To use the term correctly, it is 'self-aggrandising' to judge and comment on the right of people to react and draw particular conclusions to the type of attack which has been happening regularly in US and European cities over the last few years.
Interesting, but I think the following was far more self-aggrandising: "What we know about the devices leads me to conclude with high degree of confidence that it is a home grown Radicalised US born Muslim male in his early 20s.".
Also, I know how to use it correctly, thanks.. I never attempted to shoehorn it into this discussion though. Which makes that entire post a bit bizarre to be quite honest.
Did I state you used the term? It was Jimmy85 who used it about me. And I was responding.
If you think anyone expressing a view is guilty of self-aggrandising then everyone posting on this forum is guilty of it every time they post.
No, but you didn't exactly make it clear who your post was directed at either.
Not everyone qualifies their posts with the preclude of "leads me to conclude with high degree of confidence", something which matches the precise definition of "exhibiting self-importance" - which @JiMMy 85 would've been suggesting with his usage of "self aggrandising".
To be entirely blunt, if someone said "the performance on Saturday leads me to conclude with a high degree of confidence that we need to drop Konsa", I would believe they too were a pompous berk. The difference being football is a lot simpler than terrorism, and speculation is a magnitude safer.
My big problem is that when liberals in the US like Obama and Hilary Clinton, people I like and strongly align with, tie themselves in knots trying not to acknowledge that Islamic extremism is behind 99% of terrorist attacks in western cities it allows Fox News to peddle the nonsense (as they are doing now as I type) about how only the Republicans can protect the US from terrorist attacks.
My big problem is that when liberals in the US like Obama and Hilary Clinton, people I like and strongly align with, tie themselves in knots trying not to acknowledge that Islamic extremism is behind 99% of terrorist attacks in western cities it allows Fox News to peddle the nonsense (as they are doing now as I type) about how only the Republicans can protect the US from terrorist attacks.
Honestly? I'm with you there.
Pretending there's not a problem is to allow the problem to continue, and it does enable those who pretend to take a more "hard line" approach to make gains. I think Trump knows this too..
Based on the facts? Fuck knows for New York and New Jersey.
ISIS has claimed responsibility, via Amaq Agency - their PR machine, for a multiple stabbing in Minnesota. This was where 8 people were stabbed before an off duty police officer shot the guy. So that one is easy enough to assign the blame for.
Yet for the NY and NJ incidents we just wait until it's confirmed or someone takes responsibility. There isn't even that many facts really surfacing at the moment.
The two bombs in New York (including the one that failed to detonate) have no one taking responsibility, and were of a different build to the one in New Jersey - albeit similar to the type used during the Boston Marathon bombing. This type have been written about before in an Al Qaeda magazine too, but they're simple enough that it doesn't take anything more than a quick Google to work out how to build though.
Other than that, it's pure speculation. You could argue that a far right group wouldn't pick a run that was in aid of ex-servicemen from the Navy, as per the NJ bombing. Yet if it was Islamist related, what group could coordinate multiple attempts in one day, but lack the ability to guide or mentor those involved to ensure it was a success? (1/3 didn't detonate, 2/3 caused no injuries, 3/3 caused injuries that were minor enough that everyone is already out of hospital) Besides, if all the incidents were coordinated, why didn't ISIS claim responsibility via Amaq this morning when they did for the Minnesota stabbings?
So a coincidence they all happened on the same day, and they were individuals acting alone? Or something organised with some planning but - fortunately - with poor execution?
There's far too many questions to really blame anyone at the moment. Blame isn't too urgent though to be fair.
My big problem is that when liberals in the US like Obama and Hilary Clinton, people I like and strongly align with, tie themselves in knots trying not to acknowledge that Islamic extremism is behind 99% of terrorist attacks in western cities it allows Fox News to peddle the nonsense (as they are doing now as I type) about how only the Republicans can protect the US from terrorist attacks.
