ISIS

[Purdue97]

I think people are talking about two similar but very different problems.

1. People from European countries who leave their country to go fight for ISIS/extremists that then attempt to return home.

2. People who are radicalized online via social media, Twitter, propaganda, etc.

The terrorists in the Paris/Brussels attacks were people who themselves left the country they were from in Europe, went to fight in Syria then returned home, or were close friends of people who did. While there ARE people who left the US to do this, the US has what is regarded as a pretty good grip on who those people are. Part of the problem in Europe was the sheer quantity. The other part of it is you can make your way back to a Belgium from Syria fairly under-the-radar, especially as a citizen of a European country. You have to fly commercially to get back to the US - not under-the-radar.

That being said, our intelligence only matters so much. If Belgium lost track of one of their citizens who went to Syria and came back and then that person then flies to the US - we're also relying on other countries to be doing well with intelligence. Keep in mind - on the no fly list, there's over 80,000 people and only around 1,000 of them are Americans.

Now, onto problem #2 - that is a much harder problem to control. ISIS has done a very good job in branding itself, promoting itself, putting out propaganda, etc. It's very influential and very modern in its abilities. This is obviously much harder to track and pin down people. This is the biggest problem for the U.S. at this time.

Looking at the Orlando attack, it's hard (at least at this point) to figure the details out. He mentioned three different groups - all of which do not get along and are actually enemies of each other.

As for your problem number 2, it is hard to defeat, because even if ISIS is 'defeated' on the battlefield, it is an idea as well. Hard to defeat an idea that is marketed pretty well through new age social media, madrass, etc

As for the Orlando attacker and the issues you bring up, understand that what you say is a pretty common issue in the ME. Many a time Muslims/middle easterners will end up supporting groups that they are an enemy of due to 1) Religion 2) Lack of other options.

Perfect examples right now would include
1) Residents of Raqqa that are not in ISIS, possible have skirmished with them, will fight along side them when the Kurds start getting closer to Raqqa. Why? Because they view it as their home being attacked by outsiders and they dislike the Kurds more. Throw in loyalty to religion as well.

2) Christians and Sunni are fighting along side Hezbollah versus ISIS. Three groups that are at the very least wary of each other have a bigger common enemy.

I believe in your example of the Orlando shooter he pledged allegiance to ISIS and support for Hezbollah. A contradiction indeed. That said, they do have the ulitmate enemy in their eyes being Israel.

Just a lot of different sides, a lot of sworn enemies, that often can find a larger common enemy. Just being on the ground over there one can tell a few different things. 1) Most people just want to live in peace/stability and get on with their lives 2) The confused geo political/religous wars there make the entire ME/Western Asia a much more complicated/convoluted place than people realize.

 

[qazplm]

Everyone knows the VAST majority of shootings are black men killing other black men, black women, and black children. I assumed that was obvious. Democrats don't care. There has never been a congressional sit in for blacks. Gays yes. Blacks no. There was an Orlando slaughter the weekend of Father's Day in Chicago - total number. No one cares. It is bangers killing bangers. That was all a stunt.

The real problem is the 75% illegitimacy rate. Which also didn't garner a sit in.

Your 350 number, literally, comes from Reddit. A snarky sub at that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/opinion/how-many-mass-shootings-are-there-really.html9

The founder of the “shooting tracker” project, who currently goes by the handle “Billy Speed,” told me it was his choice: “Three years ago I decided, all by myself, to change the United States’ definition of mass shooting.” It’s also not clear how many of those stories — many of them from local outlets, including scant detail — are accurate.

Perhaps I shouldn't have said good faith. Academic is more appropriate.

I addressed a shill.

ACTUALLY the majority of mass shootings are white men. ACTUALLY the actual number of shootings are almost split evenly between whites as victims and blacks as victims. The RATE is different because there are fewer blacks than whites but it is not numerically a "VAST majority."

Of course Blacks and Democrats FAVOR gun control by a large majority. So yeah Democrats actually "care." The "real" problem isn't "one" thing.
No my 350 number (and it was 350+) did not come from Reddit.

You literally went 0fer on everything you just posted.

 

[ecouch]

ACTUALLY the majority of mass shootings are white men. ACTUALLY the actual number of shootings are almost split evenly between whites as victims and blacks as victims. The RATE is different because there are fewer blacks than whites but it is not numerically a "VAST majority."

Of course Blacks and Democrats FAVOR gun control by a large majority. So yeah Democrats actually "care." The "real" problem isn't "one" thing.
No my 350 number (and it was 350+) did not come from Reddit.

You literally went 0fer on everything you just posted.

Yes, it did. It is anonomous guy on Reddit that came up with that number. His screen name is Billy Speed. Good grief, even that bastion of journalism Mother Jones laughs at that number.

The statistics now being highlighted in the news come primarily fromshootingtracker.com, a website built by members of a Reddit forum supporting gun control called GunsAreCool. That site aggregates news stories about shooting incidents — of any kind — in which four or more people are reported to have been either injured or killed.

It’s not clear why the Redditors use this much broader criteria. The founder of the “shooting tracker” project, who currently goes by the handle “Billy Speed,” told me it was his choice: “Three years ago I decided, all by myself, to change the United States’ definition of mass shooting.” It’s also not clear how many of those stories — many of them from local outlets, including scant detail — are accurate.

Gang members exchange fire in Chicago on a Saturday night. 4 injured, no deaths.

Police serve an arrest warrant to a methhead holed up in a trailer. Two officers were hit when gun fire erupted. The mehthead was shot dead. Another occupant sustained injuries.

If you think those are mass shootings, you don't get a seat at the adult table for this discussion.

