Hypothetical, if ISIS targeted an American High School

I'm sorry, but where did @Stallion add in the variable that the terrorist attack would be greater in scale? I must've missed it as my common sense suggests to me that the whole thrust of his first post were if the attacks were of comparable severity. Take the recent attack on British tourist in Tunisa. Around thirty dead. Lone gunmen inspired by the beliefs of ISIS. You see no comparison at all?

The response looks like this:



There are countries were terrorist attacks on schools are just something they have to deal with.

No, I see no "comparison" - or rather I do not see it as equivalent - and this is for several reasons.

One, if you have twenty gunmen belonging to a nutjob entity, you need to compare those to twenty individual nutjob gunmen.

Two, if "lone gunmen" inspired by ISIS ideology (or not!) murder people and they do so in a consistent manner supporting the goals of ISIS then they are operatively equivalent to being a part of said entity and that makes it worse, because:

Three, you cannot just compare one individual nutjob to a nutjob who's a part of an organisation consisting of thousands of nutjobs, because the world does not look like that. ISIS is not a one man army and every man acting according to their beliefs in carrying out acts of violence hurts and destabilizes society in a direction to their liking thus it is a greater evil.

Take the case of the genocide in Tasmania. The British started offering bounties for people killing off the natives, because they were annoying. Eventually they were all wiped out. Now, say when there are only five of them left, some random lunatic paddles over to that island and chops off the last five's heads. He wasn't technically part of the organisation that did the majority of the killing, but by his act he became complicit in the act of genocide and now because of him there are no Tasmanian natives left, meaning he has pushed the structure of society beyond the point of no return. Now individually, these people are no less dead than five Chinese had been, and it's no worse for them, but the point is that he participated in an event leading to a terrible and irrevocable change.

I'm sorry but try as you might I have a hard time believing you can outwit me.

Let's try responding to Stallion's actual post, aren't you?

If you mean ISIS the political-religious entity carving out a territory in the middle east right now, that is an act of war. ISIS represents itself as a new caliphate - in effect, a country - and such an attack is more than sufficient cause for a heavy military response. Boots on the ground, airstrikes, yadda yadda yadda. If you mean a lone nut espousing ISIS' core philosophies, then that's completely different and is a law-enforcement matter.

A "conventional American school shoot 'em up" is generally conducted by one or two disturbed individuals as part of their mental illness. It's a matter for law enforcement, as I said above. ISIS the political-religious entity is in effect a foreign state and also like I said, conducting such an attack would be an act of war.

If ISIS hit an American school in the US, then we'd see a lot of theatrical measures imposed like we did after 9-11 . . . feelgood crap that accomplishes nothing, like the Patriot Act. What I'd like to see, expect to see, from schools in response would be access control, perimeter fences with a security force, that sort of thing. What I'd expect from my government is a military campaign against ISIS in its home territory, with the capture or killing of all leadership elements (preferably capture and trial, but . . . ) and the extinguishing of their ambitions. Also, a serious and long-overdue reworking of our immigration controls and policies.

As a response to a "conventional" school shooting, I still think schools need to do much better with security. But the country needs to do a much better job with mental illnesses.

Well, you're a rather arrogant so and so aren't you? Frankly I think your "out logic" insult is bullshit and you are squirming because anyone with haf a brain can see clear similarities. I'd say that this isn't just about logic. It is about the human reaction and the desire to respond to an atrocity. Part of that involves human emotion and compassion, and those are thinks that aren't subject to a logic puzzle. Human aren't Vulcans....and the irony is that your argument actually fails a logical test quite spectacularly. If a lone gunman carries out an attack inspired by militant atheism then he is influenced by a wider view. The Oregon shooter was also inspired by the IRA. A terrorist organisation. He is, in essence, no different from the Tunisian gunman....so I find your logic faulty, and faulty due to ignorance...and somewhat undermines your arrogance. Yet, the reaction to the Oregon incident is neither one of a hate crime or a terrorist attack.

