Philosophy Now Forum

http://blogs.channel4.com/matt-frei-on- ... error/4312

Was the Charleston shooting an 'act of terror'?

...what really “terrorised” us, and millions of Americans in the Washington area, wasn’t the thought or threat of another attack from extremists. It was the hunting spree of two black American killers, known as the Washington snipers who picked off one seemingly random target after another and ended up killing 11 people and injuring four. It lasted three weeks and it terrorised us.

We were terrified and terrorised. And yet no one was allowed to call this domestic terror, terrorism. The latter was a label reserved for Islamic extremists.

Gun violence is an epidemic in America. But every time there is a school, cinema or restaurant massacre the sale of guns and ammo increases and the debate about gun control gets drowned out. And yet this is the worst kind of terrorism that America faces these days. Guns, racism and violence are America’s most stubborn toxins. For the first time some, like Jon Stewart, the TV comedian are debating whether to call what happened in Charleston terrorism. But until the nation does, and sees it as such, very little will change and America will continue to do what it does best in these tragedies: grieve with plangent poignancy while doing little, if nothing, to solve the problem. - Matt Frei.

Includes Matt Frei interview 6.52 clip - with Erich Pratt (Gun owners of America) saying he doesn't care what it is called. The parishioners should have been carrying side-arms...countered by Bryan Stevenson (Founder,Equal Justice Initiative)
What are the implications of calling it an 'act of terror'?

'Act of terror' is another meaningless phrase, in the same category as 'war on terror. I take very little notice of mass shootings in America. In a country that is obsessed with guns, and full of morons like bobevenson who think it's an infringement of their 'freedom' because they aren't allowed to own AK47s, only an idiot would express any surprise whatsoever. That said, I suppose it would be pretty terrifying to be around someone with one of those things, let alone be the target of one.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: That said, I suppose it would be pretty terrifying to be around someone with one of those things, let alone be the target of one.

Once, a friend, who had just had her nails painted and was waiting for them to dry, asked me to rifle through her purse and get her wallet. So I picked up her purse and stuck my hand in and felt around....not feeling anything that felt like a wallet, I peeked inside. The first thing I saw was a loaded gun! WTF?!?

Really?

American's are f'n idiots sometimes!

Imagine, if you will, that that Mr Roof was black, that he was Muslim, and instead of killing nine people in a Black Church he had chosen a white church instead.

All other things being equal, what would have been the reaction?

There would have been a nationwide outcry. Instead of a judge offering Roof's relatives the status of victim and suggesting that they too needed help and protection; Roof's relatives would be in gaol, their homes ransacked, for evidence, and Roof himself would probably have been killed by the police.
The USA government would now nee looking round for yet another country to invade somewhere in the Middle East.

Mr Roof planned and executed a terrorist act with malice aforethought. The language of "fool", "misguided idiot", "stupid kid" is the language of denial and impotence.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:'Act of terror' is another meaningless phrase,.

It's not meaningless at all. The word "terror " might not be very clever or adequate, but terrorism is a recognisable action and is categories as; the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Mr Roof's aim was to initiate race war. This is a political end.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:'Act of terror' is another meaningless phrase,.

It's not meaningless at all. The word "terror " might not be very clever or adequate, but terrorism is a recognisable action and is categories as; the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Mr Roof's aim was to initiate race war. This is a political end.

Again you don't 'get' it. I didn't say there is no such thing as a terrorist, or terrorism. Bah, what's the point.

Rather than calling them "Acts of terror" they should be referred to as "Acts of stupidity".

The we could have a War on Stupidity! Wouldn't most of us welcome that!

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Imagine, if you will, that that Mr Roof was black, that he was Muslim, and instead of killing nine people in a Black Church he had chosen a white church instead.

All other things being equal, what would have been the reaction?

There would have been a nationwide outcry. Instead of a judge offering Roof's relatives the status of victim and suggesting that they too needed help and protection; Roof's relatives would be in gaol, their homes ransacked, for evidence, and Roof himself would probably have been killed by the police.
The USA government would now nee looking round for yet another country to invade somewhere in the Middle East.

Mr Roof planned and executed a terrorist act with malice aforethought. The language of "fool", "misguided idiot", "stupid kid" is the language of denial and impotence.

I imagined something similar ( except for the reaction of the US government ).
That is one of the reasons I posed the question:
'What are the implications of calling it an 'act of terror'?'

It places the act into a different category with potential to change thinking processes in the gun-control issue. Perhaps.
We are run through hoops at airports and have to watch our language/jokes in flight - all in the name of security. To do what? To go visit countries set on high alert from terrorism.

