So, which shootings do we call terrorism?

[Spendulus]

Sorry, I forgot that you cannot process information in context. I meant to say "Why do we need mass surveillance if data suggests (the information is not conclusive) that right-wing extremists are more likely to become a threat to citizens of the United States of America?" I've provided the data to back up that claim. You read it yourself.....

Yes, I did, and I did not find it supported your claim at all.  But more interesting is the exclusion of Muslim terrorists from the so called "right wing extremists" category.  I would suggest that Muslim terrorists are the very definition of right wing extremist.  They are pure religious fundmanentalists, which is definitional on "right wing extremist."  Anyway I think the correct phrase would be "domestic right wing extremist."  But I'd still include Muslim extremists in that category - definitionally.  So why aren't they?

The only reason I can think of is to somehow put "Right wing extremist" in the conservative/Republican camp as opposed to "Left wing extremist".

This is important because I can't even agree with the premises of the question, so the question and conclusions look nonsensical.

But whatever, we're talking hypothetical scenario, right?

An easy way to discuss multiple things in a single conversation is to address each thing one at a time. OK, first let's talk about the assumptions we're making about your HS (hypothetical scenario): The majority of domestic right-wing (non-Muslim) attacks are not organized within a group, but the Muslim terrorist are more likely to be organized by religious institutions; both groups are equal in size (are they equal in casualties in your HS?); mass surveillance is the most advanced tool available, we're assuming that we can store and search through the data with high efficiency and not using that tool for anything other than the reduction of extremist attacks (which is not true in the real world, where it is used to spy on women). So, we agree with those assumptions in the HS, right?

Secondly, questions I want cleared about the HS. What is our goal? Is our effort worldwide or localized to the USA? What of our efforts abroad? Are we still torturing people in Guantanamo Bay in the HS? Are we still ordering massive collateral damage causing missile strikes? What else do we know about those two groups of extremists (we already know the Muslim extremist are more likely to be organized in group, and rightwing extremists are more likely to be "lone wolves" in the HS)?

Sure, why not go with those assumptions?  After all, Obama was the glorious solution to Bush's warlike and savage behavior, and now all the Obamaheads are wondering whether they got themselves Bush2.  I'm not saying I like or agree with it, but why not keep those assumptions....

[1714916520]

1714916520

[1714916520]

1714916520

[1714916520]

1714916520

[1714916520]

1714916520

[1714916520]

1714916520

[Snail2]

As I see it depends on the political agenda of the people who classifying a given shooting. An old example: back in the cold war days the IRA was viewed as a terrorist organization in the west, and as freedom fighters in the soviet block.

[Spendulus]

As I see it depends on the political agenda of the people who classifying a given shooting. An old example: back in the cold war days the IRA was viewed as a terrorist organization in the west, and as freedom fighters in the soviet block.

Well, we simply don't have that problem.

The only question would be whether Muslim Terrorist should be called Muslim Jihadists.  They self-identify as such, however I don't think they would mind the "Terrorist" label.

[BitcoinMagician]

Damn it, Spendulus, you took what I aid about your hypothetical scenario and acted as if I said it about reality. How about we dont make any of those assumptions in reality and stick with the FACTS!? And you keep refusing to take a few words and conclude logically towards their meaning by considering their context!

Yeah, muslim extremists have a rightwing ideology. However, the article was abut the question of whether or not "domestic, non-muslim right-wing 'terrorists' (extremists)" were a larger threat to US citizens than muslim extremists (domestic or otherwise) since the date of 9/11. That is a question without a definite answer, but the data suggests that domestic, non-muslim terrorist are a larger threat (regardless of their ideology, left or right [though I think anti-abortion, anti-government extremists have a larger kill count]).

There's also the problem of how they self-identify. Most muslim extremists that attack US citizens on US soil aren't screaming "Allahu Akbar!" as they're doing it. They don't seem to usually explicitly explain that their violence is "for the glory of islam" or whatever. We both completely agree that the Boston bomber was a muslim extremist, that what he did is wrong. He said that what he did was a response to the killing of (innocent?) muslims in the middle east. If I'm not mistaken, he stuck to that reason to the point when he was sentenced. I am not excusing terrorism, attacking innocent people is wrong, I just want to point out that the US government has killed innocent muslims and killing innocent US citizens is a completely, immoral, wrong response. Hope that keeps you from strawmanning the thing... again.

Muslim extremist come with as many self-identifiers as there are attackers, I think. We should stick to the shooter's (bomber/stabber/etc.) profile, how that shooter fits in the national status quo, and act proportionately and accordingly to the threat level.

[Snail2]

Well, we simply don't have that problem.

The only question would be whether Muslim Terrorist should be called Muslim Jihadists.  They self-identify as such, however I don't think they would mind the "Terrorist" label.

No, they shouldn't. E.g. palestinians and Hezbollah fighting for their own land and rights, but IS and other jihadists have entirely different goals and rhetoric, however the methods can be pretty much the same. 

[bojan92]

The Muslim guy is the terrorist in the cases. No matter if a Muslim was a victim he was the terrorist. That is the wrongest approach. I know many Muslims, they are the nicest people. The terrorist attacks are done by crazy Muslims people, who are not wanted by the Muslims too.

[Spendulus]

Damn it, Spendulus, you took what I aid about your hypothetical scenario and acted as if I said it about reality. How about we dont make any of those assumptions in reality and stick with the FACTS!? And you keep refusing to take a few words and conclude logically towards their meaning by considering their context!

