorpio]

9. I can dig it. nt

[Yorktown]

13. Blaming Obama is for this is pure demagoguery

Obama, as GW just after 9/11, is trying to avoid vigilante revenge on Muslims.

But Obama, just like Merkel, made a mistake -imho- in suggesting to welcome Syrian refugees.

10% of them have some degree of sympathy with ISIS (poll available). How many San Bernardinos from people that have been radicalized for so long by the Saudis?

[Buzz Clik]

18. They found 12 pipe bombs. He was planning something far worse, but he fucked up.

[Buzz Clik]

17. Cheering at the notion that "all Muslims should be registered" is radicalization.

[Buzz Clik]

25. Sweet jesus.

Please tell me you forgot the "sarcasm" tag.

[world wide wally]

19. I'm wondering who Obama could have bombed to prevent this

[Tommy2Tone]

51. I never hear the right talk radicalization when it's a white Christian killing spree.

[MrScorpio]

53. Their silence speaks volumes. nt

[treestar]

56. Very good

Kudos Mr Scorpio.

[LittleBlue]

61. That's a 180 in attitude from what you posted on Sunday

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027395488

Funny how I'm not seeing you post "radical Islam, he's yours. Own it!" So I'll say it.

Because that is precisely the problem. Not Americans, not American culture, radical Islam. And those who promote it in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are responsible.

[MrScorpio]

65. In a specific sense, you're right.

But when common themes are present, such as when any degree of either political or religious radicalization AND heavy fire power are combined to create an outcome of dead bodies, then perhaps we need to start taking a look at the bigger picture.

Is Islamic extremism a problem in this country? Of course, it is. However, it's a much smaller part that let's say Right Wing Dominionist extremism or white supremacist extremism.

Whether anyone is shot dead by any of these yahoos, they're all just as dead as if they were killed by the next guy.

[melman]

81. Exactly

The OP is nonsense.

[valerief]

76. Would Dr. Tiller be dead if not for a radicalized Christian with a gun?

Scott Roeder, 51, told the court in Wichita, Kansas, that on 30 May 2009, the day before he shot George Tiller, he had bought a .22-calibre gun and bullets and then practised target shooting with his brother. He checked into a motel in Wichita and the next day followed Tiller to the Reformation Lutheran church, where the doctor was an usher.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jan/28/scott-roeder-abortion-doctor-killer

[MrScorpio]

77. Damn Skippy! nt

[Waiting For Everyman]

82. ONE group of radicals has the caliphate angle going for them.

I guess that's insignificant. All radicals being equally dangerous, and all.

Religious leaders advocating the murder of westerners, and the violent overthrow of our governments, that's insignificant too. I just have the feeling that little things like that make Islamic terrorists kinda different.

A random mindless nut is pretty much alone. Once that nut is killed after a shooting, that's the end of the threat from that nut. But a percentage of a rather huge religious group being geared up in a very well funded death-cult to come murder us in the furtherance of their actual takeover of geographic territory, which they are increasing rather rapidly... that's a bit more of a threat in my book than the random nut. See, I have this odd idea that the organization and numbers involved in a whole death-cult MOVEMENT might be a significant difference. After one or two of this type of nuts are dead, as in this case in San Bernadino, numerous others are still coming and the threat is undiminished.

In case no one's noticed, this particular kind of Islamic nut is VIRAL, it SPREADS rather quickly and to previously seemingly unreceptive people. The mentally ill don't really have the ability to talk sane people into being mentally ill. it's TWO DIFFERENT THINGS, WHICH ARE UNEQUAL in nature, and unequal in danger to us.

A death-cult spreading virally through one of the world's largest religions, yes, that's a problem! It's a different kind of problem than has existed before, and we'd better get honest and recognize that.

At this point, ISIS is near the size and status of a nation-state. You think that's the same level of threat as a Planned Parenthood bomber, or any other sort we have?

I wonder why you're so interested in creating the false equivalency. It's a rhetorical wondering, as the answer isn't likely to acknowledge reality any more than the OP did. Besides, I think I know why.

[melman]

83. Great post

[MrScorpio]

84. Well, for one thing, the chances of Daesh establishing itself in this country…

And radicalizing a sizable portion of the US population where it has parity with the vast majority of current mass killers is nil. Also, the goal of a military response against Daesh in Iraq and Syria would have nothing to do with responding to what happened in San Bernardino. What happened in California has much more in common with the conditions that have inspired other mass shootings in this country than what's going on in the Middle East: http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/our-shared-blame-for-the-shooting-in-san-bernardino?mbid=nl_151204_Daily&CNDID=29026035&spMailingID=8317684&spUserID=NTY4MjIzMzY3MjgS1&spJobID=820502578&spReportId=ODIwNTAyNTc4S0

As a matter of fact, our efforts to prevent mass attacks by Islamic radicals in this country have been pretty effective. The President today said that the country will not be terrorized by Daesh and I think that we have significant advantages in our favor to prevent them from terrorizing us. http://news.yahoo.com/obama-insists-us-not-terrorized-hails-california-attackers-160119910.html

The problem in America, however, is that we've been terrorizing ourselves to a much greater degree than Daesh ever will.

Perhaps you're overstating the potential for Islamic terrorist attacks in this country. After all our best defense against those kind of incidents from happening has always been our own national cohesiveness and unity, not to mention the vigilance of law enforcement. More effective in protecting us than dropping our bombs on far off dirt piles, that's for sure. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/16/isis-bombs-hostage-syria-islamic-state-paris-attacks

And take a look at this map, notice anything about it?



How far is it spreading and to where? Apparently, they seem limited to destabilized regions of the Middle East. And let's not forget about who and what were responsible for destabilizing governments and societies in that part of the world where Daesh is currently filling the vacuum. I know that you're worried about Daesh establishing a nation-state in the affected regions. I'm not. There's a multinational coalition at work right now at work preventing that from happening.

So let's not ignore the 90% of mostly white, mostly anti-government, mostly right wing killers who have been inflicting carnage on American streets, shall we? Rather than focusing on outliers, I'd rather we focus on the conditions in this country that create own forms of radicalization. After all, what we do to ourselves greatly outweigh the threats from foreign sources.



So let's not be distracted the preponderance of Americans mass killing each other, shall we?

http://www.thenation.com/article/why-speculation-about-the-san-bernardino-shooters-is-a-dangerous-distraction/