Yesterday, there were 3 attacks by IS jihadists:
1. France - a man was decapitated, his head stuck on a fence, in a terror attack on a US-owned gas plant.
2. Tunisia - at least 37 tourists killed on a beach, a hotel attacked. Weapon of choice - Kalashnikov.
3. Kuwait - 25 killed in a mosque; suicide bomber.

http://www.channel4.com/news/tunisia-ho ... ies-resort
http://www.channel4.com/news/grenoble-m ... g-at-scene
http://www.channel4.com/news/islamic-st ... ide-attack

I watched Matt Frei's report on Ch4 - where someone suggested that rather than terrorism, such acts are more like 'horrorism'. Again, what does it matter ?
What matters is that all such acts are acts of extremist violence; acts of cowardice against the unsuspecting and unprotected.
Some in America would have us all carry guns for personal security. Hell, that would only make matters worse. Bullets flying everywhere.
When all is said and done, there will always be a risk - no matter where you go. But you can't allow the crazies to change your way of life - or create more division and wars, civil or otherwise.

So, what to do - to counter terrorism; extremist views.

Is it my imagination - or is it mainly young males who are attracted/beguiled by propaganda which hits their hearts and appears to give them a sense of purpose - even acceptance.

The media now talks of young teenagers being 'groomed' to return to their roots and to be kept by IS militants, as wives and baby producers for this new 'state'. Could part of it be down to frustration - hormones ? * Remember the rewards, the goodies promised as part of the propaganda.
Virgins in paradise. No, too easy.That way we could counter by allowing teenagers their freedom to have sex with whoever, whenever...
Channel negative energy and challenge negative thoughts. Allow expression of real anger without fear of prison for being considered a terror threat.
Open debates -
Severe thinking v Severed heads.

* http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/j ... omen-syria

Be Warned of Holy Months. And Loyalty Cards.
Martyrdom Reward System - Bonus Points for Multiple Murder and Mayhem.

The devastating attacks on civilian targets in France, Tunisia and Kuwait come just days after an ISIS spokesman urged his followers to carry out attacks during the holy month of Ramadan.
'Blessed month for jihad'
Abu Mohammed al-Adani, in a message broadcast on June 23, implored "Muslims everywhere", to "take this blessed month as a chance for Jihad" and make the month "misery" for infidels. He said:
"The best acts that bring you closer to God are Jihad, so hurry it up and make sure to carry out the attacks in this holy month and be exposed to martyrdom in it."
He went on to say that the rewards for martyrs would be multiplied throughout the month.
http://www.channel4.com/news/isis-calls ... -the-world

Come on the Capitalists - where is your counter offer ?
Whatever it is, they don't want it. Only Paradise: God and a Host of 72 dark-eyed Virgins will do...

I wonder why you brought up the two black snipers in particular? You've had tons of mass shootings, most of them by white people. Why not mention some of your serial killers? Was Ted Bundy a 'terrorist'? Wouldn't you be scared to go about your normal business if someone like that was loose in your town?
I have noticed fascist yanks complaining about Obama showing empathy towards the victims of your latest mass shooting. Apparently he's not allowed to, because he doesn't talk about 'black on black crime' enough. I'm not sure what exactly he's supposed to say about it--stand up at the funeral and say 'well this isn't too bad, because black people kill other black people all the time' ?? 'I want Americans to know that I'm against blacks killing each other too'. Logic and reason doesn't seem to exist in your country at all.
Are you going to start calling every murderer a 'terrorist'? You might as well stop using the word altogether then.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I wonder why you brought up the two black snipers in particular? You've had tons of mass shootings, most of them by white people. Why not mention some of your serial killers? Was Ted Bundy a 'terrorist'? Wouldn't you be scared to go about your normal business if someone like that was loose in your town?
I have noticed fascist yanks complaining about Obama showing empathy towards the victims of your latest mass shooting. Apparently he's not allowed to, because he doesn't talk about 'black on black crime' enough. I'm not sure what exactly he's supposed to say about it--stand up at the funeral and say 'well this isn't too bad, because black people kill other black people all the time' ?? 'I want Americans to know that I'm against blacks killing each other too'. Logic and reason doesn't seem to exist in your country at all.
Are you going to start calling every murderer a 'terrorist'? You might as well stop using the word altogether then.

The first quote in the OP was written by Matt Frei (Ch4 blog). You are right - I didn't give the full picture. Here are the pre and post paragraphs:
http://blogs.channel4.com/matt-frei-on- ... error/4312

A year after 9/11 our family moved to Washington. The nation and its capital were still raw with the wounds of terror. Different coloured warnings kept the nation on high alert and nerves were highly strung about another possible attack. But what really “terrorised” us, and millions of Americans in the Washington area, wasn’t the thought or threat of another attack from extremists. It was the hunting spree of two black American killers, known as the Washington snipers who picked off one seemingly random target after another and ended up killing 11 people and injuring four. It lasted three weeks and it terrorised us...

