Terrorists to Target White People, so as to avoid Hate Crime

[The Serbian Empire]

I'm pretty sure the charge of Terrorism trumps Hate Crime so I have to wonder why the fake outrage? Oh my gods, the terrorists aren't going to target minorities! HORROR!

you get an extra injection when you are executed for terrorism AND a hate crime.

And there's extra years in prison for co-conspirators not directly committing the act of terrorism when hate crimes are done.

[The East Marches]

Reminds me of this from when the Onion was funny

[Jolet]

and if this is religious radicalism, then perhaps paying closer attention to that aspect might help us address the problem. Is that really that controversial of an idea?

A good way to dealing with religious radicalism is to stop blowing billions every year on military aid for the manufacturers of said religious radicalism.

It would also do us good not to listen to those whose solution to dealing with it is "we just need our own religious radicalism in our society!"

To what are you referring, with your first point?

Secondly, To what are you referring, in your second point?

Thirdly, What does it matter to the discussion, to your second point? I fail to see its relevance in this context. Please, enlighten me.

[MERIZoC]

Man, as much as I dislike the tendency to sit out on actual discussion and play "spot the source", literally nobody is covering this aside from Fox and weirder sources. I went and looked.

Doesn't look good, m8.

I'm pretty sure the Foreign Desk News source is the original. So the person to look into is Lisa Daftari. She does cover Middle Eastern stuff on a regular basis, so either she made it up, someone snookered her, or it is legit, with the snookering being relatively unlikely by virtue of apparent topical expertise. She's working hard at building a brand as a capable investigative journalist.

As far as the coverage goes, it's not a story that would have traction outside of right-wing media, and it's fairly fresh (3 days old). Al Qaeda is widely perceived as waning in importance and they say a lot of crazy stuff, not to mention that talking about the nuts and bolts of what AQ wants people to hear is providing them with a signal boost, so I can think of several reasons why a normal news editor would shitcan the story when it hit their desk.

This, basically. The shit sources are covering it because it reinforces their agenda, but that doesn't mean its fake.

[Cannot think of a name]

OK for all of you complaining about the source, it all comes from The Foreign Desk, which is solid. I'm inclined to believe this is legit, if not terribly important.

Lisa Daftari is a Fox commentator. This is like saying "No no no, it's not a Chrysler, it's a Dodge. Totally different."

[Ostroeuropa]

Man, as much as I dislike the tendency to sit out on actual discussion and play "spot the source", literally nobody is covering this aside from Fox and weirder sources. I went and looked.

Doesn't look good, m8.

I'm pretty sure the Foreign Desk News source is the original. So the person to look into is Lisa Daftari. She does cover Middle Eastern stuff on a regular basis, so either she made it up, someone snookered her, or it is legit, with the snookering being relatively unlikely by virtue of apparent topical expertise. She's working hard at building a brand as a capable investigative journalist.

As far as the coverage goes, it's not a story that would have traction outside of right-wing media, and it's fairly fresh (3 days old). Al Qaeda is widely perceived as waning in importance and they say a lot of crazy stuff, not to mention that talking about the nuts and bolts of what AQ wants people to hear is providing them with a signal boost, so I can think of several reasons why a normal news editor would shitcan the story when it hit their desk.

It's hit the alt-right and Trump supporter reddits, forums, and social media recently.
They'll be running with it as part of their narrative, and calling the media biased for not covering it.
Inevitably, the media will be forced to either cover it, or Trump might bring it up. His supporters will be, soon enough.
Like someone says. It advances the agenda, and can be argued to frame Obama in a bad light.

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/com ... /?sort=top

Bare in mind, some of the mods are Journalists. (Honorary, but still.)

[Ashmoria]

it sure does seem that way to me. if THEY want us to focus on islam then it is probably a good idea NOT to focus on islam.

