I keep reading the claim that the US air dropped some huge quantity of arms and ordinance to ISIS but no source that tries to document it. Where's that coming from? Trump? The interwebs?
IDK about air drops, but I've read articles about many of the "moderate rebels" we trained and supplied defecting and/or giving their supplies to ISIS.
I keep reading the claim that the US air dropped some huge quantity of arms and ordinance to ISIS but no source that tries to document it. Where's that coming from? Trump? The interwebs?
IDK about air drops, but I've read articles about many of the "moderate rebels" we trained and supplied defecting and/or giving their supplies to ISIS.
Yeah same here. I've heard rumors of the US giving supplies to ISIS directly but no actual evidence to back that up so we can probably chalk that up to conspiracy theories for now. And I remember seeing possibly a Vice video where individuals in the Iraqi army were scrapping perfectly good trucks for cash, selling them to shady people and then asking for replacements from the US Military and that may be one of the reasons we keep seeing them with Toyota's fitted with antiaircraft guns and other munitions.
20 years ago they would have, but now terrorists are defined as brown people first, then Muslim. Otherwise it can't be terrorism. Hooray for propaganda and deliberate division using wedge issues and xenophobia.
I keep reading the claim that the US air dropped some huge quantity of arms and ordinance to ISIS but no source that tries to document it. Where's that coming from? Trump? The interwebs?
IDK about air drops, but I've read articles about many of the "moderate rebels" we trained and supplied defecting and/or giving their supplies to ISIS.
Yeah same here. I've heard rumors of the US giving supplies to ISIS directly but no actual evidence to back that up so we can probably chalk that up to conspiracy theories for now. And I remember seeing possibly a Vice video where individuals in the Iraqi army were scrapping perfectly good trucks for cash, selling them to shady people and then asking for replacements from the US Military and that may be one of the reasons we keep seeing them with Toyota's fitted with antiaircraft guns and other munitions.
Any group like ISIS basically runs on the culture of state corruption to keep going. Insurgency requires a gradient of investent in the rule of law; for every actual fighter or supporter in a movement, you have three people who are willing to enable them for short-term personal gain because they have no particular attachment to the authority of the state. It's not a new problem, but it's also one you can't really fix from the top-down except through both poverty-fighting and long-term stability.
This is about the closest anyone will get to calling that shooting at Planned Parenthood exactly what it was: domestic terrorism.
FTA: The attack sparked a national debate over gun control and abortion, as supporters of Planned Parenthood described the shooting as domestic terrorism that had been fueled by anti-abortion comments, while some Republicans insisted that both sides needed to tone down their oratory.
AYFKM?! "Oh, oh, well, see, it's a problem with the entire discourse. It's not that we encourage this sort of thing by calling abortion providers murder centers or make up lies about them being grotesque baby-part-harvesting factories. It's also the Democrats and Liberals who say, um, that everyone should murder as many babies as possible and give all their guns to Islamo-facists. I mean, everyone is really at fault, right?"
The FBI just announced that the San Bernardino shootings were indeed a terror attack, and that the shooters were radical Islamist extremist with likely ISIS ties.
Even worse, they were semi-professional and had extensive bomb-making and attack planning operations ongoing. The investigation is now fully federal, and will involve intelligence services.
Heh.. One serious speculation is that they basically "went postal" and that this attack was premature. They likely tried to get away with it and then continue with the actual planned attack on a later date.
I had heard that they had announced their allegiance with them or something like that but not that they were actually "members" or in contact. Such that they might have done it on their own on the behalf of ISIS without actually having anything to do with them.
They consumed ISIS propaganda and acted in their perception of ISIS interests. The FBI also said that the contacts on the phones they attempted to destroy may be material terror links.
ISIS "members" overseas are like anonymous "members." They encourage stochastic, standalone terrorism.
These two also had been planning a major attack for some time. The strangest thing about this whole case is that they blew their load prematurely.
There's some speculation that they had planned to slip away and initiate their main attack later. Thank the Emperor they were idiots and ended up getting shot.
Also interesting they were using unsecured cell phones to phone terrorist contacts and used Facebook to post their allegiance to ISIS. Amazingly complex technologies they used to fool the NSA, truly.
There's some speculation that they had planned to slip away and initiate their main attack later. Thank the Emperor they were idiots and ended up getting shot.
Also interesting they were using unsecured cell phones to phone terrorist contacts and used Facebook to post their allegiance to ISIS. Amazingly complex technologies they used to fool the NSA, truly.
Considering the leader of the Paris attacks was interviewed in an ISIS magazine announcing his intentions a full month beforehand, I don't think they care about security. In fact, their brazen disregard for the capability of intelligence services is probably even more intimidating and terrorizing than if they used encryption and covered their tracks.
There's some speculation that they had planned to slip away and initiate their main attack later. Thank the Emperor they were idiots and ended up getting shot.
Also interesting they were using unsecured cell phones to phone terrorist contacts and used Facebook to post their allegiance to ISIS. Amazingly complex technologies they used to fool the NSA, truly.
