Manhattan explosion

[John Nowak]

Well it's kind of hard to argue against that mens rea

Oh, absolutely. Just to be clear, I am not claiming that the OP case is ambiguous at all: I'm just suggesting that going from "people killed or injured" to "intent to kill or injure" adds some unwelcome wiggle room to this sort of analysis.

 

[The Man]

Oh, absolutely. Just to be clear, I am not claiming that the OP case is ambiguous at all: I'm just suggesting that going from "people killed or injured" to "intent to kill or injure" adds some unwelcome wiggle room to this sort of analysis.

No problem, but just to be clear myself I don't know about the "unwelcome wiggle room" part. Again "people killed or injured" to "intent to kill or injure" is just the distinction between attempted murder and murder or alternatively assault with a deadly weapon and say reckless endangerment. We both agree the intent to murder was there and that would be an element of both murder and attempted murder. What is lacking in this case is the actual act of murder but not the act that establishes the attempt of such.

 

[quadraginta]

I understood her point. .. and her body of work.

If you understood her point (see her edit in the post after yours quoted here), then why the comment?

Because he felt that it was more important to get in some sort of pointless dig against A'isha than it was to say something that made sense?

 

[theprestige]

Which makes this not a terrorist incident, by that measure.

No. By that measure, it makes it a Muslim terror attack that didn't kill anyone. And by the same measure, Muslim terror attacks are still the leading cause of death from terrorism in the United States. This particular attack won't do much to change the overall percentage, nor to reduce the justified concern about Islamic terrorism in the United States.

Personally, I'd be happy to consider both PETA and Islamofascism as terrorism, except for the widely disparate body counts.

 

[A'isha]

No. By that measure, it makes it a Muslim terror attack that didn't kill anyone. And by the same measure, Muslim terror attacks are still the leading cause of death from terrorism in the United States. This particular attack won't do much to change the overall percentage, nor to reduce the justified concern about Islamic terrorism in the United States.

Personally, I'd be happy to consider both PETA and Islamofascism as terrorism, except for the widely disparate body counts.

A terror attack (by anyone) without fatalities is still a terror attack.

And the completely unpredictable fatality count of terror attacks (one guy with a gun killed dozens in Orlando and Utøya, while explosive devices planted in New York/New Jersey and Spokane killed no one) makes referencing such things as if they're determinative or even representative rather difficult. The "who causes the most fatalities" tally can even change based on a single attack whose death toll is entirely random (up until Orlando, non-Muslim terrorists had killed twice as many people in the US as Muslim terrorists in the fifteen years since 9/11).

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think you meant to say "San Bernardino" instead of "Bakersfield"?

Yeah, thanks, I do that all the time. Gettin' old.


Apparently there was also a lot of domestic violence in this family.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It really depends on the extent the social media and ISIS propaganda influenced them, in addition to any other underlying conditions.

In case you're keeping score, the Muslims represent 1% of US population, but people "who happen to be Muslim" kill up to 94% of all people killed in terror attacks in the US (not counting the deadliest terror attack of all time). It depends a bit on what you define as a terror attack of course, but the result is clear: the social media and ISIS et.al. propaganda enlarge the problem by at least one order of magnitude and possibly up to two.

So, um ... 90-99% of the problem is one big similarity. What you're discussing are minor variations of the problem.

McHrozni

What are you counting and what time frame? Because there have been a whole heck of a lot of people killed in mass shooter incidents. More than a few of these incidents are mass shooters who blame the US or whatever, but how does that really differ from the guy who blamed women and shot all those people in Southern CA? Or the typical workplace or school shooter (not including the ones with true delusions) who blame any number of people and make them a target of their rage.

I don't see a link but I doubt your conclusion is valid.

 

[McHrozni]

up until Orlando, non-Muslim terrorists had killed twice as many people in the US as Muslim terrorists in the fifteen years since 9/11

That's not a number I would flaunt if I were you.

Muslims represented only about 1% of US population in this time. If non-Muslim terrorists killed twice as many people, this still makes Islamic terrorism proportionally thirty times worse than that of background.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

What are you counting and what time frame?

Deaths due to terrorist attacks on US soil from 9/12/01 to 12/31/15, IIRC.

Because there have been a whole heck of a lot of people killed in mass shooter incidents. More than a few of these incidents are mass shooters who blame the US or whatever, but how does that really differ from the guy who blamed women and shot all those people in Southern CA? Or the typical workplace or school shooter (not including the ones with true delusions) who blame any number of people and make them a target of their rage.

Terrorism is defined as "the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims". This is different from workplace violence, personal grievances, economic goals (e.g. robbery) and so on, and receives different attention - it's considered more important. True, people still die, but some reasons for that should be considered worse and receive more attention than others.

You're free to disagree with the logic, but then you'll have to explain to me why are mass shootings important at all. There are about 30 thousand deaths from vehicle accidents in the US every year, some twenty times more than in mass shootings. More people die from car crashes than from murder by all means combined. People killed in car crashes are just as dead as those who are shot and killed in a shooting rampage or murdered with a gun, and many injuries are actually worse than those sustained in mass shootings. If you think we shouldn't differ from the manner of deaths we should obviously ban cars before even considering banning guns.

I don't see a link but I doubt your conclusion is valid.

It's valid, but I think your logic needs improvement.