Anyone using the 350 number is being purposely dishonest to further an agenda. They have no regard for the truth.

My favorite case included in your 350 mass shooting number is when an 11 year old and a 12 year old each shot two people with BB guns.\

Is that a mass shooting Qaz? Your anon Redditor thinks so.

In addition, if you are going to stick with your 350 mass shootings number, you must also agree that the majority of the mass shooters are young, black, males since gang violence, drug violence, police activity, etc. are included where as they aren't included by the FBI and other government agencies.

Adults, at say, the Congressional Research Services puts the number around 30.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/opinion/how-many-mass-shootings-are-there-really.html

Your dishonesty need not further be addressed.

 

[qazplm]

Yes, it did. It is anonomous guy on Reddit that came up with that number. His screen name is Billy Speed. Good grief, even that bastion of journalism Mother Jones laughs at that number.

The statistics now being highlighted in the news come primarily fromshootingtracker.com, a website built by members of a Reddit forum supporting gun control called GunsAreCool. That site aggregates news stories about shooting incidents — of any kind — in which four or more people are reported to have been either injured or killed.

It’s not clear why the Redditors use this much broader criteria. The founder of the “shooting tracker” project, who currently goes by the handle “Billy Speed,” told me it was his choice: “Three years ago I decided, all by myself, to change the United States’ definition of mass shooting.” It’s also not clear how many of those stories — many of them from local outlets, including scant detail — are accurate.

Gang members exchange fire in Chicago on a Saturday night. 4 injured, no deaths.

Police serve an arrest warrant to a methhead holed up in a trailer. Two officers were hit when gun fire erupted. The mehthead was shot dead. Another occupant sustained injuries.

If you think those are mass shootings, you don't get a seat at the adult table for this discussion.

Anyone using the 350 number is being purposely dishonest to further an agenda. They have no regard for the truth.

My favorite case included in your 350 mass shooting number is when an 11 year old and a 12 year old each shot two people with BB guns.\

Is that a mass shooting Qaz? Your anon Redditor thinks so.

In addition, if you are going to stick with your 350 mass shootings number, you must also agree that the vast, overwhelming majority, of the mass shooters are young, black, males.

Adults, at say, the Congressional Research Services puts the number around 30.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/opinion/how-many-mass-shootings-are-there-really.html

Your dishonesty need not further be addressed.

From your own link:

"For at least the past decade, the F.B.I. regarded a mass shooting as a single attack in which four or more victims were killed. (In 2013, a mandate from President Obama for further study of the problem lowered that threshold to three victims killed.) When we began compiling our database in 2012, we used that criteria of four or more killed in public attacks, but excluded mass murders that stemmed from robbery, gang violence or domestic abuse in private homes."

So my measure comes from the FBI. Not Reddit, not your tortured imagination, the FBI.

Second from your own link, they have a narrow definition that pretty clearly would NOT include "young black men shooting young black males."

Third you cant tell the difference between rates and raw numbers. The RATE for blacks is substantially higher, the raw numbers for the FBI is that it's almost numerically equal between blacks and whites for shooting deaths with the last reported numbers in 2013. So no, again, "the vast majority of mass shooters" are not young, black males. HALF of mass shooters using the broader FBI definition are young black males.

Fourth, let's use the narrower definition you seem so desperate to use:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

four out of five, 80 percent were white.


So if you don't want to use my "reddit" numbers, whatever that is, then don't. Use the numbers in the link you favorably posted.

80 percent of mass shooters are white. Not Muslim, not Black, white.

So which is it? You want to go with the bigger number and your repeated young black males lie? Or you want to go with the smaller number where you are forced to admit it's mostly white men?

I'll hang up and wait.

Edit: Since I know you will say those are 2012 numbers, here's the new numbers via 2016:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

Guess what? Still majority white people.

 

[ecouch]

For those interested in the academic side of the discussion instead of relying on Reddit kiddies, most of the data is easily accessible. The 350 number comes from thr kiddies on the /rGunsAreCool sub. It is the same kiddie discussion you wold expect - You own a gun because you have a small penis. You are an Ammosexual. Kiddie dialogue. It appeals to some, no doubt, but the academics should afford it no more than a chuckle.

FBI is approximately 50.

The Stanford MSA Project is approximately 50.

USA Today puts the number at 22.

Mother Jones says 4. This one is the most interesting because it would appear they rely upon Joe Voter's definition of a mass shooting. (Gang, drug, police, feds, etc. are excluded)

No one thinks there is a mass shooting everyday. If someone thinks there are 350+ mass shootings, provide them with the data. They aren't arguing in good faith.

 

[qazplm]

For those interested in the academic side of the discussion instead of relying on Reddit kiddies, most of the data is easily accessible. The 350 number comes from thr kiddies on the /rGunsAreCool sub. It is the same kiddie discussion you wold expect - You own a gun because you have a small penis. You are an Ammosexual. Kiddie dialogue. It appeals to some, no doubt, but the academics should afford it no more than a chuckle.

FBI is approximately 50.

The Stanford MSA Project is approximately 50.

USA Today puts the number at 22.

Mother Jones says 4. This one is the most interesting because it would appear they rely upon Joe Voter's definition of a mass shooting. (Gang, drug, police, feds, etc. are excluded)

No one thinks there is a mass shooting everyday. If someone thinks there are 350+ mass shootings, provide them with the data. They aren't arguing in good faith.

Yeah, I'd ignore my post too and keep trying and focus on the 350 instead of what happens even if we use your numbers. Mother Jones surely doesn't argue it's all young black men, or Muslims now do they? Yet you keep wanting to use their numbers while ignoring what their numbers show. Weak sauce.