Lone Wolves in the USA (new title)

[Bill Moore]

The crime, while sensational, is not important. The motive is important for the reasons Bill stated. Apparently the perpetrator's firing from his job was the trigger. So is this a case of Islamic extremism or another case of workplace violence?

He was reportedly fired because he was arguing at work in favor of stoning women for violating the Koran. Obviously that would result in a hostile work environment and the firing would have been justified. What will be interesting is to see how people with different worldviews interpret this event. We see two on this discussion already. One is basically is sticking his head in the sand denying there is a threat. The other wants to wage a religious war. Other's will see this as a case of racism although if a white male would have made those comments they would have demanded he be fired.

It is hard for us earthly humans to interpret these events objectively. My subjective opinion based on what I think I know is that he was a troubled individual, who was fired for inappropriate behavior at work, so he sought revenge. It is clearly workplace violence. Based on his arguments and his Facebook comments his motivation was also based on his extreme interpretation of Islam and his desire to support terrorizing non believers. So at least two issues converge into motivation for a specific act. I'm sure other factors played a role that we will never know.

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?

[slapout9]

The other wants to wage a religious war. Other's will see this as a case of racism although if a white male would have made those comments they would have demanded he be fired.

Bill,
I have never said thatnor do I want that. I do want my Government to recognize and respond appropriately to the fact that the enemy has declared a Religious war on us! whether we choose to recognize that or stay in denial is part of the problem.

[Bill Moore]

Slap your proposal for so called counter value targeting was nothing short of declaring war a religion by attacking their holy sites. You are right we have to recognize the character of the war we are in. Our adversaries are trying to impose their will upon us through the use of both organized and unorganized violence, and what they are attempting to impose is their religious world view. We are trying to impose our democratic and human rights values. They are not compatible, and that has implications that should make us rethink the underlying logic of the war.

[omarali50]

it seems that there is some phenomenon wherein some mentally ill people (hard to see how this person was "sane" by any measure) find ISIS-type Islamism very attractive. An interesting topic and thinking about it rationally (as rationally as possible?) may lead to new insights, but what will those insights be? I don't think it is immediately obvious.

There can be no doubt that there are some Muslims who have declared war on the United States and some of those Muslims are in the US (likely very few..though the qualification "very few" may not apply equally to the UK), but what to do in response is still an open question.

Given the current state of Western civilization, it may be necessary to discuss "counter-value targeting" much more before it is implemented. For example, the targeting of cities and sacred symbols of the Nazis or the Japanese occurred in the context of total war and clearly defined enemy states..and in a setting where the culture broadly accepted that A. We are at war B. Our enemies are evil and ruthless and have attacked us first. C. This is what one does when fighting evil enemies who are equally determined to do this if they had the chance (and in fact have already done so at places). All three elements are currently disputed at home; This may be a bad thing, but it is a thing. It may have to change before such targeting makes sense...and, more to the point, before it works (instead of splitting apart the home front or the allies, for example).

Just a thought.

PS: what is disputed is not the fact of an attack on the US. After 9-11, obviously US has been attacked.... But by whom? Bin Laden and his group were not a state. If the cities and symbols of a state have to be attacked in response, then which state? (Afghanistan was already attacked for harboring him, Pakistan was spared for various reasons, Saudi Arabia as a state was not really harboring or supporting his network...and of course, Iraq or Syria had nothing to do with that particular attack). Mecca (for example) is a central symbol for many who had nothing to do with him, or actively opposed him. If the government of Saudi Arabia is fully on board with attacking Bin Laden (and it probably was), is it OK to attack Saudi cities? ..and so on.
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.

[Bill Moore]

Thinking out loud with you. We're not fighting a state and we're not waging war on Islam. We are waging war on extremists who happen to be Muslims. Our critical alliances in this fight are the 90% of Muslims who don't support the extremists, so how would we conduct counter value targeting without alienating our allues?

We need to kill terrorists on a larger scale, but in a way that doesn't make the situation worse, which means getting the narrative right first and then attack hard, versus attacking and then developing a narrative to explain it. We are closer to doing that in the fight against IS, but unfortunately the killing part is falling way short. We have a green light from the Arab world and beyond so we should have our foot on the gas pedal and be much more aggressive to include using ground troops to rapidly degrade them. I think we are leaving too much space for IS to regain the initiative.

[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?

[slapout9]

Slap your proposal for so called counter value targeting was nothing short of declaring war a religion by attacking their holy sites. You are right we have to recognize the character of the war we are in. Our adversaries are trying to impose their will upon us through the use of both organized and unorganized violence, and what they are attempting to impose is their religious world view. We are trying to impose our democratic and human rights values. They are not compatible, and that has implications that should make us rethink the underlying logic of the war.

Bill,
I didn't say that..... I said retaliatory equivalence counter valuetargeting.......### for tat after an attack. In other words if the enemy wants to make this a holy war and they attack us then we attack back in kind or if we dont want to do that then at least attack something equal in value according to what the enemy values not necessarily what we value.