Ye Greate US Mass Shooting thread

[Shiranu]

So it wasn't a terrorist attack when men in a black van pop out with assault rifles, masks and body armour and started shooting up a public event?

Way to prove, "it's only terrorism with you're brown" the rule yet again...

[Poison Tree]

This really depends on what definition of "terrorism" you use. I've heard some people define terrorism as "any act that terrorizes people"; I know some people whose driving would count as terrorism under that definition.
Merriam-Webster says " the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal". We don't know (and may never know) if Farouk was "trying to achieve a political goal".
The FBI definition includes "Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping". A bank robber could intimidates or coerces a small section of the civilian population, again we don't know if this attack satisfies (ii) or (iii).

On the one hand Farouk seems to have known/worked with these people, which seems to discount the idea that he was trying to influence policy/achieve political goals. But, as the police pointed out, having prepared bombs, stock piled weapons and gear, ect, indicates that this wasn't someone who just snapped.
It could be that he had the pipe-bombs already but was planning to blow up junk--not people--just for fun and quickly repurposed them after he snapped, but I doubt it. My suspicion is that he'd been planning to kill his coworkers for a while, but I obviously have no proof of it. It also could be that he intended this as a terrorist attack or, as long as we've opened this up to wild speculation, was planning a different terror attack but then snapped and attacked his coworkers instead.

[mauricio]

So it wasn't a terrorist attack when men in a black van pop out with assault rifles, masks and body armour and started shooting up a public event?

Way to prove, "it's only terrorism with you're brown" the rule yet again...

no, it's terrorism if they have an ideological motivation, the first scenario has no clear hint of motivational ideology so it cannot be said it was terrorism until further facts become clear, they being devout muslims and coming from islamist countries is a hint of motivational ideology due to how widespread islamic terrorism is. There's still confounding variables though like the the work relationship between perpetrator and victims. This is different from the paris attack. But no one said anything about them being brown that's just you racebaiting.

[TomFoolery]

they being devout muslims and coming from islamist countries is a hint of motivational ideology due to how widespread islamic terrorism is.

Farook was born in Chicago.

That he was an American citizen radicalized on American soil is a sad irony in light of the intense refugee hating going on in recent weeks. It's proof that if we seal our borders up as tight as North Korea, we still can't shut off the power of the Internet and freedom of association.

[Shiranu]

...the first scenario has no clear hint of motivational ideology...

How many every day shootings involve a group of three men in masks with body armour and rifles shooting up a public event?

I'll give you a hint... it's zero. Non-ideological gun violence comes in the form of shooting your spouse, shooting someone in road-rage, etc. etc. ... not a premeditated attack that involves armour, a get away vehicle.

But no one said anything about them being brown that's just you racebaiting.

The name "Farouk", went to Saudi Arabia, came back with a wife of Pakistani origin, pipe bombs at home. Meh, if t isn't a terrorist attack, I will eat my words...

Oops.

Nothing about the act made it seem remotely like terrorist attack; it's only when a person with a foreigners name (of a brown region) did it that it suddenly OBVIOUSLY was a terrorist attack. Right, not racist.

(Although more accurately, as I have said before and will say again, I think these people are predominately xenophobic rather than racist. You are the one putting that on me.)

[SilentFutility]

I agree. It isn't the guns. It's the gun culture. It's the poor state of mental healthcare. It's the lobbyists who act like any sort of paperwork required to obtain a firearm is a violation of someone's Constitutional rights. It isn't the guns. It's the way we worship guns.

There are plenty of other countries which have high gun ownership rates and low mass-shooting rates, which lends some credibility to your post.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This was workplace violence.

If your work is jihad.

Jihad to go there, didn't ya?

[FaithIsFilth]

Radicalized Muslims killing a bunch of people right as the US is trying to ramp up support for more involvement in Syria? Obama lucks out again. This couldn't have come at a better time for the US government. Now more Americans are going to support action in Syria. Great.

[mauricio]

Nothing about the act made it seem remotely like terrorist attack; it's only when a person with a foreigners name (of a brown region) did it that it suddenly OBVIOUSLY was a terrorist attack. Right, not racist.

(Although more accurately, as I have said before and will say again, I think these people are predominately xenophobic rather than racist. You are the one putting that on me.)

putting what on you ? you are clearly race baiting and you just did it again, PR is clearly hates the ideology of islam, if in a rather very dogmatic and kind of black and white way but he has not given any indication of being a racist, that's just you with your racebaiting for cheap rhetorical points.

How many every day shootings involve a group of three men in masks with body armour and rifles shooting up a public event?

I'll give you a hint... it's zero. Non-ideological gun violence comes in the form of shooting your spouse, shooting someone in road-rage, etc. etc. ... not a premeditated attack that involves armour, a get away vehicle.

Oops.

Seriously? that's a textbook argument of incredulity, so you cannot imagine an scenario where this is not ideologically motivated so therefore it must be? what the fuck. Remember Columbine? Not that hard to imagine a similar massacre that was not terrorism. I would wait for some actual direct indication that there may be ideology behind before even suggesting it maybe terrorism. That's the only honest way when everyone only seems to care about his identity to push their favorite narrative to demonize a group they don't like.

