Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Radical Islam seems to be gaining mystique with today's angry young men. Reminds me of the anarchists from a hundred years ago.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
I made this post because I have pledged allegiance to ISIS. Or maybe I am just saying that?

By all means investigate if there is a link but there is not a great deal here that suggests an ISIS link other than the gunmans claim.

Anonymous claim online =/= an attempted murder where the attacker proclaims it was done in the name of [insert belief]

I'm very impressed he returned fire, being hit 3 time at last.
I always assumed the pain to be so intense I couldn't do anything but to scream, if I were hit.
Especially so close.

 godardc wrote:
I'm very impressed he returned fire, being hit 3 time at last.
I always assumed the pain to be so intense I couldn't do anything but to scream, if I were hit.
Especially so close.

Adrenaline overcomes pain initially.

 godardc wrote:
I'm very impressed he returned fire, being hit 3 time at last.
I always assumed the pain to be so intense I couldn't do anything but to scream, if I were hit.
Especially so close.

Remember this the next time someone says the cops should have just shot someone in the leg and incapacitated them.

On another note, wasn't the guy who was in the planned parenthood shoot out used as an example to paint brush Christians and /or those against abortion.

 godardc wrote:
I'm very impressed he returned fire, being hit 3 time at last.
I always assumed the pain to be so intense I couldn't do anything but to scream, if I were hit.
Especially so close.

Training
Adrenaline
Survival instinct

 godardc wrote:
I'm very impressed he returned fire, being hit 3 time at last.
I always assumed the pain to be so intense I couldn't do anything but to scream, if I were hit.
Especially so close.

Its not exactly uncommon. There are many stories of soldiers not noticing they've been shot immediately. In a high intensity situation you can power through anything that doesn't immediately incapacitate you. Its why if you are shooting at someone you shoot till they stop moving because one bullet rarely does the job.

I'm with Breotan on this one. Why would a terrorist walk past dozens of unarmed civilians in order to attack an armed policeman?

Makes no sense.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'm with Breotan on this one. Why would a terrorist walk past dozens of unarmed civilians in order to attack an armed policeman?

Makes no sense.

It reminds me a lot of the case we had in Oklahoma:

Muslim guy with a violent history has beef with a coworker, gets fired, goes home, picks up his butcher knife, comes back to his job and beheads the chick that he has beef with.

Started out with a lot of "Muslim Terrorist Attack" coverage, but now pretty much everyone involved realizes it was a "crazy idiot workplace violence" issue.

 d-usa wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'm with Breotan on this one. Why would a terrorist walk past dozens of unarmed civilians in order to attack an armed policeman?

Makes no sense.

It reminds me a lot of the case we had in Oklahoma:

Muslim guy with a violent history has beef with a coworker, gets fired, goes home, picks up his butcher knife, comes back to his job and beheads the chick that he has beef with.

Started out with a lot of "Muslim Terrorist Attack" coverage, but now pretty much everyone involved realizes it was a "crazy idiot workplace violence" issue.

I've always said that in this climate, the worst thing that America can do is to treat its Muslim population as the 'other,' as some kind of fifth column, similar to the hysteria surrounding the Communist witch hunts in the 1950s.

If you as a nation see any crime committed by a Muslim through the lens of terrorism, rather than dealing with it case by case, like your example, then America is heading for trouble.

The Bundy's have aptly demonstrated that things are not as clear cut as a lot of people thought they were, with regards to terrorist incidents.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Grey, I understand that, but some of the push back in this thread isn't coming from posters I'd necessarily associate with the left.

You guys absolutely need to take on board that if one person -- a white, a black, a muslim, a christian, an atheist, a gay, a straight, a man, a woman, a transgender, a republican, a democrat, an immigrant, a native -- does something bad, it does not make all the other people who share the same trait into criminals.