But here the facts are that most acts of mass death are not perpetrated by Muslim extremists. In the era of Isis we've had two, San Bernadino and Orlando. The Orlando killer was a bigot who claimed ties to Hamas, Al-Qaeda, and Isis (three groups that just absolutely hate each other). San Bernadino the picture doesn't seem to be quite clear what happened, though having been to San Bernadino I can tell you it'd drive me to kill. Joking, well, kind of.
But beyond those two attacks, we've had loads of gun deaths, from Aurora to New Town to the uni here in Oregon to honestly I lose track. Ours is not the same reality of that of Belgium or France, where young men who are second generation immigrants have become radicalized and now present a huge threat. Our gun laws make it so that any litany of people can get a gun and cause mass deaths. The two large police shootings in Dallas and Baton Rouge have been perpetrated by ex-soldiers almost certainly suffering from some sort of PTSD.
Lastly, while the line about Republicans keeping Americans safe worked for many years post-9/11, I don't think it plays nearly as well any more. The attempts at revisionist history about George Bush keeping us safe* (and you don't get a fucking asterisks when it comes to security) doesn't play like it did in the bizarro world that was the early 2000s. And a lot of the narrative around keeping Americans safe relates to Libya (good luck finding an American who can tell you what happened there), Obama losing Iraq (and that plays to people who think George Bush kept us safe but most of the rest of us, Republicans and Democrats and and the rest know Iraq was a clusterfuck), and lastly, the whole Obama/Clinton created ISIS thing, which doesn't really seem to have gained any traction, and though I think it's ludicrously over-simplified, how ISIS came into being (and the role the Iraq war played in that) is a conversation I wouldn't mind seeing.
Sorry, the last par was a bit of a tangent, my point is, in the States, Islamic Extremism is, to date, not as large of a threat as say, any nutter with a gun, the police when you're black, or even returning soldiers to themselves (suicides have long surpassed combat deaths).
And one more thing, we are a country of incredibly well-armed incredibly staunch racists. This is a thing that happened last November (before San Bernadino and Orlando, NOT THAT THAT WOULD MAKE IT OKAY) at a mosque in Irving Texas. Just a bunch of dudes with guns showed up looking to intimidate people:
So when you criticize American politicians for not being "hard enough on Islamic extremist," it's also worth noting that in America, there is an element of keeping the wolves from the door. What Trump has said about Muslims has gained him a lot of success, but he is by no means the first. Just google "anti-Muslim Congress" or "Senate" or Governor or whatever local political level and you'll find some awesome bigotry.
Might as well just close this thread then as it seems as though nothing is allowed to be spoken about unless you are a detective on the case.
No one has said that anywhere, ever, and I hate this "infringing on my freedom of speech" straw man argument. But if you do speak out prepare to have your views challenged because opposition is also an integral part of freedom of speech.
Might as well just close this thread then as it seems as though nothing is allowed to be spoken about unless you are a detective on the case.
No one has said that anywhere, ever, and I hate this "infringing on my freedom of speech" straw man argument. But if you do speak out prepare to have your views challenged because opposition is also an integral part of freedom of speech.
Might as well just close this thread then as it seems as though nothing is allowed to be spoken about unless you are a detective on the case.
No one has said that anywhere, ever, and I hate this "infringing on my freedom of speech" straw man argument. But if you do speak out prepare to have your views challenged because opposition is also an integral part of freedom of speech.
So they've called this a terrorist act but said there's no indication it relates to international terrorism.
Reasons for that are probably twofold, 1) no claim of responsibility thus far and it's been 15+hours. 2) this doesn't fit with the MO of major international terrorists.
What we know about the devices leads me to conclude with high degree of confidence that it is a home grown Radicalised US born Muslim male in his early 20s. But I might be completely wrong. I don't know. And neither do the political leaders immediately following one of these attacks. There is nothing wron with people coming to their own early conclusions based on what they know about previous terrorist attacks until the authorities issue fact based details based on their investigations.
