^ Oh yeah, this thread is going to end well…
" I believe we’re better off following their examples and avoiding any quick conclusions from the safety of our non European home."
@MYOS1634 – As usual, you’re spot on.
The answer to all this is this kind of violence is not new, the random, seemingly meaningless deaths of people doing ordinary things, when this has been so common in other parts of the world for a long time. A terrorist incident in Yemen or Jordan? That has happened so many times, and so routinely, we get to assume it is part of the background of things, whereas a terrorist incident that happens in the US, or in Paris, or Berlin, is something we don’t expect (not saying it is rational, more on that in a bit). We also are sensitized to a type of terrorism these days, one that features Islamic terrorism, and as a result we also forget about terrorism waves of the past (in large part because most of them happened outside the US). In the 1970’s and 80’s Europe had terror groups like the Red Brigades and Bader Meinhoff, who were causing all sorts of havoc, and the British were dealing with the IRA with things like car bombings. In NYC, we had the Puerto Rican FALN, who were responsible for some major bombings, like Fraunce’s Tavern and at Laguardia airport…
Why didn’t the Swiss shooting make a big splash? Could be because there was no obvious motive to the shooting, the guy killed someone before shooting at the Mosque, so was this a terror attack or a serial killer, possibly off his nut? If the shooter had been muslim then likely it would have received bigger press, because of the sensitivity to Islamic terrorism, I think because it is a non Muslim it becomes just a crazy person shooting and killing people (not justifying it, just explaining it).
The reality is things are reported to a large extent based on how well it will sell the media source reporting it, I remember a tv show set in the 1950’s, that when the Suez crisis was raging (and tensions were quite high), where the teacher points out that the big headline on the tabloid papers was Marilyn Monroe and Joe Dimaggio splitting up. Someone famous gets a hangnail it is on some page near the front, some poor person gets shot in Hunts Point in the south Bronx it makes page 65. Islamic terrorism, whatever that is, is big news now, for obvious reasons, and anything that smacks of it is going to get the press coverage and such, because that feeds into people’s fears and that is what gets people watching or reading media sites or papers or whatnot.
A suspect has been named and is being sought:
It is worse when you generously open your doors and tax revenues to a million people, and some (few) of them turn around and kill you.
For convincing moral relativism, you ought at least to have some semblance of equivalence.
The average Somali likely couldn’t give a hoot about the murder rate in Chicago but would be seriously incensed if we sloughed off our drive-by shooters to their vicinity.
I have to say that I was struck by the different coverage of these three attacks that happened so close together in time. On the NYT web site, there was a large story about the Berlin attacks, with a video, along the left side of the “page”, while the Zurich attack was literally buried in the fine print far lower down. Towering over it all was that bizarre image of the art gallery assasination in Turkey.
Of course it isn’t a contest but it was clear that their coverage was influenced by drama as well as the severity of the attack by itself.
It all just makes me sadder. I find myself a bit depressed these days with the thought of what the future might hold for our beautiful world.
Perhaps the reason the Zurich attack is 2nd page news, is that there were no deaths other than the gunman (apparent suicide).
Sad is some unknown parent’s child dead from one of those attacks. Sadder still is my or your child dead.
I’ll venture the future holds more of the same. And still more, until there’s finally a predominating shift in opinion as to what’s an effective response to this.
Myself, I don’t believe it’s the non-strenuous effort of giving up a few more citizen rights to the TSA or Homeland Security.
Unfortunately, the likely response is more bigotry. Al Qaeda and Daesh are winning the war for the hearts and minds of Americans and Europeans.
From NPR:
Vehicle Attacks Like Berlin’s Are Nothing New, And Are Likely To Continue
http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/12/21/506354954/vehicle-attacks-like-berlins-are-nothing-new-and-are-likely-to-continue
the hearts and minds of who? The hearts and minds of the people committing terrorist attacks?
Nope. The hearts and minds of everyday Americans who become fearful of anyone different from themselves, who practice a different religion.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/17/isis-wants-you-to-hate-muslims/?utm_term=.be05abefe9ff
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x30rk9a
Bigotry, according to Merriam: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
Describes the Berlin truck guy, the 9/11 crowd, the Pulse shooter, the Boston Marathon brothers, the San Bernardino couple, and all the others, to a tee.
I think it would take very dim light indeed to mistake a self-interested response to this as more bigotry.
I don’t sense any mass fear over self-immolating Buddhist monks.
Did you visit the links or read many other articles on the subject? Witty quips aside, @MaelstromMonkey…
I do recall a Sikh man being beaten to death after 911, under the idiotic assumption he was a Muslim.
If the response is opposition to Daesh, Al Qaeda, and other terrorist groups, that is not bigotry.
If the response is opposition to all Muslims, that is bigotry, and is exactly what Daesh and Al Qaeda want, since it helps them recruit more terrorists.
Unfortunately, the latter response is increasing.
Maybe we should all start fearing white males because they can be radicalized into white supremacists online ala Dylann Roof…
it looks like all underperforming young males can be radicalized online. Actually, any teenager can be “radicalized”. People who live in Britain, France, etc, are well aware of that. Parents check their kids’ computers in fear, because over there, it’s now obvious that any kid can be “radicalized”. The real word is: brainwashed.
It works for any radical ideology.
(Remember that it’s not radicalization of islam, but islamization of radicalism. In other words, anyone’s kids could fall prey to this. Not getting this fundamental issue is keeping us from effectively rooting the problem out.)
Thugs are different from kids. The mechanism of enrolling them is different. They are chosen for their willingness to commit violence.
Again: it’s not religion. Most people who were radicalized online were not “faithful” but either "feeble minded " (like the guy in Germany this summer, the guy in Nice), or common lowlifes. The Berlin truck guy was a thug, like the Paris attack guys. He was recognized as such and put in jail in Italy. After that he went to Germany, tried 7 times to get asylum, and was turned down 7 times. To me, it shows the vetting process works. Authorities knew he wasn’t who he claimed to be, and tried to send him back. Ironically, his deportation was accepted by Tunisian authorities on Wednesday.
Those thugs are told they’ll cleanse the world and purify themselves in violence while righting the wrongs against them as they perceive them due to their overinflated ego. They’re all ready to believe that BS wrapped in a shroud of religion but there’s zero evidence it is a long journey of spiritual self discovery.
If the topic interests you for real - and not just as an opportunity to echo online - try to see a film based on real life kids who were “radicalized”, Heaven Will Wait. As of now, what is the most accessible and truest to life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkAG5WilU18
Harder to watch and not about the Western world - makes it clear why thugs benefit in that system:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7YeoB5bSBY