Considering the leader of the Paris attacks was interviewed in an ISIS magazine announcing his intentions a full month beforehand, I don't think they care about security. In fact, their brazen disregard for the capability of intelligence services is probably even more intimidating and terrorizing than if they used encryption and covered their tracks.
I suppose you think that's a good reason we should let the government have a backdoor into encryption? The NSA and other security agencies are completely incapable of stopping terrorism when the terrorists practically give them the intel. I have no confidence they'd use an encryption backdoor to any practical effect.
I suppose you think that's a good reason we should let the government have a backdoor into encryption? The NSA and other security agencies are completely incapable of stopping terrorism when the terrorists practically give them the intel. I have no confidence they'd use an encryption backdoor to any practical effect.
I'm pretty sure they weren't saying that, they was saying that it's scary that ISIS is treating our intelligence services as incompetent and they appear to be right.
Shoutout to Churba on the latest FNPL for calling out the bullshit "355 mass shootings this year" number that's been going around since the San Bernardino shootings. That shit pisses me off.
When did "terrorism" come to mean murders perpetrated by a certain shade of people from a certain religion? This was terrorism before the organizational connection was made, or else nothing is.
Around 9/11, but it only gets used that way by people that don't know any better. For people that work in security/counter-terrorism, defining the word "terrorism" is hard as balls, primarily because of the whole "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" dynamic. The dictionary definition is basically worthless, and serious academics have problems coming up with a workable definition. The guys in that article created the following definition:
Terrorism is a politically motivated tactic involving the threat or use of force or violence in which the pursuit of publicity plays a significant role.
A different article basically adopted the definition of terrorism from the US Code:
Terrorism is defined by Title 22 of the U.S. Code as politically motivated violence perpetrated in a clandestine manner against noncombatants. Experts on terrorism also include another aspect in the definition: the act is committed in order to create a fearful state of mind in an audience different from the victims. Whether or not an act is considered terrorism also depends on whether a legal, moral, or behavioral perspective is used to interpret the act. If a legal or moral perspective is used, the values of the interpreter are the focus rather than the act itself.
They both work, but the second one, I think, is the better of the two since it is more strict as far as the elements needed to classify an act as terrorism.
When did "terrorism" come to mean murders perpetrated by a certain shade of people from a certain religion? This was terrorism before the organizational connection was made, or else nothing is.
Is it really surprising though?
The White Racial Frame—a system of belief that legitimizes and normalizes white dominance and privilege in North American society—has produced the language of “riots,” “black pathology,” “thugs,” and “criminals” that is commonly used to describe the Baltimore uprising. The White Racial Frame does the work of white supremacy and helps to maintain political, social and economic systems of white privilege and unearned advantages. The White Racial Frame also distorts historical fact by erasing America’s long tradition of white-on-black violence across the colorline.
On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. `What is called terrorism', Brian Jenkins has written, `thus seems to depend on one's point of view. Use of the term implies a moral judgement; and if one party can successfully attach the label terrorist to its opponent, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.' Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization `terrorist' becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism.
Let's radicalise you folk to stop those radicalised Muslim folk.
Like it would have been so easy for him to not be offensive here. Considering the vast majority of shootings haven't been muslims, he could have easily just made a more general "grr don't even think about messing with us" message. But no, "end those Muslims" because because lets just help Daesh recruit more huh?
A while back, there was a bunch of pants-wetting over "suspicious" (read: Middle Eastern) people buying old cellphones in bulk with cash in small towns around the country. People were calling the police reporting it.
They now arrested one of those people as a terrorist.
Comments
20 years ago they would have, but now terrorists are defined as brown people first, then Muslim. Otherwise it can't be terrorism. Hooray for propaganda and deliberate division using wedge issues and xenophobia.
AYFKM?! "Oh, oh, well, see, it's a problem with the entire discourse. It's not that we encourage this sort of thing by calling abortion providers murder centers or make up lies about them being grotesque baby-part-harvesting factories. It's also the Democrats and Liberals who say, um, that everyone should murder as many babies as possible and give all their guns to Islamo-facists. I mean, everyone is really at fault, right?"
Even worse, they were semi-professional and had extensive bomb-making and attack planning operations ongoing. The investigation is now fully federal, and will involve intelligence services.
ISIS "members" overseas are like anonymous "members." They encourage stochastic, standalone terrorism.
These two also had been planning a major attack for some time. The strangest thing about this whole case is that they blew their load prematurely.
Also interesting they were using unsecured cell phones to phone terrorist contacts and used Facebook to post their allegiance to ISIS. Amazingly complex technologies they used to fool the NSA, truly.
Let's radicalise you folk to stop those
radicalisedMuslim folk.They now arrested one of those people as a terrorist.
http://www.seattlepi.com/news/texas/article/Federal-agent-says-Iraqi-refugee-wanted-to-bomb-6758051.php?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link
A scathing letter to the editor about the Malheur wildlife reserve situation from a familiar name.