If the suspect is the guilty party then it's clear you were wrong to air your own conclusions....................28 is not early 20's.
Might as well just close this thread then as it seems as though nothing is allowed to be spoken about unless you are a detective on the case.
If that was directed towards me, then that's not really what I was saying. On the contrary, I even went as far as to provide my own thoughts on it above - and I'll admit that included a fair amount of speculation.
Have these islamic fundamentalists considered shooting a bunch of children in a school? That would really create a discussion
Don't understand the purpose of a post such as this, adds nothing to the discussion.
It's not supposed to be flippant (though it may have come across this way) but despite both shootings and bombs resulting in horrific loss of life the reactions from the public and media couldn't be more different
Nowadays the media always have an agenda when reporting, instead of just giving us the facts, as should expected from them. Most outlets ignore the ongoing carnage in the U.S inner cities, yet we have seven days of coverage from an outraged media when a cop kills a gunman in a standoff on the street. People are too lazy to question the crap they are fed by the (almost always) lefty media. A pity people don't change the channel once in a while. Since 9/11 though, it's not surprising that all incidents in NYC get the attention that they do.
Nowadays the media always have an agenda when reporting, instead of just giving us the facts, as should expected from them. Most outlets ignore the ongoing carnage in the U.S inner cities, yet we have seven days of coverage from an outraged media when a cop kills a gunman in a standoff on the street. People are too lazy to question the crap they are fed by the (almost always) lefty media. A pity people don't change the channel once in a while. Since 9/11 though, it's not surprising that all incidents in NYC get the attention that they do.
I think that with the exception of MSNBC, the bias in television media is toward laziness. I'm thinking mostly about CNN here. To group all media together is a fallacy, even television news is hard to lump together when you have 24 hours news networks and non-24 hour news.
A left-leaning media would cover the violence in inner cities because it would treat crime with black victims not involving police the same way they do crimes with white/middle class victims.
Nowadays the media always have an agenda when reporting, instead of just giving us the facts, as should expected from them. Most outlets ignore the ongoing carnage in the U.S inner cities, yet we have seven days of coverage from an outraged media when a cop kills a gunman in a standoff on the street. People are too lazy to question the crap they are fed by the (almost always) lefty media. A pity people don't change the channel once in a while. Since 9/11 though, it's not surprising that all incidents in NYC get the attention that they do.
I think that with the exception of MSNBC, the bias in television media is toward laziness. I'm thinking mostly about CNN here. To group all media together is a fallacy, even television news is hard to lump together when you have 24 hours news networks and non-24 hour news.
A left-leaning media would cover the violence in inner cities because it would treat crime with black victims not involving police the same way they do crimes with white/middle class victims.
You might be right when talking about the reporting on local media, but the networks are firmly left of center and don't acknowledge the level of crime in the inner cities, but make a very big deal of crimes committed against whites in the suburbs. From your EXTREME left standpoint I understand how it might be difficult to acknowledge how biased are the mainstream media.
Nowadays the media always have an agenda when reporting, instead of just giving us the facts, as should expected from them. Most outlets ignore the ongoing carnage in the U.S inner cities, yet we have seven days of coverage from an outraged media when a cop kills a gunman in a standoff on the street. People are too lazy to question the crap they are fed by the (almost always) lefty media. A pity people don't change the channel once in a while. Since 9/11 though, it's not surprising that all incidents in NYC get the attention that they do.
I think that with the exception of MSNBC, the bias in television media is toward laziness. I'm thinking mostly about CNN here. To group all media together is a fallacy, even television news is hard to lump together when you have 24 hours news networks and non-24 hour news.
A left-leaning media would cover the violence in inner cities because it would treat crime with black victims not involving police the same way they do crimes with white/middle class victims.
You might be right when talking about the reporting on local media, but the networks are firmly left of center and don't acknowledge the level of crime in the inner cities, but make a very big deal of crimes committed against whites in the suburbs. From your EXTREME left standpoint I understand how it might be difficult to acknowledge how biased are the mainstream media.
