Terrorist attack in Pennsylvania!

[ThatRobGuy]

Can you elaborate as to which terrorist group (or ideological group that has a pattern of concerning behavior) this person was a part of?

I understand the point you're trying to make, which is to highlight the double-standard that some folks will demonstrate when looking at different acts of extremism, however, this was probably a poor example to use for that.

 

[Hank77]

Not a single person can explain how this is terrorism?

I think to be called 'terrorism' in the same sense that 'radical Islam' is there would have to be a motive that is political, racist, etc. in nature.

Do we know the shooter's motive in this case?

 

[Rion]

I think to be called 'terrorism' in the same sense that 'radical Islam' is there would have to be a motive that is political, racist, etc. in nature.

Do we know the shooter's motive in this case?

Supermarket massacre shooter left chilling online trail

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Do we know the shooter's motive in this case?

Other than he "didn't like the night manager", there wasn't much as far as why he chose killing as the outlet for his issues. There was some info that would indicate that there were some serious mental health issues at play. Sounds like he was suppressing some feelings of gender dysphoria as well as some depression.

 

[Hank77]

This doesn't sound like what we would consider 'terrorism.'

But surely he did terrorize these people, there is no doubt about that.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

This doesn't sound like what we would consider 'terrorism.'

But surely he did terrorize these people, there is no doubt about that.

I don't think anyone would would label this as "terrorism" in the conventional sense. Typically, cases like this have a subset of folks who like to provocatively make sure to use words like "terrorism" and "extremism" because they're attempting to prove a point. (pertaining to hypocrisy and their political opponents).

I think everyone who's not disingenuously trying to prove a point knows full well why people are more concerned about certain forms of extremism (based on patterns, ideology, and body counts) than they are about "random grocery store employees snapping".

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

Terrorism - "the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror or fear, in order to achieve a political, religious or ideological aim"

The court heard that Hasan had carefully planned his attack, training at a local firing range and researching jihad on his computer.

Hasan, an American-born Muslim, had exchanged e-mails with a leading al-Qaeda figure in which he asked whether those attacking fellow soldiers were martyrs.

....he took responsibility for the shooting and said he was a soldier who had decided to “switch sides” in what he believed was a U.S. war against Islam.

Fort Hood certainly appears to fit the definition, and therefore = terrorism

The supermarket shooter, however, appears to be a random nutter, not a terrorist, unless some further information on his motive comes to light.

 

[Ana the Ist]

#travelbannow!

Why do you think this is terrorism?

 

[Ana the Ist]

People who kill others and themselves with bombs are not terrorists? Good to know.

It's got more to do with intent than the weapons involved.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Same basis as people consider the Ft Hood massacre terrorism.

The grocery store shooter was a muslim who wanted to kill americans because of his religious/political beliefs?

 

[TLK Valentine]

It's got more to do with intent than the weapons involved.

Now that, I'll accept.

 

[TerranceL]

Not a single person can explain how this is terrorism?

The poster believes that transgendered people are terrorists I guess.

Well that an the chance to take joy at people being murdered by people who aren't muslims.

 

[Steve Petersen]

how about you explain what differs between them? What aspects are present in the Ft Hood shooting that make it terrorism but not the Pennsylvania one?

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

Terrorism: The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Origin
Late 18th century (in reference to the rule of the Jacobin faction during the the period of the French Revolution known as the Terror): from French terrorisme, from Latin terror (see terror)

What 'political aim' motivated the Pennsylvania attack?

 

[Rion]

This is why you should always wait for information, rather than use something as a "gotcha " moment. It can blow up in your face spectacularly.

 

[Rion]

I just watched some of the stuff that guy posted and holy excrement the dude was nuts.

 

[Motherofkittens]

I don't think anyone would would label this as "terrorism" in the conventional sense. Typically, cases like this have a subset of folks who like to provocatively make sure to use words like "terrorism" and "extremism" because they're attempting to prove a point. (pertaining to hypocrisy and their political opponents).