"Alright, so they're saying they're doing this in the name of their religion? Okay, cool- let's focus on any and every other possible factor OTHER than the religion they claim to be doing this because of, and see if any of the possible factors are the REAL cause, because clearly they have no idea what they're talking about."

Seriously. This is what you're trying to say. Please tell me you see the absurdity in this viewpoint.

Listen, I am not out to demonize Islam. There are far, far more peaceful Muslims than there are violent ones. But the fractured nature of the religion gives rise to issues like this, and if this is religious radicalism, then perhaps paying closer attention to that aspect might help us address the problem. Is that really that controversial of an idea?

why play into their hands? they want to be kings of islam. why would we go along with that? they are terrorists who propose terrorist acts so THEY can gain power. fuck that. if we could pretend that they did it because space aliens had replaced them with pod people, id go with it.

[Twilight Imperium]

OK for all of you complaining about the source, it all comes from The Foreign Desk, which is solid. I'm inclined to believe this is legit, if not terribly important.

Lisa Daftari is a Fox commentator. This is like saying "No no no, it's not a Chrysler, it's a Dodge. Totally different."

Bit too far, matey. It's probably real.

This, basically. The shit sources are covering it because it reinforces their agenda, but that doesn't mean its fake.

(also thank you whoever posted that Onion video, it was pretty good)

[Jolet]

I'm pretty sure the Foreign Desk News source is the original. So the person to look into is Lisa Daftari. She does cover Middle Eastern stuff on a regular basis, so either she made it up, someone snookered her, or it is legit, with the snookering being relatively unlikely by virtue of apparent topical expertise. She's working hard at building a brand as a capable investigative journalist.

As far as the coverage goes, it's not a story that would have traction outside of right-wing media, and it's fairly fresh (3 days old). Al Qaeda is widely perceived as waning in importance and they say a lot of crazy stuff, not to mention that talking about the nuts and bolts of what AQ wants people to hear is providing them with a signal boost, so I can think of several reasons why a normal news editor would shitcan the story when it hit their desk.

This, basically. The shit sources are covering it because it reinforces their agenda, but that doesn't mean its fake.

Ah, the 24-hour news cycle, at its finest. "We can't trust Fox because they're pushing an agenda with whatever they can find. Wait, what? They actually dredged something up with basis? Well, I mean..."

I miss the days of newspaper reporting. It wasn't quite as, ah, in your face. Or quite as agenda driven.

[MERIZoC]

OK for all of you complaining about the source, it all comes from The Foreign Desk, which is solid. I'm inclined to believe this is legit, if not terribly important.

Lisa Daftari is a Fox commentator. This is like saying "No no no, it's not a Chrysler, it's a Dodge. Totally different."

Do you have evidence that she has a record of falsifying information?

[Twilight Imperium]

Ah, the 24-hour news cycle, at its finest. "We can't trust Fox because they're pushing an agenda with whatever they can find. Wait, what? They actually dredged something up with basis? Well, I mean..."

I miss the days of newspaper reporting. It wasn't quite as, ah, in your face. Or quite as agenda driven.

Plus they had to winnow things down to actually fit in the papers. A simpler time.

My distrust of Fox isn't because they have an agenda - everyone does. Their willingness to go off half-cocked and/or take a scrap of truth and spin a whole thread of bullshit out of it is why I distrust them.

[Jolet]

"Alright, so they're saying they're doing this in the name of their religion? Okay, cool- let's focus on any and every other possible factor OTHER than the religion they claim to be doing this because of, and see if any of the possible factors are the REAL cause, because clearly they have no idea what they're talking about."

Seriously. This is what you're trying to say. Please tell me you see the absurdity in this viewpoint.

Listen, I am not out to demonize Islam. There are far, far more peaceful Muslims than there are violent ones. But the fractured nature of the religion gives rise to issues like this, and if this is religious radicalism, then perhaps paying closer attention to that aspect might help us address the problem. Is that really that controversial of an idea?

why play into their hands? they want to be kings of islam. why would we go along with that? they are terrorists who propose terrorist acts so THEY can gain power. fuck that. if we could pretend that they did it because space aliens had replaced them with pod people, id go with it.

