At least 50 dead in Florida nightclub terrorist attack.

[Manfred Belheim]

Misuse of the term 'terrorist' is a problem, I agree, but even lone attackers may commit terrorism.

I think the important part, even if they are acting on their own, is whether or not they have a group behind them which provides the foundation for their political views. The attacker is then a terrorist because of the implicit threat that there might be more attacks coming from the foundation-group, even though the vast majority in said group are nominally peaceful and nonviolent.

So Breivik, if seen as an extremist outgrowth of the European far right, is a terrorist (and has been labeled as such, pretty extensively).

McVeigh, if seen as an extremist outgrowth of an anti-federal, Christian, white supremacy movement, was a terrorist.

Rodger, if seen as an extremist outgrowth of a misogynistic Internet group, was a terrorist.

This guy in Orlando, if seen as an extremist outgrowth of Islam, was a terrorist.

Jack the Ripper, unless you can point out a group he could be said to base his political views on, was not a terrorist - unless you want to make an argument that serial murders are a type of terrorism, since they are reoccurring.

I guess the problem there is, when you say "is seen as", then whose eyes are you using as the barometer? There's at least one in there that I'd strongly disagree with, if not 2 or 3. To be meaningful, the criteria need to be a bit more objective than that.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

My political science professors agreed on at least one thing in defining terrorism: That the violence be motivated by political aims. I've never heard that being part of a group or organization was relevant in defining an act as terrorism, nor is the threat of further attacks.

Surely that last part is implicit in any definition though? I don't mean necessarily a direct explicit threat of further attacks, just the threat that it might continue to happen until some change is made. If there's no suspicion that the same thing might happen again then there's no incentive to do anything to avoid that.

 

[Senethro]

And I think the most likely result of that response is to induce Republicans to care less than they already do. If the concern is genuine (and I grant that it often isn't), than the response punishes the concern. The conditioning inflicted is to be less concerned. If that's what you consider reasonable, have at it.

Given how frequently the Republican Party is openly anti-LGBT rights with no real expectation of change in the short term future I don't see what productive "reasonable" response is available.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Surely that last part is implicit in any definition though? I don't mean necessarily a direct explicit threat of further attacks, just the threat that it might continue to happen until some change is made. If there's no suspicion that the same thing might happen again then there's no incentive to do anything to avoid that.

I'm was only pointing out that the potential for another attack is not part of the definition of terrorism.

 

[Rashiminos]

I think you're missing the point of what Dachs was saying.

He was not saying that there is any equivalence whatsoever between Rubio's statement and the perpetrator's actions.

I think you also missed the point.

He was not saying that there is any equivalence whatsoever between Rubio's sentiment towards homosexuals and the perpetrator's sentiment towards homosexuals, or 'radical Islam's' sentiment towards homosexuals.

He did.

He was not saying that Rubio is not entitled to feel shocked and disgusted by this shooting.

He was content to bolster a position that suggested Rubio et al should avoid such feelings.

He was simply highlighting the hypocrisy in Rubio suddenly standing up for the rights of LGBTQ people, just when it happens to be a convenient way of bashing Muslims. Rubio doesn't get to capitalise on a tragedy by suddenly pretending that he has the best interests of LGBTQ people at heart. The hypocrisy of Rubio in this regard is entirely independent of the hatred, bigotry, hypocrisy, etc. of any other person or group. As we might expect better from prominent US politicians (though is that a realistic expectation?), it's worth commenting on.

Can/should semantic fudging.

I would further add in a similar vein that Trump and many of his supporters (or at least those frequently seen when browsing reddit) have thoroughly shown themselves in the last day to be vile opportunists giddy at the prospect of having an excuse to bash Muslims some more.

One could ask why there are so many opportunities.

Given how frequently the Republican Party is openly anti-LGBT rights with no real expectation of change in the short term future I don't see what productive "reasonable" response is available.

So when openings come along that would permit small changes to take place, we should chide Republicans and close those openings with all due haste since the openings are not as big as we'd like them to be, and they don't go exactly in the direction we want them to go?

Armed queers bash back. That's about all I have to say about this.

That, and don't you dare make excuses for imperialist wars in our name. The GOP has introduced 200 anti-LGBT bills in the past six months alone. American patriarchy and imperialism created this disaster, not Muslims and not gun laws. The guy was a security guard, he would have had a gun anyway.

I find myself agreeing with a Cheezy post, mostly.

 

[luiz]

It's true for a motivated terrorist.
But there are also cases when people just get out of their mind, grab any weapon which they can get their hands on, and go for a killing spree.
I'm judging by the statistics of similar cases in Russia - for the last decade or so in just a few worst cases, perpetrators were able to kill several people using pistol or hunting rifle, before they were neutralized. And I suspect in most cases, attackers unable to get anything more than a knife or pneumatic weapon.

That's why I said that I'm all for gun control in general, but using this specific case to argue for gun control is wrong, because gun laws do not prevent terrorism. And this guy was a terrorist, as is becoming clearer and clearer.

 

[Senethro]

So when openings come along that would permit small changes to take place, we should chide Republicans and close those openings with all due haste since the openings are not as big as we'd like them to be, and they don't go exactly in the direction we want them to go?