You all may remember this:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/24/us/new-york-police-attacked/index.html

Or the attacks in Canada and the UK where soldiers were targeted.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/22/world/americas/canada-ottawa-shooting/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/22/world/europe/uk-london-attack/index.html

Jihadist attacking authority figures is not new. The choice of target here is not 'proof' the guy did not consider himself as killing for Allah. In fact, it fits an established pattern of target selection we've seen more than once. Another example, the attacks on recruiting stations.

 CptJake wrote:
You all may remember this:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/24/us/new-york-police-attacked/index.html

Or the attacks in Canada and the UK where soldiers were targeted.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/22/world/americas/canada-ottawa-shooting/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/22/world/europe/uk-london-attack/index.html

Jihadist attacking authority figures is not new. The choice of target here is not 'proof' the guy did not consider himself as killing for Allah. In fact, it fits an established pattern of target selection we've seen more than once. Another example, the attacks on recruiting stations.

Yeah. Even in Afghanistan, the vast majority of attacks take place on authority centers. Police stations, training centers, etc... Civilian targets are much softer over there, but they rarely hit them.

If you instill enough terror into those who are supposed to provide the protection, it makes the eventual overthrow that much easier.

Any further updates? Have they raided his Internet history yet to determine if he self radicalised or is making the statement to sound like he's part of something bigger? Etc. And so on possible motives

 Wulfmar wrote:
Any further updates? Have they raided his Internet history yet to determine if he self radicalised or is making the statement to sound like he's part of something bigger? Etc. And so on possible motives

He made two trips to the middle east in 2011 and 2012. Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Meeting people who put him onto the path of radicalization probably took place there I'd be willing to bet.

 djones520 wrote:

 Wulfmar wrote:
Any further updates? Have they raided his Internet history yet to determine if he self radicalised or is making the statement to sound like he's part of something bigger? Etc. And so on possible motives

He made two trips to the middle east in 2011 and 2012. Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Meeting people who put him onto the path of radicalization probably took place there I'd be willing to bet.

Thanks for the info! Guess we have our answer now.

 djones520 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
You all may remember this:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/24/us/new-york-police-attacked/index.html

Or the attacks in Canada and the UK where soldiers were targeted.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/22/world/americas/canada-ottawa-shooting/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/22/world/europe/uk-london-attack/index.html

Jihadist attacking authority figures is not new. The choice of target here is not 'proof' the guy did not consider himself as killing for Allah. In fact, it fits an established pattern of target selection we've seen more than once. Another example, the attacks on recruiting stations.

Yeah. Even in Afghanistan, the vast majority of attacks take place on authority centers. Police stations, training centers, etc... Civilian targets are much softer over there, but they rarely hit them.

If you instill enough terror into those who are supposed to provide the protection, it makes the eventual overthrow that much easier.

You guys are correct, assuming this can't have anything to do with terrorism simply because its one man shooting a cop is limited view of what terrorism is. It is possible to be a lone gunman operating as a terrorist in the name of a group like ISIS thats kind of one of their main points of recruitment isn't it. that any of the faithful should take up arms against their western governments and destroy any way they can. Just because this lone guy who was recruited some time ago and decided to strike in the name of his group decided to go the lone gunman route probably because thats all that was available for him at the time doesn't not make him a ISIS member/terrorist. Not all terror strikes are large scale.

People should be more worried about this kind of thing tbh it proves, if proven true that ISIS influence is spreading and now anyone could end up recruited/making a random strike at any time in their name. Home grown terrorism where any dick and harry can go shooting people in the name of ISIS, I doubt its long before some home grown terrorist bombs an American building as a lone bomber in the name of ISIS either. Its harder to pull off soem big bombing but any ISIS recruit can pick up a gun or firebomb a building or knife some authority figure. Its actually pretty classic guerrilla tactics. What better way to spread than having literally hundred of individuals willing to make small strikes while larger cells make the big strikes in the heart of the enemies home base. It spreads panic and fear and the message that anyone can be a soldier for ISIS any attack no matter how small is a holy one and that America is vulnerable when it can be any of their own citizens.