From what I gathered, you just said, "Well, they want to be viewed as authorities on Islam, granting legitimacy to their actions, so let's just ignore them outright to spite them them without even looking into whether or not their claims have any actual credence in Muslim culture, tradition, or texts. Because fuck them."

That seems like a kneejerk reaction, at least to me.

[New Socialist South Africa]

Well now that we see yet again what the strategy of violent Islamic extremists is, to try have themselves presented as representative as all of Islam and try have the west declare war on all Islam and give them the massive religious conflict they want, we can respond to that by refusing to do so and working more closely with moderate and progressive Muslims, to win the ideological battle, and continuing to set about defeating armed Islamic terrorists groups militarily through cooperation with local forces.

Alternatively we could just give them what they want, label them was representative of all Islam and declare war on all over 1 billion of them, but for some odd reason I think that would be unwise.

[Ostroeuropa]

Well now that we see yet again what the strategy of violent Islamic extremists is, to try have themselves presented as representative as all of Islam and try have the west declare war on all Islam and give them the massive religious conflict they want, we can respond to that by refusing to do so and working more closely with moderate and progressive Muslims, to win the ideological battle, and continuing to set about defeating armed Islamic terrorists groups militarily through cooperation with local forces.

Alternatively we could just give them what they want, label them was representative of all Islam and declare war on all over 1 billion of them, but for some odd reason I think that would be unwise.

This is missing the key component of needing to target certain mosques and imams and the funding that goes toward them. Until we accept that there is a variant of Islam that is the problem, nothing will be accomplished.

[Ganos Lao]

"Alright, so they're saying they're doing this in the name of their religion? Okay, cool- let's focus on any and every other possible factor OTHER than the religion they claim to be doing this because of, and see if any of the possible factors are the REAL cause, because clearly they have no idea what they're talking about."

Seriously. This is what you're trying to say. Please tell me you see the absurdity in this viewpoint.

Listen, I am not out to demonize Islam. There are far, far more peaceful Muslims than there are violent ones. But the fractured nature of the religion gives rise to issues like this, and if this is religious radicalism, then perhaps paying closer attention to that aspect might help us address the problem. Is that really that controversial of an idea?

why play into their hands? they want to be kings of islam. why would we go along with that? they are terrorists who propose terrorist acts so THEY can gain power. fuck that. if we could pretend that they did it because space aliens had replaced them with pod people, id go with it.

They've been playing into their hands since 9/11. Bin Laden already won the "War on Terror."

Everything that's happened since 9/11 has gone exactly according to his blueprint.

[Jolet]

Ah, the 24-hour news cycle, at its finest. "We can't trust Fox because they're pushing an agenda with whatever they can find. Wait, what? They actually dredged something up with basis? Well, I mean..."

I miss the days of newspaper reporting. It wasn't quite as, ah, in your face. Or quite as agenda driven.

Plus they had to winnow things down to actually fit in the papers. A simpler time.

My distrust of Fox isn't because they have an agenda - everyone does. Their willingness to go off half-cocked and/or take a scrap of truth and spin a whole thread of bullshit out of it is why I distrust them.

That and they didn't rebroadcast the same news every fifteen minutes. Over, and over and over again. Too bad it's become too ingrained in politics to ever revert to what it once was, but, there's not much else to be done.

That would be a decent reason. But even President Obama's done that- he came out before we knew anything about the Sandy Hook shooting and said, "This is a gun control issue", when really it probably should have been something regarding mental health and their ability to access weapons, not just "all the gunz are ebil". News, in general, likes to paint narratives that A) fit their agenda and B) sell well via ratings. These are what drives the news cycle, not any sort of attempt to educate the masses, and that loss of news' intended function is what's led to the shitshow that is our news cycle today.