I think your original post was premised on the notion of a larger scale, more organised terror attack. But terrorism doesn't just come in that form.

How many of these attacks are due to mental illness?

Most of them, apparently. Or do you consider shooting up a school to be a rational act?

In some cases it almost can be. The Columbine shooters, for example, weren't really mentally ill so much as angry and isolated. Though they weren't connected to any jihad, they were thinking like jihadists. It doesn't take schizophrenia for someone to seize on the thought "Let's kill them all in a blaze of glory! Our names will echo through the ages and people will fear and respect us."

I don't consider being a member of ISIS to be a rational act. I don't consider following a religion, for that matter, to be a rational act. Rationality is often subjective.

I don't, however, subscribe to the idea that every American who carries out an attack is mentally ill. When a suicide bomber carries out an attack we hear it's because he's Muslim. When a white American does it he is, by default, mentally ill. Can't have it both ways....and the fact is that some of people who carry out these attacks aren't diagnosed as mentally ill beforehand. What if they are simply compassion-less and just don't care?

What @steve2^4 said. To the pinheads, the answer is always "MOAR GUNZ!!!11!"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...wake-of-oregon-college-shooting-a6679191.html

You can be all sorts of mentally ill and never intentionally harm another person or thing. I wonder how it is that people with problems end up getting the idea that murdering a bunch of people is a solution?

Yes. I'm arrogant because I'm smarter than you, as I will continue to prove.

This is immaterial. Feeling repulsion at a violent act at a personal level is one thing, but the ethics of society is quite another, and should be determined by what benefits said society. Now I pointed out that if people had a more extreme emotional reaction to a group like ISIS doing this, it is also justified on a broader scale, because of the following, which proceeds to outwit your attempt to outwit me:

It is obviously true that we are all influenced by our world view and that our world view is seldom unique. However, here we have a case of where a difference in quantity becomes a difference in quality. If Islamist terror is quite prevalent in society while, as you said, "militant atheism" is less so, then every single additional action of hate supporting the former further aggravates the problem in a way the latter would not, thus it adds to that evil by, for example, making Christians afraid of leaving their houses, going to church and so on and so forth.

Take the case of the Red Army Fraction. This was a terrorist group with motivations found in a twisted version of Marxism. In the seventies, such "Red Terror" was a lot more common, and then of course, each added action served to complicate and worsen the situation, thus it was a great evil. If a lone gunman were to off a dozen kids today motivated by some hare-brained perversion of Marxism, it would of course kill the same amount of people, but because this form of terror is so rare, it would be a lesser evil than it was forty years ago.

No, it does not, but throwing in ISIS in the mix results precisely in the larger scale being an issue.

@Stallion, for this thread.

You answer your own question. Why don't we respond in the same way to the individual gun man as we would to ISIS? They aren't the same thing. Whose shit do we blow-up in response to the lone gunman? Is there some target people are preferring not to mention that could be subject to a police action in the same way that an organized terrorist group can be handled?

I don't think you have proved anything. I think you are offering a set of opinions....and I must say it's rare that I encounter someone more conceited than myself. But, I can assure you "I'm smarter" doesn't go very far with me. You need to convince me....and before you say it, offering a retort of "you're too stupid to be convinced" would be rather weak.

Wrong. It is only immaterial to your original viewpoint. It isn't immaterial to the OP's question at all, which is asking the citizens of a nation what their view would be of a particular situation and whether or not that reaction is balance. It find it interesting that you don't even live in America yet you seem to know all there is to know about the American pulse and can therefore answer the OP's post for them.