You have spent too much time in the states, only reporting crimes against people in white subburbs seems more of a right wing agenda to me.
Nowadays the media always have an agenda when reporting, instead of just giving us the facts, as should expected from them. Most outlets ignore the ongoing carnage in the U.S inner cities, yet we have seven days of coverage from an outraged media when a cop kills a gunman in a standoff on the street. People are too lazy to question the crap they are fed by the (almost always) lefty media. A pity people don't change the channel once in a while. Since 9/11 though, it's not surprising that all incidents in NYC get the attention that they do.
I think that with the exception of MSNBC, the bias in television media is toward laziness. I'm thinking mostly about CNN here. To group all media together is a fallacy, even television news is hard to lump together when you have 24 hours news networks and non-24 hour news.
A left-leaning media would cover the violence in inner cities because it would treat crime with black victims not involving police the same way they do crimes with white/middle class victims.
You might be right when talking about the reporting on local media, but the networks are firmly left of center and don't acknowledge the level of crime in the inner cities, but make a very big deal of crimes committed against whites in the suburbs. From your EXTREME left standpoint I understand how it might be difficult to acknowledge how biased are the mainstream media.
You have spent too much time in the states, only reporting crimes against people in white subburbs seems more of a right wing agenda to me.
I agree. But I fear the point may be "look at all the black on black/brown on brown/poor on poor crime" as a judgement on those groups of people.
Were I setting an editorial agenda, that type of crime is absolutely something I would highlight, though I would also make a point of asking why that's the case--what contributing factors there are. From there, my extreme leftist perspective (and limey is absolutely right about that) may colour my conclusions, but I feel like everything up to that point would fall under the realm of "journalism" rather than "political agenda."
Nowadays the media always have an agenda when reporting, instead of just giving us the facts, as should expected from them. Most outlets ignore the ongoing carnage in the U.S inner cities, yet we have seven days of coverage from an outraged media when a cop kills a gunman in a standoff on the street. People are too lazy to question the crap they are fed by the (almost always) lefty media. A pity people don't change the channel once in a while. Since 9/11 though, it's not surprising that all incidents in NYC get the attention that they do.
I think that with the exception of MSNBC, the bias in television media is toward laziness. I'm thinking mostly about CNN here. To group all media together is a fallacy, even television news is hard to lump together when you have 24 hours news networks and non-24 hour news.
A left-leaning media would cover the violence in inner cities because it would treat crime with black victims not involving police the same way they do crimes with white/middle class victims.
You might be right when talking about the reporting on local media, but the networks are firmly left of center and don't acknowledge the level of crime in the inner cities, but make a very big deal of crimes committed against whites in the suburbs. From your EXTREME left standpoint I understand how it might be difficult to acknowledge how biased are the mainstream media.
Can you provide an example?
Also, are we talking national news here? And television or print?
Comments
Not everyone qualifies their posts with the preclude of "leads me to conclude with high degree of confidence", something which matches the precise definition of "exhibiting self-importance" - which @JiMMy 85 would've been suggesting with his usage of "self aggrandising".
To be entirely blunt, if someone said "the performance on Saturday leads me to conclude with a high degree of confidence that we need to drop Konsa", I would believe they too were a pompous berk. The difference being football is a lot simpler than terrorism, and speculation is a magnitude safer.
Pretending there's not a problem is to allow the problem to continue, and it does enable those who pretend to take a more "hard line" approach to make gains. I think Trump knows this too..
ISIS has claimed responsibility, via Amaq Agency - their PR machine, for a multiple stabbing in Minnesota. This was where 8 people were stabbed before an off duty police officer shot the guy. So that one is easy enough to assign the blame for.
Yet for the NY and NJ incidents we just wait until it's confirmed or someone takes responsibility. There isn't even that many facts really surfacing at the moment.
