Lone Wolves in the USA (new title)

[slapout9]

Suppose ISIS manages an attack on the US. Would it be OK to carpet bomb cities under their control? Mosul? Raqqa? Much less bomb Mecca (whose controlling state is actually bombing ISIS?).. (I bring up bombing Mecca because I think slapout may have mentioned that as an option at some point. My apologies if my memory is faulty)Leaving aside any moral objections, wouldnt it be desirable to spell these options out in advance, to make such deterrence work? (if it works at all). Could the US and its allies really spell such things out in their current incarnation?
I think the US is capable (as in able and willing) of bombing cities right now, but not capable of saying it out loud and clear before or after the fact, which makes it rather less effective as a threat, no?
They really didnt have to spell it out in 1944, likely because times were different?
Thinking out loud.

omarali50,

Yes I said that but please read what posted for Bill Moore. It would only be done in special circumstances.

[AmericanPride]

Like it or not it is now a national issue that cannot be swept under the rug. How we perceive and respond to this as a nation will in part define who we are. Hopefully not cowards acting out in fear against Islam writ large, and hopefully not embracing denial there is a threat we need to address. Can we as a nation develop appropriate and nuanced approaches or will mass media drive us ineffective extremes?

Workplace violence has been a problem, and a growing one, in the U.S. since at least the middle of the 20th century. And the causes have nothing to do with ideological extremism; the origins are in decreasing job security, diminishing benefits, increased stress and demands placed on employees. Obviously this incident has an outward religious component to it, but is religion the cause, trigger, or mechanism? Far more people are killed for reasons of workplace violence than religious extremism (of any religion generally but specifically Islam) in the U.S. every year.

This was a similar major controversy with Nidal Hasan and the evidence clearly indicating that a hostile workplace encouraged his radicalization. That radical Islam may emerge as an outlet for frustrated and alienated segments of the populations is a problem, sure, but it's a symptom of the underlying disease in the American workplace of increasingly difficult conditions. Some turn to racism and white power; others to violence; still others to radical Islam. This case in OK may turn out to be different but that's the general trend in workplace violence.

[Bill Moore]

AP

your an economic determinist and Bob is a political determinist, and you both blindly cling to your models as simplistic views to explain the world. Just because you reject idealism as motive doesn't mean everyone does. Our arrogance is insisting the world conform to our democratic and economic views, so we continue to make policy decisions on our rather naive views because we can't perceive that others may actually be inspired by ideology. I guess in this case because he convert his coworkers or convince them that stoning women to death made it a hostile work environment?

[AmericanPride]

AP

your an economic determinist and Bob is a political determinist, and you both blindly cling to your models as simplistic views to explain the world. Just because you reject idealism as motive doesn't mean everyone does. Our arrogance is insisting the world conform to our democratic and economic views, so we continue to make policy decisions on our rather naive views because we can't perceive that others may actually be inspired by ideology. I guess in this case because he convert his coworkers or convince them that stoning women to death made it a hostile work environment?

There's a fine line between determinism (economic or other) and agency. For investigative and criminal justice purpose, the focus will be on the suspect's agency in order to establish culpability. But if we're concerned about identifying the root causes of this problem (whether it's religious extremism or workplace violence) to reduce future incidents, then we also need to investigate all of the contextual factors that led to this incident. As I said, it may or may not be related to a hostile workplace. That information is not yet available. But it has some of the indicators of other workplace violence incidents. And workplace violence already has well-researched and established causes.

And since you mentioned idealism and ideology; the general consensus in academia is that ideology emerges from social practices and human activity not vice versa. So we can grant that an individual may act on idealism, but to understand the specific ideology, its characteristics, and its appeal, it's also important to explore its relationship to the material world. Why radical Islam and not radical Christianity? Why beheading and not shooting? Why target the workplace and not neighbors? Why did the suspect feel compelled to promote conversion at his workplace in the first instance? People do not behave in a vacuum and they are constantly responding to and assessing their material conditions.

[Bill Moore]

But if we're concerned about identifying the root causes of this problem (whether it's religious extremism or workplace violence) to reduce future incidents, then we also need to investigate all of the contextual factors that led to this incident.