McHrozni

 

[Aepervius]

By counting dead bodies instead of the number of incidents. I believe I explicitly said so. I consider a terrorist attack that kills 50 people worse than one that kills just one, but this is still worse than one that just does minor damage to the property. You're free to disagree, but I'm also free not to respect that position.

Then I am free to disrespect your position too. One person can be very deadly in the US, having guns. Therefore the *numbers* of dead is not representative, it only represent how far that person did go before it was stopped. It does not say whether a group of people is more dangerous or less dangerous.

Then you simply use a measure of 6* because of the 1% population 6% incidents, but forget to add that the 94% is still non muslim, therefore you are still far far more likely to be involved in a non-muslim terrorism incidents.

All in one it does not make more sense to be afraid of muslim because some do terrorism, even if it is more proportional of their % population, because you are still far more likely to be involved with other groups.

In reality all counted, normal citizen should not be afraid of terrorism. You should ignore it.

 

[McHrozni]

One person can be very deadly in the US, having guns. Therefore the *numbers* of dead is not representative, it only represent how far that person did go before it was stopped. It does not say whether a group of people is more dangerous or less dangerous.

True, but then you have to explain why Muslims are apparently stopped later than others, when they have already commited more offenses.

Then you simply use a measure of 6* because of the 1% population 6% incidents, but forget to add that the 94% is still non muslim, therefore you are still far far more likely to be involved in a non-muslim terrorism incidents.

No. You're far more likely to have a non-Muslim terrorist incident occur in your vicinity, but you're far more likely to become a victim of a Muslim terrorist than of a terrorist of any other group (or all other groups combined), because that group stands out for the number of dead bodies it produces.

In reality all counted, normal citizen should not be afraid of terrorism. You should ignore it.

By that logic we should ignore mass shootings until we've drastically reduced car accident rates as well. If you follow this logic I won't object.

I won't respect you either, but that's another story.

McHrozni

 

[quadraginta]

That's not a number I would flaunt if I were you.

Muslims represented only about 1% of US population in this time. If non-Muslim terrorists killed twice as many people, this still makes Islamic terrorism proportionally thirty times worse than that of background.

McHrozni

As long as I am twice as likely to be killed by a non-Muslim terrorist I am going to be twice as concerned about the non-Muslim terrorists.

Your playing cute games with percentages and proportions isn't going to change that simple equation.

 

[cullennz]

True, but then you have to explain why Muslims are apparently stopped later than others, when they have already commited more offenses.



No. You're far more likely to have a non-Muslim terrorist incident occur in your vicinity, but you're far more likely to become a victim of a Muslim terrorist than of a terrorist of any other group (or all other groups combined), because that group stands out for the number of dead bodies it produces.



By that logic we should ignore mass shootings until we've drastically reduced car accident rates as well. If you follow this logic I won't object.

I won't respect you either, but that's another story.

McHrozni

The US does ignore mass killings.

Even when it is multiple little kids

 

[McHrozni]

As long as I am twice as likely to be killed by a non-Muslim terrorist I am going to be twice as concerned about the non-Muslim terrorists.

I see your point, but that's not the case. Since 9/11 Muslim terrorists killed about 15 times as many people in the US as non-Muslim terrorists did. Needless to say, if you include 9/11 the ratio becomes much worse.

Are you fifteen times as concerned about Muslim terrorists as you are about non-Muslim ones now?

Your playing cute games with percentages and proportions isn't going to change that simple equation.

I don't need to address this, but - are you twenty times as concerned about car crashes as you are about mass shootings too? Just saying, since all you seem to care is the number of dead bodies and nothing else.

McHrozni

 

[Belz...]

No. By that measure, it makes it a Muslim terror attack that didn't kill anyone.

Not if one uses a definition of "terror attack" that only encompasses attacks that kill people. That was A'isha's point, man.

 

[Ryokan]

This. They're very popular with tourists visiting Ireland from countries without decent roaming plans.

Can't they just get a local sim-card? That's what I do when I travel.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

I don't need to address this, but - are you twenty times as concerned about car crashes as you are about mass shootings too?

Probably. Maybe even at least. Not that I spend much time worrying about any of them, but you didn't seem to be specifying time invested, just comparative concern. The multiplier is applied to a very small base. I don't really worry about being killed by terrorists at all. My concern about driving, while not sufficient to keep me off the road, is certainly non-zero, and varies a lot with road conditions, time of day, and location.

Just saying, since all you seem to care is the number of dead bodies and nothing else.

McHrozni

Not sure what prompted you to make that comment, since nothing I have written here could possibly be construed by any intelligent, literate person as implying any such thing.

I'll just write it off to your persistent lack of interest in honest discourse.

 

[A'isha]

I see your point, but that's not the case. Since 9/11 Muslim terrorists killed about 15 times as many people in the US as non-Muslim terrorists did.

Not even close.

 

[dudalb]

By the "we should ignore Terrorism because such a small percentage of people are killed by it" logic,we shoud have ignored Pearl Harbor because such a small percentage of the people were killed in the attacks.
I agree that panic and discrimination against Muslims is wrong,wrong,wrong,but an Ostrich approach to the problem of Jihadism is just as stupid.

 

[EHocking]

Can't they just get a local sim-card? That's what I do when I travel.

Some phones (especially those on a phone/SIM deal) will not accept "foreign" SIM cards.