Bombs are harder for a variety of reasons. There are lots of recipes/instructions if you search, but many of those are not going to really work, or involve buying things that may draw attention. It is also harder to 'practice' with a bomb. Plenty of ranges to practice shooting, and in many places popping off a few rounds in the woods doesn't attract too much attention, but set off an explosion to test a design and folks take notice. Plus there is a lot more inherent danger constructing a bomb than in getting a gun.

Having said that, the Tsarnaev brothers and the crap bag who set one off in Atlanta for the Olympics show it is an option, but those were pretty small. Building destroyers like the one McVey and crew used (or the one from the Blind Sheik's attempt at the world trade center) are likely to remain rare. Pipe bombs are likely to see an increase, but honestly, there have been many made by bad guys that never get used, again in part because practicing is harder.

Gun and blade weapon attacks are going to be the most used form in the US for a while.

For the sake of focus, as a society we first need to go back and label all the people who have done similar acts while claiming to be motivated by the Christian Bible/Faith as terrorists, if this story qualifies this guy as a terrorist, rather than a donkey cave with relogious leanings.

Plenty of horrible people have done similar to this deed for every reason possible.

People need to be reminded that the Muslim part (or indeed any religious faction) of an act does not in and of itself automaticallymake it terrorism, because that's become far too much of a gut reaction because of the media usin it as a bunch of buzzwords to get attention. They keep slapping "terrorist" on every violent act.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
For the sake of focus, as a society we first need to go back and label all the people who have done similar acts while claiming to be motivated by the Christian Bible/Faith as terrorists

Except he's doing it in the name of a terrorist group thats religiously motivated not just the religion itself. If a Christian man blows up a building or stabs someone in the name of a Christian terror group who go around killing and bombing then yes, you're right he would be a terrorist.

Distinctions you see, very important. Just look at the Irish terror attacks, once again the difference is that people did bombings and attacks in the name of the IRA and were members of the IRA and yes they were terrorists. Had some Irish random guy just attacked someone out of the blue because of religion he would not have been a terrorist.

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
For the sake of focus, as a society we first need to go back and label all the people who have done similar acts while claiming to be motivated by the Christian Bible/Faith as terrorists

Except he's doing it in the name of a terrorist group thats religiously motivated not just the religion itself. If a Christian man blows up a building or stabs someone in the name of a Christian terror group who go around killing and bombing then yes, you're right he would be a terrorist.

Distinctions you see, very important just look at the Irish terror attacks the difference is again that people did bombings and attacks in the name of the IRA and were members of the IRA and yes they were terrorists. Had some Irish random guy just attacked someone out of the blue because of religion he would not have been a terrorist.

What about someone attacking an abortion clinic because it goes against his interpretation of the bible?

He is using violence to attempt to terrorise people into political change, despite not doing it in the name of any specific terrorist group.

You do not need to be doing something in the name of an established group in order to be a terrorist. Killing people because you believe it is the right thing to do according to your religion can be terrorism without being affiliated to an organisation.

The latest abortion clinic attack (in Colorado) did get the perp labeled a terrorist, and he claimed himself some to be some type of holy warrior.

So I'm not sure what point you are making.

Frankly, label the gak bags as you will. Labels make no real difference, what matters is do the facts of the case support the charges which will be brought.

What we do know that in this case, the perp self identifies as a DaIsh supporter and claims the attack was due to that support. Terrorist or not, I see zero reason at this point to not take this guy at his word, just as I don't see a reason to not take Robert Dear's word for his motive in shooting up the Planned Parenthood in Colorado.

I'm with Malus.

Attacking abortion clinics is terrorism.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

What about someone attacking an abortion clinic because it goes against his interpretation of the bible?

He is using violence to attempt to terrorise people into political change, despite not doing it in the name of any specific terrorist group.

It all really depends why, if a religious man attacks say a homosexual because he disagrees with homosexuality thats not terrorism. If a man attacks say a group for homosexuals or a building or peoples claiming wanting political change or social change ect thats a terrorist. Terrorists are generally people or groups who attack to spread fear and of course terror to illiciate political religious or social changes in their favour. Those other cases are just people attacking out of prejudiced or internal hate rather than a wider goal in mind. When it comes to terrorism I think the governments have to look at it case by case.