The two bombs in New York (including the one that failed to detonate) have no one taking responsibility, and were of a different build to the one in New Jersey - albeit similar to the type used during the Boston Marathon bombing. This type have been written about before in an Al Qaeda magazine too, but they're simple enough that it doesn't take anything more than a quick Google to work out how to build though.
Other than that, it's pure speculation. You could argue that a far right group wouldn't pick a run that was in aid of ex-servicemen from the Navy, as per the NJ bombing. Yet if it was Islamist related, what group could coordinate multiple attempts in one day, but lack the ability to guide or mentor those involved to ensure it was a success? (1/3 didn't detonate, 2/3 caused no injuries, 3/3 caused injuries that were minor enough that everyone is already out of hospital) Besides, if all the incidents were coordinated, why didn't ISIS claim responsibility via Amaq this morning when they did for the Minnesota stabbings?
So a coincidence they all happened on the same day, and they were individuals acting alone? Or something organised with some planning but - fortunately - with poor execution?
There's far too many questions to really blame anyone at the moment. Blame isn't too urgent though to be fair.
But beyond those two attacks, we've had loads of gun deaths, from Aurora to New Town to the uni here in Oregon to honestly I lose track. Ours is not the same reality of that of Belgium or France, where young men who are second generation immigrants have become radicalized and now present a huge threat. Our gun laws make it so that any litany of people can get a gun and cause mass deaths. The two large police shootings in Dallas and Baton Rouge have been perpetrated by ex-soldiers almost certainly suffering from some sort of PTSD.
Lastly, while the line about Republicans keeping Americans safe worked for many years post-9/11, I don't think it plays nearly as well any more. The attempts at revisionist history about George Bush keeping us safe* (and you don't get a fucking asterisks when it comes to security) doesn't play like it did in the bizarro world that was the early 2000s. And a lot of the narrative around keeping Americans safe relates to Libya (good luck finding an American who can tell you what happened there), Obama losing Iraq (and that plays to people who think George Bush kept us safe but most of the rest of us, Republicans and Democrats and and the rest know Iraq was a clusterfuck), and lastly, the whole Obama/Clinton created ISIS thing, which doesn't really seem to have gained any traction, and though I think it's ludicrously over-simplified, how ISIS came into being (and the role the Iraq war played in that) is a conversation I wouldn't mind seeing.
Sorry, the last par was a bit of a tangent, my point is, in the States, Islamic Extremism is, to date, not as large of a threat as say, any nutter with a gun, the police when you're black, or even returning soldiers to themselves (suicides have long surpassed combat deaths).
http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2015/11/armed-protesters-set-up-outside-islamic-center-of-irving.html/
So when you criticize American politicians for not being "hard enough on Islamic extremist," it's also worth noting that in America, there is an element of keeping the wolves from the door. What Trump has said about Muslims has gained him a lot of success, but he is by no means the first. Just google "anti-Muslim Congress" or "Senate" or Governor or whatever local political level and you'll find some awesome bigotry.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37409441
We hardly know any 'facts' about our own football club these days - but that doesn't (and shouldn't) stop us discussing such matters.
Opinions may be like arse holes - but without them the world would be a very dull place.
A left-leaning media would cover the violence in inner cities because it would treat crime with black victims not involving police the same way they do crimes with white/middle class victims.
I was not in New York this weekend, so does anyone know which of the following was given the largest amount of media coverage?
1. 29 people being wounded by explosions in New York
2. 60 Syrian government personnel being killed by a US-led drone attack
For me, one of those is a far bigger outrage than the other.
Were I setting an editorial agenda, that type of crime is absolutely something I would highlight, though I would also make a point of asking why that's the case--what contributing factors there are. From there, my extreme leftist perspective (and limey is absolutely right about that) may colour my conclusions, but I feel like everything up to that point would fall under the realm of "journalism" rather than "political agenda."
Also, are we talking national news here? And television or print?