In reply: Profiling Terrorists and Potential Mass Murderers

In reply this post After Shooting, Dems Will Introduce Gun And Speech Control Bills | Right Wing News, and in particular, folks critical of the following comment, with whom I agree... to a point, anyway...:

"Does anyone know if he purchased his gun legally? This of course is the big question when it comes to gun control isn't it? If I buy a gun from my friend on the corner or a gun show then gun legislation is about as meaningless as a national gun registry (which doesn't exist) - or gun stores keeping paper records (which does exist). Perhaps we should look at the better solutions like profiling people more likely to start shooting in crowds. You know- white men."

I have to agree, Ezra... I was all ready to "like" that comment, until you mentioned the white men.

And yes, I did get your meaning, and agree that profiling (racial, sexual, religious, political, etc., though preferably all of 'em together, in one neat package) is a useful tool. It also can be misused, pretty easily. On the whole, though, I'm still in favor of it... We can deal with the ones who slide down that slippery slope as they tumble...

When you're looking for terrorists these days, some folks are more likely than others to be the ones you're lookin' for. When you're looking for serial killers and/or some kinds of mass murderers, folks with different demographics become the more likely perps.

The real question is, whether it'd be worth providing extra checks on some folks in some situations, in the name of preventing (or even just slowing, because nothing is 100%) terrorist acts... or for that matter, those proverbial lone gunmen, in their proverbial bell towers.
---

Posted 01/10/2011 02:02 PM

In Reply: Murder (for those who dare disagree) Is Just Alright With Him

In reply to the following quote from Leftist Blogger Equates Christine O'Donnell to Taliban Murderers

And God forgive me, but somehow I don't think I'd be bothered to see leftists in these videos. Perhaps they'd take this stuff more seriously if they took the place of folks like Daniel Pearl

I'm sorry... But did this ass just say that there would be an upside of some kind (ANY KIND?!?) to having leftists killed by being beheaded the way Daniel Pearl was, and that such a thing wouldn't bother him? Fellow citizens of the USA being horribly murdered the way terrorists do in fundamentalist countries, and he'd be ok with it? What the fuck is wrong with him, that he could hate his fellow Americans so much just for having different political beliefs than he does.? (And of course, don't miss the sick puppy of a reader who agrees with him, also at that link.) No, douchebag... Chances are slim that God will forgive that, at least until you actually are sorry for thinking/feeling that way, anyway... You can't just say it; you actually have to mean it.

In Reply: Some Muslims are Terrorists; Some Aren't. Some Muslims are Murderers; Some Aren't. Some Murder is Terrorism; Some isn't.

In reply to this post, and the following comment in particular:

Donald Douglas said...
Sorry, Dana, but gotta disagree:

"On Thursday afternoon, a radicalized Muslim US Army officer shouting "Allahu Akbar!" committed the worst act of terror on American soil since 9/11. And no one wants to call it an act of terror or associate it with Islam.

What cowards we are. Political correctness killed those patriotic Americans at Ft. Hood as surely as the Islamist gunman did. And the media treat it like a case of non-denominational shoplifting.

This was a terrorist act. When an extremist plans and executes a murderous plot against our unarmed soldiers to protest our efforts to counter Islamist fanatics, it’s an act of terror. Period."

From Ralph Peters.
---

With all respect due Ralph Peters, investigators are still determining whether the guy was an extremist, how much planning there was, and whether or not his actions had anything to do with protesting our efforts to counter Islamist fanatics. Once those facts actually are determined--and as I said, I expect they will be--it won't be jumping to conclusions to say so.

Those who said so late Thursday or early Friday, however, based primarily on his name & religious affiliation, jumped to conclusions without benefit of this later information, making folks wonder whether they were & are just bigots. (Same goes for those bigoted asses on FoxNews who floated the idea of screening American Muslims before allowing them to serve in the military. I'm all for screening out violent or objectively anti-American statements and behaviors --and perhaps if the military had, this wouldn't've happened, given all the flags Hasan seemed to've raised--but I can't support screening soldiers or anyone else based on religious affiliation, alone. In addition to islamist radicals like Hasan more'n'likely is, there are reports of far right radicals, unrepentant gang members, wife/child abusers, folks with bad psychological profiles... I doubt there's many of any of these types in the service, but as Hasan shows, sometimes it only takes one... I'm all for trying harder to weed any/as many of 'em out as possible...)
---

Posted November 7, 2009 5:40 PM AmPow blog time
---

Blog Link:
American Power: Terrorism or Tragic Shooting? More Deadly Political Correctness on Fort Hood Massacre

In Reply: "Terrorist is not defined as 'Muslim who commits or attempts to commit murder.'"

In reply to this post, and the following comment in particular:

Dana said...
To say that it is an act of terrorism carries some baggage with it: it leads people to infer -- even though it doesn't necessarily imply -- that this was part of some larger plan by our enemies.

At least so far, this looks like the action of a disgruntled soldier, very displeased with his orders, who finally went off the deep end. Maybe with more information later, that will change.
---

Interesting... I'd go further than Dana and say that the guy's understanding of his faith almost certainly played a role in his dive off that deep end -- much the same way an abortion clinic bomber's understanding of his faith plays a part in his actions -- but, because there is nothing to suggest collusion with any other person or cell, and no note, video, or manifesto claiming he did this in the name of any cause or group (any/all of which may be discovered later, changing my assessment), I'm not ready to label this a terrorist attack. Terrorist is not defined as "Muslim who commits or attempts to commit murder." (And since when is "devout" a synonym for "fundamentalist" or "radical"? Are there no devout christians anymore, and isn't being called one generally seen as a positive thing, especially by one's fellow christians? So why is it some view his being called "a devout muslim" by his brother considered a bad thing--apart from the fact that he obviously wasn't, I mean?)

Posted November 7, 2009 1:17 PM (AmPow blog time)
---
Blog Links:
American Power: Terrorism or Tragic Shooting? More Deadly Political Correctness on Fort Hood Massacre
Common Sense Political Thought