You have completely igonered the question. So much for being smart. Islamist terror isn't any more prevalent in American society than militant atheism. The rather spurious argument you are trying to advance is that because there is a large terrorism organisation 8000 miles away then that changes the game. But the OP didn't discuss the size of an attack and how organised it was. Just whether or not it was an ISIS attack. The question I put to you was that the Tunisian incident was of the same smaller scale, and the individual was inspired by and radicalised by the beliefs of ISIS, but was not actually a members. I don't see how that is substantially different from a US citizen/resident being inspired my militant atheism and/or the IRA and acting accordingly. I think that if the Tunisian gentlemen had carried out his attack on American soil and not his home soil then it would almost certainly be regarded as a terrorist atrocity despite him being inspired by ISIS without being a member and despite the sale being comparable to several of the American school shootings. I think you know this, and I think you are being dishonest to pretend otherwise. You are insisting that it's all about quantity, where I find that to be a false assertion as the Tunisian attack is just one example of an inspired attack where quantity is particularly not greater, where inspiration was the driving force and where we have an incident that is unquestionably viewed as terrorism by western standards. Conversely, it is distinctly possible that, on those sorts of variables, by rights the Oregon shooting may well have been not only a hate crime but also a terrorist attack and not the result of mental illness or just a desire to go out in a blaze of glory as so many Americans will claim.

No doubt you with advise me again of how mentally deficient I am....

Whose shit did the British blow up over Tunisia? ISIS didn't commit the attack itself, someone inspired by ISIS did. How many Americans would care about the distinction if the same applied to an attack against America?

That is certainly not inevitable. Far more likely, but probably not universal, will be locked down campuses.

That's the distinction, though. If it's somebody acting alone, that is categorically different from an organized effort directly traceable to an identifiable group.

Yes, but does that meant that the American public would treat it differently. That's the question I am advancing, and one that @armalyte doesn't seem to grasp. It is relevant because the whole point of @Stallion 's questions are about how people would react. It's all very well individuals such are yourself saying well "I" don't think it's the same. But surely a full exploration of the question also requires one to ask what Americans in general would think and say about it, particularly those pro-gun people who do not react to these shootings in the way one might expect. In other words, I am saying that the OP's question, if fully explored, isn't just about the practical reaction. It's about the opinion and reaction of American society and how much that may or may not have some level of influence on not only public policy, but the private opinions of the electorate.

How does locked down campuses help against a shooter? Sandy Hook had the doors secured and it did no good.

I think armalyte and I were both pretty clear that the public would see it differently. You can infer that means people would treat it differently.

I think gun advocates believe the only recourse against a malevolent state is guns rather than courts, ballot box, etc. This would limit us gungrabbers to bending over and kissing our asses goodbye...

I find it hilarious to think handguns are going to make a difference when big brother comes to get you. I'm skeptical that handguns would be better in thwarting a home intruder more than they are a hazard to the people living there. Therein lies the difference in philosophies.

Yes, but the difference is that you are offering a justification for treating it differently, whereas I am saying that actually in some, if not many, cases the practical differences aren't nearly as great as you're making out. It is the reaction of the masses and how much the influences other factors such as public policy that is the issue....and I am saying that the reaction is often NOT appropriately balanced, and that the argument "ISIS is greater is scale and carries a different practical response" is a demonstrably false explanation for every incident that Americans would deem an ISIS terror attack because in some cases the scale, and the greater link, is the same. It would only apply to some acts, not all.

It follows that Stallion's question would surely apply to all incidents that are mostly likely to be regarded as ISIS terror attacks by theAmerican public, not just those on a large scale and directly linked to the hierarchy of the group. Christ, just look at the reaction from the bible bashing right wing nutters over the Texas kid and his school project. So many think his family is in league with ISIS and training him! I therefore don't think it's a stretch to say that in post 9/11 American a Tunisian style attack would be regarded as an ISIS terror attack.

Frankly, I think if you were honest, this really isn't so much a debate about exactly what constitutes an ISIS attack, it's rather an exploration of the likely difference in reaction between something deemed to be inspired by Islamism and something that is domestic and a predominantly white American/Christian issue. I think the real question that arises out of the OP's post, is just how much does the gun issue impact the American's public's ability to view something as a tragedy that needs a response? To take it all the way back to Armalytes original post, I would say that just talking about scale and political motive is a red herring, especially because, when you turn it on it's head, there is equally a political motive for the lack of reaction to domestically linked incidents. Something the logic expert failed to spot.