[mauricio]

Farook was born in Chicago.

That he was an American citizen radicalized on American soil is a sad irony in light of the intense refugee hating going on in recent weeks. It's proof that if we seal our borders up as tight as North Korea, we still can't shut off the power of the Internet and freedom of association.

his wife was from saudi arabia and he traveled there and brought her back with him, she is also a suspect. Though I agree with you that homegrown terrorists are a serious concern. The unregulated migration in europe is a problem on it's own right too and I do not like how this attacks get used to push narratives about it with appeals to emotion, rather than using reasonable and objective arguments, it's no different from the usage of the picture of the drowned kid to push the open borders and the bombing of syria.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

Radicalized Muslims killing a bunch of people right as the US is trying to ramp up support for more involvement in Syria? Obama lucks out again. This couldn't have come at a better time for the US government. Now more Americans are going to support action in Syria. Great.

My uncle worked as an interrogator in Afghanistan for many years, and he's pretty much convinced that the radicals want a war. They know exactly how to push our buttons, and they're doing it on purpose. They don't want Islam to co-exist with the West and East, and they know that stirring discontent will drive intolerance against Muslims, and thus radicalize more Muslims. ISIS et al know exactly what they're doing. And the sad part? It's working.

[mauricio]

There are plenty of other countries which have high gun ownership rates and low mass-shooting rates, which lends some credibility to your post.

I would wager a much more important factor is criminal and gang culture, also the escalation of violent conflict between police and criminals, not the gun rights types that like to collect weapons and hunt.

[aitm]

And the sad part? It's working.

the sad part is they think they are winning as well. They may think they are winning, but very soon, ole jim bob and bubba gonna get one too many of their own killed and you will indeed see the rise of a joint venture of the KKK and black panthers and soccer moms and bowling for dollars and people will just be gunning down people who look like muslims and it won't be long before some billionaire will get pissy as wipe out mecca. Shit be brewing that idjits think they understand that most people are understanding and liberal. That branch is a long and trusted branch, but it can be broken with little effort if the blow is in the right spot. For every muslim wanting to bring on the end of times there are ten thousands willing to end his entire bloodline, They just don't realize it yet because we are mostly a hopeful and loving people, but when the switch is thrown…well, we have seen the device they used in the inquisition….they will be considered toys...

[PopeyesPappy]

Terrorism is a tool used by a weaker opponent against a stronger one to effect political change. (IIRC the term was coined in relation to the Algerian independence movement after WWII.) The one in San Bernardino appears to be a grudge shooting. The "environmental health engineer" (aka "janitor") may have peaked his anger about something or other and went over the edge.

You're the historian so you might know better than me, but I was under the impression the term terrorist dated back to at least 19th century Russia and the Narodnaya Volya.

ETA: at least whatever the Russian word for terrorist is...

[Shiranu]

putting what on you ? you are clearly race baiting and you just did it again, PR is clearly hates the ideology of islam, if in a rather very dogmatic and kind of black and white way but he has not given any indication of being a racist, that's just you with your racebaiting for cheap rhetorical points.

Well... considering I've yet to quote PR, I think you might just be jumping the gun there.

Also, you know what would be an example of "racism" (which I have yet to accuse any one of... more correctly would be xenophobia and bigotry)? A line that said, regardless of the person's actions, the fact that they had a foreign name OBVIOUSLY confirms that they are terrorists and how could anyone think otherwise? That would be a "racist" (xenophobic) comment. One that was posted.

Let me try that with a more realistic scenario...

"The guy's name was Bobby Smith, he was from Kentucky, he met his wife in Alabama and they moved to South Dakota. If he isn't a terrorist I don't know what is."

How far do you think that would fly? Not very. Yet statistically far more likely, as the VAST majority of terrorism in the United States is committed by white hate groups. So why is that wrong to say, but when you put a Muslim name there then, "Well OBVIOUSLY that makes sense, regardless of statistics or reality!"?

Seriously? that's a textbook argument of incredulity, so you cannot imagine an scenario where this is not ideologically motivated so therefore it must be? what the fuck.

"What the fuck".

Yes... I agree... "What the fuck" are you even on about?

I'M NOT THE ONE WHO CLAIMED IT WAS TERRORISM. I am the one who said, "If it was an act of terrorism... it should be what they did that make it obvious it was terrorism... not the colour of their skin or their name.".

Again... I AM NOT THE ONE WHO CLAIMED IT WAS OBVIOUSLY TERRORISM... and I brought that situation up because that is a far better indicator of if it was terrorism or wasn't.

I would wait for some actual direct indication that there may be ideology behind before even suggesting it maybe terrorism.

And yet here we are... you are attacking me for saying the exact same thing... do you even read anything posted or do you just instantly go on the attack without having any clue about what you are talking about?

That's the only honest way when everyone only seems to care about his identity to push their favorite narrative to demonize a group they don't like.

Again... I was quoting someone who said it OBVIOUSLY HAD TO BE TERRORISM because his name was Islamic. Maybe you should get pissy with him rather than me yeah?