[Grande Republic of Arcadia]

thanks alot Obama

[Cannot think of a name]

Lisa Daftari is a Fox commentator. This is like saying "No no no, it's not a Chrysler, it's a Dodge. Totally different."

Do you have evidence that she has a record of falsifying information?

Lisa Daftari is a Fox commentator. This is like saying "No no no, it's not a Chrysler, it's a Dodge. Totally different."

Bit too far, matey. It's probably real.

This, basically. The shit sources are covering it because it reinforces their agenda, but that doesn't mean its fake.

(also thank you whoever posted that Onion video, it was pretty good)

"Real" and "newsworthy" are entirely different concepts. As are 'contextualization', which is the brand that both The Foreign Desk and Fox sell.

This is the inherent problem in the game, really. It's not that they just make shit up wholesale, it would be so much easier if it was a Weekly World News situation where tales of Bat Boy and aliens posing as presidents could be easily chuckled away.

It's all in the framing. The context that the stories provide. So when a source that has a relatively obvious agenda or slant provides a story, even if there is a little truth nugget in there, the context that they provide for it to shape how you're supposed to feel about the story is the question, not whether or not someone somewhere said something about not killing people your target already kills on their own. So it does become noteworthy that only sources with a shared agenda share the story in a sort of verification loop where there is no independent reporting but simply repeating what one person said over and over again, the context and relative importance of the story should be questioned.

It's not as simple as 'Fox lies' or 'can you prove this isn't true.' That's a moronically simple way of looking at how information is dispersed.

[Jolet]

Well now that we see yet again what the strategy of violent Islamic extremists is, to try have themselves presented as representative as all of Islam and try have the west declare war on all Islam and give them the massive religious conflict they want, we can respond to that by refusing to do so and working more closely with moderate and progressive Muslims, to win the ideological battle, and continuing to set about defeating armed Islamic terrorists groups militarily through cooperation with local forces.

Alternatively we could just give them what they want, label them was representative of all Islam and declare war on all over 1 billion of them, but for some odd reason I think that would be unwise.

Well, do they have basis to be making their claims? This sort of crap doesn't just spring up out of nowhere.

Assuming we chose the latter option- which we won't, just because the loss of life would be unprecedented, nevermind the moral questions that would come attached to that- the United States would probably tear itself apart, as well as most western countries with Muslims. Russia would probably be okay, though Chechnya probably would end up being a radioactive crater by the time they were done.

[MERIZoC]

Do you have evidence that she has a record of falsifying information?

Bit too far, matey. It's probably real.




(also thank you whoever posted that Onion video, it was pretty good)

"Real" and "newsworthy" are entirely different concepts. As are 'contextualization', which is the brand that both The Foreign Desk and Fox sell.

This is the inherent problem in the game, really. It's not that they just make shit up wholesale, it would be so much easier if it was a Weekly World News situation where tales of Bat Boy and aliens posing as presidents could be easily chuckled away.

It's all in the framing. The context that the stories provide. So when a source that has a relatively obvious agenda or slant provides a story, even if there is a little truth nugget in there, the context that they provide for it to shape how you're supposed to feel about the story is the question, not whether or not someone somewhere said something about not killing people your target already kills on their own. So it does become noteworthy that only sources with a shared agenda share the story in a sort of verification loop where there is no independent reporting but simply repeating what one person said over and over again, the context and relative importance of the story should be questioned.

It's not as simple as 'Fox lies' or 'can you prove this isn't true.' That's a moronically simple way of looking at how information is dispersed.

But nobody's provided anything criticizing the framing of this. It's just all been "Oh, fox news, Im gonna ignore this"

[Twilight Imperium]

"Real" and "newsworthy" are entirely different concepts. As are 'contextualization', which is the brand that both The Foreign Desk and Fox sell.
...

It's not as simple as 'Fox lies' or 'can you prove this isn't true.' That's a moronically simple way of looking at how information is dispersed.