I get the argument. With a large force of poorly armed citizens you could probably hold off in secret enclaves for a while. All it takes is a foothold for the revolution to flourish.

Oh, but you know me, Chup. I've been registered at the board for over a decade, and you do know that while I may be a jackass I'm an honest debater, if nothing else. Unlike people like, for example, @Dinner, I never avoid questions I have no answer for. I'll simply say "I don't know" or if you drive your point home I'll say "you're right".

Also I didn't claim that you were stupid, I only claimed I am smarter. There is a difference.

But enough of that debating-the-debate stuff, let's get down to business, shall we?

Let's accept your interpretation of the original poster's question and analyze it, then. You are asking what their view would be and whether or not their reaction would be balanced, correct? Please note that the OP does not pose the question to Americans, he poses it to all of us without distinction. Also I was mostly responding to you and your argument, and the response is completely on-topic. I am venturing the view that if they would be more outraged by an Islamist terror attack - and I do think they would, but that's actually mostly besides the point - then this added outrage is justified, and then I go on to prove why, within the context of a society this is so, in a consistent manner.

But, you are wrong again, on two counts.

First of all the fact that there is a large terrorism organisation 8,000 miles away does change the game because the Islamist terror is a global problem and also the world is getting increasingly globalized, therefore that aspect can not be ignored. In fact, I would suggest that was a major psychological impact of Nine Eleven but you may disagree if you believe I represent your society incorrectly - with that provocation came the chilling insight that "this can happen here - this can happen everywhere."

Second, unless I am completely misinformed terrorism on the grounds of "militant atheism" is far less prevalent than terrorism on the grounds of radical Islam, even in America. Truthers and non-truthers aside, Al-Qaeda took responsibility for an attack on US soil which killed thousands. I shouldn't have to tell you that left a mark, that's something you should tell me.

I might add that it's not exactly relevant whether a person is a member of a certain group or minority unless he perpetrates an act of terror in its name or believes himself to be acting according to the group's ideal set of values. That is why a white person shooting a black person or vice versa is not necessarily a hate crime and why, for example, even if ninety percent of all people were taoists and those taoists perpetrated nine tenth of all acts of terror that would not necessarily mean that the country had a "taoist terror problem."

I am not pretending otherwise, so how can I be dishonest? I agree completely, and as I said I believe that joining in a series of politically motivated attacks, acting in consistency with their agenda, operatively makes you a part of the movement, and that it is logically and morally sound to see an action supporting a genuine threat to our civilisation as a greater evil than someone perpetrating a mass murder against, say, Scientologists because he's a Catholic. I don't think you understood my Tasmanian reference and I'd advice you to read it again.

No, I am insisting that this is an example of where a change in quantity translates into a change in quality.

As an example, water at 99 degrees Celsius is still a liquid. Add one degree Celsius and it boils and transforms into a gas. Take the same water at thirty degrees Celsius and add one degree of heat, and nothing significant happens. This is a basic example part of lessons in dialectic materialism.

The Oregon shooting may very well have been a terrorist attack or it may not have been. There are many factors to consider there. I will accept any claim you make in the matter and I find it irrelevant to the larger question, which I believe I have now spelled out and answered in detail.

@armalyte

If I don't know something I will usually say I do not know. I admitted that, yes indeed, there was exactly one air strike against Al Nusra in our last debate so the 95% figure was incorrect. The correct figure was 95% minus that one strike. There were 20 total strikes at the time so that is 18 against the FSA (90%), 1 against ISIS (5%), and 1 against Al Nusra (5%). That is why I said the broad point stood as most of the Russian strikes were against the FSA.

That you tried to use that to avoid admitting that you were wrong does not reflect well on you. In fact, it is the exact opposite of the claims you made above that you would admit when you were wrong.

@Dinner

You should not bring the topic of a different discussion into another thread. Feel free to post in the other thread if you feel like getting beat up some more. I will respond to your latest lies in there.