...We were terrified and terrorised. And yet no one was allowed to call this domestic terror, terrorism. The latter was a label reserved for Islamic extremists.

Since 2001 America has been largely spared “terrorist” violence. The one exception was the Boston marathon bombing in which two Chechen brothers, who had immigrated to America, killed three and injured dozens with a pressure cooker bomb planted near the finishing line. The killing resulted in a mass manhunt which saw the greater Boston area of almost 5 million people in lock down, until one suspect was shot dead and the other captured. The attack was appalling. The response was alarming. Terror had come back to the streets of America. A few months earlier a young white man had shot dead 20 five and six year old kids and their teachers in Sandy Hook, a small town in Connecticut. The nation grieved in deep shock. But this school shooting, the worst of many, was never called an act of terrorism and therefore it was denied the seriousness and legislative response it deserved.
- Matt Frei

His point being that domestic acts of extreme violence are not called acts of terrorism. Perhaps they should be, so as to engage the legislative process.

BTW - they are not 'my' serial killers. America is not 'my' country. Your generalisations of a country and its people are unacceptable and are part of the problem.
There are clearly different degrees of violence against others, anywhere in the world. I am still reeling from the triple terrorist events of a few days ago ( see earlier post). Perhaps we should indeed call these terrorists cowardly murderous killers and hang them all from the fuckin' trees. What's in a label. Depends on their cause?

It's the people who make a country what it is. Without their people all countries are just lumps of rock. And I'm sure the country 'grieved in deep shock'. If that's not generalising I don't know what is. 'Grieving in deep shock' while lovingly oiling their gun collections. I just can't relate to anything about your country. It comes across as sick and brutish. That's hardly my fault.
Btw, 'act of terror' doesn't even mean anything. More yank butchering of the language.
Which country is the US going to attack because of this latest shooting? Oh, hang on, I think he's one of your own.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:It's the people who make a country what it is. Without their people all countries are just lumps of rock. And I'm sure the country 'grieved in deep shock'. If that's not generalising I don't know what is. 'Grieve in deep shock' while lovingly oiling their gun collections. I just can't relate to anything about your country. It comes across as sick and brutish. That's hardly my fault.

I agree. To say that a country - as a concept/a collective lump of land and lakes - or a collection of diverse people - can do or say anything is really stoopid. So why generalise about America. Why generalise about Britain: the country and its people. Why generalise about gays, atheists, Christians, Muslims? The 'people' of a country consists of a wide variety of individuals with differing values and concerns. Why generalise about non-believers and kill them for not being followers of a certain sect?

Such generalisations are at the very root of this perpetual division and hatred.

If a country and its people come across as being 'sick and brutish', you gotta ask how you reach that general conclusion. What is the evidence - have you looked under the bed, in the wardrobe, in the city or the countryside - travelled, and met with individuals and listened to them.
You seem not to listen...again, America is not my country.

Actually, the only place you need to travel to is that sensible spot in your brain. The place that tells you that making wholesale generalisations from a particular 'feeling' you have...isn't the brightest or best way to think.

marjoram_blues wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:It's the people who make a country what it is. Without their people all countries are just lumps of rock. And I'm sure the country 'grieved in deep shock'. If that's not generalising I don't know what is. 'Grieve in deep shock' while lovingly oiling their gun collections. I just can't relate to anything about your country. It comes across as sick and brutish. That's hardly my fault.

I agree. To say that a country - as a concept/a collective lump of land and lakes - or a collection of diverse people - can do or say anything is really stoopid. So why generalise about America. Why generalise about Britain: the country and its people. Why generalise about gays, atheists, Christians, Muslims? The 'people' of a country consists of a wide variety of individuals with differing values and concerns. Why generalise about non-believers and kill them for not being followers of a certain sect?

Such generalisations are at the very root of this perpetual division and hatred.

If a country and its people come across as being 'sick and brutish', you gotta ask how you reach that general conclusion. What is the evidence - have you looked under the bed, in the wardrobe, in the city or the countryside - travelled, and met with individuals and listened to them.
You seem not to listen...again, America is not my country.

Actually, the only place you need to travel to is that sensible spot in your brain. The place that tells you, you can't make wholesale generalisations from a particular 'feeling' you have...

You miss my point. And I haven't advocated killing all Americans, I just don't like them. That's not illegal yet is it? Why was Iraq attacked? Because muslims did 11/9, and all muslims are the same, right? Your friend thedoc is quite open about saying the US needs to reduce their countries to 'cinder'. The soldiers who went there were all volunteers, and they are lauded as 'heroes'. Anyone who says differently is ostracised. Do you disagree with that?

Tell me, veggie, do you ever listen?