News, in general, likes to paint narratives that A) fit their agenda and B) sell well via ratings. These are what drives the news cycle, not any sort of attempt to educate the masses, and that loss of news' intended function is what's led to the shitshow that is our news cycle today.

I don't particularly "trust" any mass media news source these days - at least not in the Walter Cronkite sense. Everyone on the 24 hour train is peddling some brand of bullshit or other, and going to just one of them is begging to have blinders put on. Better to wait until facts are known and take them in aggregate, see what shakes out.

[New Socialist South Africa]

Well now that we see yet again what the strategy of violent Islamic extremists is, to try have themselves presented as representative as all of Islam and try have the west declare war on all Islam and give them the massive religious conflict they want, we can respond to that by refusing to do so and working more closely with moderate and progressive Muslims, to win the ideological battle, and continuing to set about defeating armed Islamic terrorists groups militarily through cooperation with local forces.

Alternatively we could just give them what they want, label them was representative of all Islam and declare war on all over 1 billion of them, but for some odd reason I think that would be unwise.

This is missing the key component of needing to target certain mosques and imams and the funding that goes toward them. Until we accept that there is a variant of Islam that is the problem, nothing will be accomplished.

I have no doubt that there is a violent extremist sub-sect within Islam that should be remained wary of, but any attempts towards isolating and addressing them will need to be handled with caution so as not to give any excuses and further propaganda material to violent Islamic extremists. The same goes for the isolating and addressing of violent extremist subsections in all groups, religious and otherwise, although I obviously understand the conversation here is about Islam in particular.

I have no issue with the essence of what you are saying here however, that there is a variant or sub-section of Islam that is deeply harmful.

[Tundra Terra]

This is weird/ironic for someone like me to say this but...take a chill pill people...
it's news networks...so I agree with twilight imperium as far as the media goes...
Fun Fact: 6 companies own just about every media outlet in existence...excluding North Korea and some parts of Africa
If you target any ethnic any group for any reason at all ITS A HATE CRIME plain and simple...
(sips tea)(takes a dump on the pres. election voting machines)
Back to you Frank!!

[PaNTuXIa]

This is weird/ironic for someone like me to say this but...take a chill pill people...
it's news networks...so I agree with twilight imperium as far as the media goes...
Fun Fact: 6 companies own just about every media outlet in existence...excluding North Korea and some parts of Africa
If you target any ethnic any group for any reason at all ITS A HATE CRIME plain and simple...
(sips tea)(takes a dump on the pres. election voting machines)
Back to you Frank!!

That isn't what the post said, if you bothered to read it. OP is pointing out that because of our PC society, terrorists are more likely to target white people, because white people can never be victims of racism!

[New Socialist South Africa]

Well now that we see yet again what the strategy of violent Islamic extremists is, to try have themselves presented as representative as all of Islam and try have the west declare war on all Islam and give them the massive religious conflict they want, we can respond to that by refusing to do so and working more closely with moderate and progressive Muslims, to win the ideological battle, and continuing to set about defeating armed Islamic terrorists groups militarily through cooperation with local forces.

Alternatively we could just give them what they want, label them was representative of all Islam and declare war on all over 1 billion of them, but for some odd reason I think that would be unwise.

Well, do they have basis to be making their claims? This sort of crap doesn't just spring up out of nowhere.

Assuming we chose the latter option- which we won't, just because the loss of life would be unprecedented, nevermind the moral questions that would come attached to that- the United States would probably tear itself apart, as well as most western countries with Muslims. Russia would probably be okay, though Chechnya probably would end up being a radioactive crater by the time they were done.

They have about as much basis to do so as the Lord's Resistance Army do on claiming the heart of Christianity. If we were to take a fundamentalist or literalist approach towards most if not all religions then we would end up with quite some violent features within all of them. Of course religion, like everything else, is something that evolves with the times in reality. As much as extremists and fundamentalists would like to imagine it is static and objective, it really isn't.