Agree, and it is seldom one thing that leads to a behavioral change. This is my concern with what I'm calling deterministic models. They attempt to isolate a specific variable, and then context is lost and the truth is in the larger context. There is also a good chance that the truth can't be determined.

And since you mentioned idealism and ideology; the general consensus in academia is that ideology emerges from social practices and human activity not vice versa. So we can grant that an individual may act on idealism, but to understand the specific ideology, its characteristics, and its appeal, it's also important to explore its relationship to the material world. Why radical Islam and not radical Christianity? Why beheading and not shooting? Why target the workplace and not neighbors? Why did the suspect feel compelled to promote conversion at his workplace in the first instance? People do not behave in a vacuum and they are constantly responding to and assessing their material conditions.

I'm not yet convinced by academia's chicken or egg claim. Ideology is a worldview, and regardless of the character of the material world the will perceive it and act upon it through that lens. Is their an interdependence between the material world and ideology? Most certainly, and each shapes the other, but to claim ones must first doesn't seem provable to me.

[Bill Moore]

Bottom line for me at this point is I'm not comfortable ascertaining underlying causes, and since every actor is different I think the utility of attempting to do so beyond academic study is limited and could be dangerously misleading.

Just out curiosity I viewed recent shooting news for 5 cities, and over well over 30 people have been shot in the past 24 hours in those 5 cities alone, so needless to say we have a high level of violence in some segments of our society. If those shootings stay in certain segments of society, then America largely turns a blind eye. I think we do so at our own risk, moral and otherwise, since we are allowing this norm to perpetuate into the future, yet none of this is newsworthy because it is so common.

The beheading, like a mass shooting at a school, is newsworthy, and that is where the risk is. As indicated by a recent FBI report on the increase of mass shootings, the copy cat syndrome is real. If you put it in perspective it was one of many murders, and while a beheading does have some shock aspect to it, I think many Americans would be shocked if they were aware of the torture that some of the organized criminal groups put their victims through before they kill them. They do it for the same purpose, to instill terror to enhance their control of the their target audience.

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2014/09/25/f...ass-shootings/

FBI Report Examines Mass Shootings

Law enforcement officials who specialize in behavioral analysis say the motives of gunmen vary but many have a real, or perceived, personally held grievance that they feel mandates an act of violence. Though it’s hard to say why the number of shootings has increased, officials say they believe many shooters are inspired by past killings and the resulting notoriety.

“The copycat phenomenon is real,” said Andre Simons of the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit. “As more and more notable and tragic events occur, we think we’re seeing more compromised, marginalized individuals who are seeking inspiration from those past attacks.”

[AmericanPride]

Bill,

I think you're right with regards to the copy cat syndrome. The media plays a major role in this although there is a fine line between free speech and responsible reporting (which can be a code word for self-censorship).

Just out curiosity I viewed recent shooting news for 5 cities, and over well over 30 people have been shot in the past 24 hours in those 5 cities alone, so needless to say we have a high level of violence in some segments of our society. If those shootings stay in certain segments of society, then America largely turns a blind eye. I think we do so at our own risk, moral and otherwise, since we are allowing this norm to perpetuate into the future, yet none of this is newsworthy because it is so common.

That's part of the problem. And violence is not limited in "some segments of society"; it affects every segment of society. But it's normalized, as you've mentioned, through a mainstream narrative, at least when it fits into those preconceptions about which "segments" 'deserve' the violence visited upon them. Where does a workplace beheading fall into narratively speaking? The narrative about the threat of radical Islamic terrorism or the one about workplace violence?

Now what's interesting to me about terrorism in the United States is just how widely the media actually ignores self-proclaimed terrorism. Militant right-wing populism has been the largest source of violence in the U.S as far as terrorism is concerned. Just recently, a self-proclaimed survivalist targeted police officials, killing one of them, in the mid-West somewhere I believe. This did not receive widespread media coverage, however. These kinds of acts have all the conventional components of a terrorist attack, including most importantly a political agenda (what's the OK attacker's political agenda?). As we've seen in Iraq and Afghanistan (and in previous terrorist campaigns), the aim is not always a spectacular attack to scare the public at large. But often is directed at local officials and institutions with the aim of subverting government authority.

So if we're to be concerned about terrorism in the U.S., let's focus on the actual perpetrators of terrorism in the country.