I think everyone who's not disingenuously trying to prove a point knows full well why people are more concerned about certain forms of extremism (based on patterns, ideology, and body counts) than they are about "random grocery store employees snapping".

Really, Why? You are more likely to get killed in pretty much any other way ( especially by someone snapping) than by terrorism in the USA.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Really, Why? You are more likely to get killed in pretty much any other way ( especially by someone snapping) than by terrorism in the USA.

I went into more detail on this in another thread, but large magnitude events (or as I like to call them, "high concentration events") have a deeper psychological impact on people than a bunch of small events (even if those small events add up to a larger total sum of casualties).

It's the same reason that a drunk driver causing a 15 car pile up resulting in 6 deaths has a greater impact on people (or seems "worse") than 1,000 motor vehicle deaths spread out over a longer period of time.

As far as why this incident isn't labelled "terrorism", as others have noted, the definition is "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political or ideological aims."

 

[Motherofkittens]

I went into more detail on this in another thread, but large magnitude events (or as I like to call them, "high concentration events") have a deeper psychological impact on people than a bunch of small events (even if those small events add up to a larger total sum of casualties).

It's the same reason that a drunk driver causing a 15 car pile up resulting in 6 deaths has a greater impact on people (or seems "worse") than 1,000 motor vehicle deaths spread out over a longer period of time.

As far as why this incident isn't labelled "terrorism", as others have noted, the definition is "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political or ideological aims."

Yes I suppose. I don't think this incident is terrorism but there are non Muslim terrorist attacks and a lot of the time it is not called terrorism.

 

[SolomonVII]

....

Well that an the chance to take joy at people being murdered by people who aren't muslims.

That insight is quite dark, but the shoe does fit.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Yes I suppose. I don't think this incident is terrorism but there are non Muslim terrorist attacks and a lot of the time it is not called terrorism.

That's true, but a lot of inconsistency and intellectual dishonesty going both ways on the "terrorist" discussions, and you end up with a game where both sides over-exaggerate or under-exaggerate circumstances in order to try to compensate for the inconsistencies of the other side, and it just ends up in an endless cycle.

One side is specifically trying to highlight all of the Islamic terrorist attacks to prove a point
The other side is intentionally watering down the term "terrorism" to try to compensate for that

For example, the argument we hear about the FBI statistics showing that most incidents of terrorism come from right-wing white groups. And many on the left side of the fence are quick to bring that up in discussions about Islamic terrorism, and uses that as a basis for accusing the other side of having a double-standard. The old: "well, why are you more afraid of Muslims, more incidents come from right wing groups, why aren't you more afraid of them, are you an Islamaphobe?"

The issue with that is that the term "terrorism" is used very broadly and not nearly granular enough. "Terrorism" is used for everything from spray painting a hate symbol on a church, all the way up to a mass shooting. Reasonable people can acknowledge that one event is quite a bit scarier than the other. However, in discussions about "terrorism", certain people act as if you're not equally outraged by both, you're some sort of hypocrite.

And just to preface what I'm about to say next...any of the right wing, evangelical, GOP, Christians can attest to the fact that I don't go easy on them (many of them dislike me quite a bit lol), so I'm not playing favorites here or have a bias in favor of "their side"...but with that being said, anyone being honest and consistent knows why people are more afraid of (or more sensitive about) Islamic extremism in present day compared to other forms of extremism.

Islamic extremism tends to cause more problems, tends to have a higher level of lethality, and tends to be scarier than the other forms. Now that's not broad-brushing, or being bigoted against Muslims as people, that's simply addressing a reality that reasonable people could acknowledge.

If there were 50 incidents in one month people spray-painting swastikas on churches in my city, that's not nearly as scary or impactful as one bombing in a local establishment. Even though the "official tally" is 50 to 1, your average person is still going be more afraid of bombs more than spray-paint and therefore have a more negative stigma against the latter group.

...and while it's true that folks on the right wing try to over-demonize Islam as a result of these sorts of things, it's fair to point out that the left wing often tries to paint false pictures as well when they perpetuate ideas like "only a small tiny fraction are radicalized, 99.9% are just peace loving moderates" which are demonstrably false.