Some dude attacks a cop because he thinks his religious told him to, more likely just a religious fanatic. Some dude attacks a cop claiming hes part of ISIS (if proven) and did it in the name of the cause yeah a terrorist.

There has been plenty of Christian attacks that can be defined as terrorism in the past as well as a lot which really aren't. We can go around making excuses for every Muslim just because of political correctness. If this guy is found to be a terrorist then hes a terrorist doesn't matter the scale of his attack or what colour his skin is people shouldn't make excuses for him if it turns out he was recruited by ISIS on his trips abroad.

If we start trying to claim either all similar attacks are terrorism or none of them are terrorism then any bar fight between two football fans would be terrorism because its an attack on an opposing side motivated by similar beliefs to religion. There is a disconnect between terrorism and religiously motivated attacks. Its up to each case to see which is which and it all depends on a few things. This case will probably leans terrorism because the defendants admittance of been ISIS and supporting the cause been the reason for his attack.

 CptJake wrote:
The latest abortion clinic attack (in Colorado) did get the perp labeled a terrorist, and he claimed himself some to be some type of holy warrior.

So I'm not sure what point you are making.

Frankly, label the gak bags as you will. Labels make no real difference, what matters is do the facts of the case support the charges which will be brought.

What we do know that in this case, the perp self identifies as a DaIsh supporter and claims the attack was due to that support. Terrorist or not, I see zero reason at this point to not take this guy at his word, just as I don't see a reason to not take Robert Dear's word for his motive in shooting up the Planned Parenthood in Colorado.

I was just pointing out that the definition that LPH was applying didn't take into account individuals who are not affiliated, or claiming to be affiliated, with terrorist groups.

Lone Wolf Insurgent....

 d-usa wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'm with Breotan on this one. Why would a terrorist walk past dozens of unarmed civilians in order to attack an armed policeman?

Makes no sense.

It reminds me a lot of the case we had in Oklahoma:

Muslim guy with a violent history has beef with a coworker, gets fired, goes home, picks up his butcher knife, comes back to his job and beheads the chick that he has beef with.

Started out with a lot of "Muslim Terrorist Attack" coverage, but now pretty much everyone involved realizes it was a "crazy idiot workplace violence" issue.

San Bernardino "started" with a work dispute too.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'm with Breotan on this one. Why would a terrorist walk past dozens of unarmed civilians in order to attack an armed policeman?

Makes no sense.

It reminds me a lot of the case we had in Oklahoma:

Muslim guy with a violent history has beef with a coworker, gets fired, goes home, picks up his butcher knife, comes back to his job and beheads the chick that he has beef with.

Started out with a lot of "Muslim Terrorist Attack" coverage, but now pretty much everyone involved realizes it was a "crazy idiot workplace violence" issue.

San Bernardino "started" with a work dispute too.

The media threw out there that there may have been a argument between people
No... Pipe bombs, 1000 rounds of ammo in the suv, taking out loans, giving their child to the grandmother..ect. This was pre planned

 Chute82 wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'm with Breotan on this one. Why would a terrorist walk past dozens of unarmed civilians in order to attack an armed policeman?

Makes no sense.

It reminds me a lot of the case we had in Oklahoma:

Muslim guy with a violent history has beef with a coworker, gets fired, goes home, picks up his butcher knife, comes back to his job and beheads the chick that he has beef with.

Started out with a lot of "Muslim Terrorist Attack" coverage, but now pretty much everyone involved realizes it was a "crazy idiot workplace violence" issue.

San Bernardino "started" with a work dispute too.

The media threw out there that there may have been a argument between people
No... Pipe bombs, 1000 rounds of ammo in the suv, taking out loans, giving their child to the grandmother..ect. This was pre planned

Right, and this guy either stole or purchased a pistol stolen from a cop. It's not as if this act was spur of the moment, executed with items obtained at the scene.

How would he have known the pistol was stolen? There isn't a central database of weapon serial numbers to check it against.