Yeah, muslim extremists have a rightwing ideology. However, the article was abut the question of whether or not "domestic, non-muslim right-wing 'terrorists' (extremists)" were a larger threat to US citizens than muslim extremists (domestic or otherwise) since the date of 9/11. That is a question without a definite answer, but the data suggests that domestic, non-muslim terrorist are a larger threat (regardless of their ideology, left or right [though I think anti-abortion, anti-government extremists have a larger kill count]).

There's also the problem of how they self-identify. Most muslim extremists that attack US citizens on US soil aren't screaming "Allahu Akbar!" as they're doing it. They don't seem to usually explicitly explain that their violence is "for the glory of islam" or whatever. We both completely agree that the Boston bomber was a muslim extremist, that what he did is wrong. He said that what he did was a response to the killing of (innocent?) muslims in the middle east. If I'm not mistaken, he stuck to that reason to the point when he was sentenced. I am not excusing terrorism, attacking innocent people is wrong, I just want to point out that the US government has killed innocent muslims and killing innocent US citizens is a completely, immoral, wrong response. Hope that keeps you from strawmanning the thing... again.

Muslim extremist come with as many self-identifiers as there are attackers, I think. We should stick to the shooter's (bomber/stabber/etc.) profile, how that shooter fits in the national status quo, and act proportionately and accordingly to the threat level.

Oh, believe me, I did get your point about the moral equivalency of "muslim terrorists in the USA" and "USA terrorism in the Middle East."  I do not agree with it, but I understood it.  Since the question was categorizing extremist acts, I do not clearly see that it is relevant.

Do you want to give "Muslim extremists who kill innocent people in the USA" a pass from slapping the "terrorist" label if they are not Screaming Allah Akbars?  Just trying to clarify your position here.  Personally, I really do not care if they are screaming Allah Akbar, or bitching about the Palestinians, the Great Satan, to me the only exception to "terrorist" might be if they were acting against an operational military group and were wearing a uniform of an opposing group.

[BitcoinMagician]

Oh, believe me, I did get your point about the moral equivalency of "muslim terrorists in the USA" and "USA terrorism in the Middle East."  I do not agree with it, but I understood it.  Since the question was categorizing extremist acts, I do not clearly see that it is relevant.

Do you want to give "Muslim extremists who kill innocent people in the USA" a pass from slapping the "terrorist" label if they are not Screaming Allah Akbars?  Just trying to clarify your position here.  Personally, I really do not care if they are screaming Allah Akbar, or bitching about the Palestinians, the Great Satan, to me the only exception to "terrorist" might be if they were acting against an operational military group and were wearing a uniform of an opposing group.

Am I saying that there is a moral equivalence between extremist attacks that target US citizens and sloppy dronestrikes that cause huge collateral damage? No. That idea has some merit behind it, but I don't back it up. I have been saying that those are not the way to solve that issue. Torturing people in Guantanamo Bay is not the way to tackle the issue. I have been repeatedly saying that I'm criticizing our actions, as their results are largely limited at best and counteractive to our goal at worst. If you want to debate moral equivalency, or excuses for extremist attacks on the innocent, find someone who is arguing them!

Now, I'm not saying that "terrorist" is a label that should not be applied to violence. I'm expressing that in shootings in the USA, it seems that "terrorist" is quickly applied to some, not at all to others, who have similar extremist views... just of different origin.

[Spendulus]

Oh, believe me, I did get your point about the moral equivalency of "muslim terrorists in the USA" and "USA terrorism in the Middle East."  I do not agree with it, but I understood it.  Since the question was categorizing extremist acts, I do not clearly see that it is relevant.

Do you want to give "Muslim extremists who kill innocent people in the USA" a pass from slapping the "terrorist" label if they are not Screaming Allah Akbars?  Just trying to clarify your position here.  Personally, I really do not care if they are screaming Allah Akbar, or bitching about the Palestinians, the Great Satan, to me the only exception to "terrorist" might be if they were acting against an operational military group and were wearing a uniform of an opposing group.

Am I saying that there is a moral equivalence between extremist attacks that target US citizens and sloppy dronestrikes that cause huge collateral damage? No. That idea has some merit behind it, but I don't back it up. I have been saying that those are not the way to solve that issue. Torturing people in Guantanamo Bay is not the way to tackle the issue. I have been repeatedly saying that I'm criticizing our actions, as their results are largely limited at best and counteractive to our goal at worst. If you want to debate moral equivalency, or excuses for extremist attacks on the innocent, find someone who is arguing them!

Now, I'm not saying that "terrorist" is a label that should not be applied to violence. I'm expressing that in shootings in the USA, it seems that "terrorist" is quickly applied to some, not at all to others, who have similar extremist views... just of different origin.

Maybe and maybe not.  Some mass killings are not terrorism, they are just crazy.  I guess the ones that are intended to make some sort of political point would be clearly terrorism.  And some of those are not on the Government-List.  For example, the Allah Akbar soldier of Islam at Ft. Hood, Texas.  The US government classified this sick puppy as being a perp in "Workplace Violence." 

How about that.

[popcorn1]

if that persons idea is to murder innocent people to make a statement to the masses
that is my idea of a terrorist
but also anyone who shoots another person as caused terror if you look at it that way