Ok, what would a reasonable response on both sides look like?

 

[Bootstoots]

Anyone who wants to use this attack to tighten gun laws should not only call it terrorism, they should use it to paint the NRA types as 'soft on terror'. If they just go with the usual gun control arguments, they'll fail just like they always do after a mass shooting. But if they can use the right's fear of Islamic terrorism to their advantage, then just maybe we can get the assault weapon ban back, which may lower the incidence and deadliness of spree killings by one or two shooters although the total number of murders won't be substantially lowered. It is worth noting that 'lone wolf' type attacks in the US almost always involve guns acquired legally: coordinated ISIS plots do involve gun smuggling and firearms laws aren't particularly useful against Paris-type attacks, but individuals usually just go to the local gun store and pick out an AR-15 and a couple of pistols.

 

[Rashiminos]

Ok, what would a reasonable response on both sides look like?

There could be an acceptance that there are going to be intermediate steps in quitting homophobia instead of a cold turkey approach, and Republicans should be reminded that their principles are meant to be widely applied, when appropriate.

Spoiler :

Accusations of hypocrisy have greater rhetorical effect when the standards of the group in question are used.

 

[Farm Boy]

Add some rainbow revolvers in with the pink pistols, get some soundbites rolling about leaving me and my family the hell alone, etc. It wouldn't be a miracle, but it'd get conservative American support enough that it'd resonate I'd guess. Hell, toss in that this shooter was a registered Democrat if you want. If you want to play teams with it, you could get at least some of them on board. It's easy to forget how quickly anti-LGBTQ support is still eroding in the wake of this bump in the Fed'ral Gubbmit tellin' us who gets to look at our kid's privates by executive gun-grabberin' decree.

 

[warpus]

People are looking at your kids' privates? I think that just means you are a bad parent, unless the person in question is a doctor, or your child is 2 years old and just at the lake nude or whatever.

 

[Farm Boy]

It's the school bathroom issue man. You know, I know, but... ya'know.

 

[red_elk]

That's why I said that I'm all for gun control in general, but using this specific case to argue for gun control is wrong, because gun laws do not prevent terrorism. And this guy was a terrorist, as is becoming clearer and clearer.

My first impression was that the attack was related to some mental health problem. But if it was indeed a carefully planned act, then I guess you are right.

 

[El_Machinae]

It can be all three. It can be carefully planned. It can be the result of mental illness. And it can be an intentional shout-out to ISIS too.

Some people just want the world to burn. Crediting ISIS is a tool in the toolkit.

 

[luiz]

He visited Saudi Arabia twice, and he was not exactly an oil executive...

 

[Arakhor]

Anyone going to Mecca or Medina, which all Muslims are expected to do at least once, will end up going to Saudi Arabia. Did you really not know that?

 

[Namor]

Mental illness, defined broadly as not being in control of your actions due to delusions, is always the go to explanation to not have the public criticize, rightly or wrongly, whatever group you want to shield from criticism. This applies to both the left and right.

In truth, mental illness rarely causes shootings to happen. Someone with those issues is extremely likely to end their own life before they harm anyone else. This should be emphasized.

Based on the evidence this guy was raised by homophobic parents and was most likely influenced by "scholars" in his faith who have said the death penalty is ok for gays. I understand people are uncomfortable with the possibility of prejudice against a minority group increasing, but allowing misinformation and fear to spread against those already under great psychological stress is not the right response.

 

[luiz]

Anyone going to Mecca or Medina, which all Muslims are expected to do at least once, will end up going to Saudi Arabia. Did you really not know that?

Well first the people arguing that radical Islam didn't have anything to do with this case were saying that this guy was not even religious, now it turns out he was so religious he went in pilgrimage not only once but twice (Muslims are only required to go to Mecca once, in case you didn't know, and non-practicing Muslims of course don't bother going at all).

So we have a guy pretty committed to Islam, who was demonstrating ISIS sympathy to the point of being targeted by the FBI, and who claimed this act was done in the name of ISIS, which was confirmed by ISIS. It was also a pretty "successful" attack in terms of casualties, and he managed to keep the police at bay for many hours with his diversionary tactics. So it definitely seems to be a planned terror act, and not a crazy who had just snapped at that very moment.

 

[red_elk]

Mental illness, defined broadly as not being in control of your actions due to delusions...

I wouldn't call this a broad definition of mental illness.

In truth, mental illness rarely causes shootings to happen. Someone with those issues is extremely likely to end their own life before they harm anyone else. This should be emphasized.

I think it's reasonable to suspect that the person who does such kind of attack, knowing that he most likely will be killed after that, has at least some kind of mental health issue. And no, it doesn't mean that I want to shield anybody from criticism - I don't care much about American politicians or criminals.

 

[Senethro]

There could be an acceptance that there are going to be intermediate steps in quitting homophobia instead of a cold turkey approach,

This sentence is insulting faux-moderatist drivel. One side is asking to continue an unproductive, harmful behaviour. The other is asking this unproductive harmful behaviour to stop.

What is the true conciliatory, moderate position?

and Republicans should be reminded that their principles are meant to be widely applied, when appropriate.

I don't see how this can happen in an adversarial two party system, where all issues must be reduced to two sides and one party for each.