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.

 Just Tony wrote:

Also, does this mean we need stricter vehicle laws in the US?

No. But you guys need stricter gun laws.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


The method being common doesn't make it an extensively-planned attack.

The planned terrorist attack wasn't planned enough... right

It wasn't. It was a minimum-effort attack, with zero apparent planning beyond googling "HALP HOW DO I TERRORIST" the night before.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


The method being common doesn't make it an extensively-planned attack.

The planned terrorist attack wasn't planned enough... right

It wasn't. It was a minimum-effort attack, with zero apparent planning beyond googling "HALP HOW DO I TERRORIST" the night before.

I'm sure that will be quite a relief for the victims families to hear. I'll make sure to notify the papers and ensure they make a correction.

"NEW YORK — Authorities said Wednesday said a 29-year-old man accused of mowing down pedestrians and cyclists on a Manhattan bike path, killing eight people, had begun planning a year ago before carrying out the attack in the name of the Islamic State."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/11/01/new-york-attack-probe-expands-to-uzbekistan-as-possible-militant-links-explored/?utm_term=.5e27f8f6b4f3

 Grey Templar wrote:
Or he was a very unintelligent and impulsive person who got recruited, and his natural lack of intellect and impulsiveness resulted in a poorly planned attack. He doesn't have to be crazy or have any other factors which were actually the cause instead of him being an islamic terrorist, he could just have been a dumb and impatient Jihadi.

Recruiting implies some kind of extended contact, during which the people recruiting him could give him a better plan. Normal, stable people don't go from zero to terrorism overnight, and if the process of turning him into a terrorist took longer than that we should expect to have seen better planning. The much more likely explanation is that any "recruiting" was minimal at best, and his issues go way beyond a calculated attempt at fighting a war through terrorism.

Saipov reportedly immigrated under the State Department's diversity visa program, which distributes visas via lottery to applicants from countries with low immigration rates. Applicants to the diversity visa program must "have a high school education, or its equivalent, or two years of qualifying work experience as defined under provisions of U.S. law," according to the State Department.

On a side note, I don't think i am too keen on this. Obviously when you're taking refugees in and granting asylum, you take what you can get. This seems more like "this ethnic group is underrepresented in the US, so lets get some", which is OK in theory but maybe we could aim a little higher? Must have a HS diploma or 2 years of work history? Man, you sure can't get into Canada with creds like that.

 Crablezworth wrote:
I'm sure that will be quite a relief for the victims families to hear.

Sorry if the truth hurts, but that doesn't make it any less true. You aren't going to get anywhere in understanding terrorism if you feel an obligation to hype up every random murderous as some kind of expert terrorist just to make the families of the victims feel better. The simple fact here is that this attack was a minimum-effort plan by someone who didn't take even very basic steps to increase the body count and emotional impact of it.

 Peregrine wrote:

Normal, stable people don't go from zero to terrorism overnight

Overnight, 12 months, seems no hyperbole detected. Even I made a mistake earlier in the thread when quoting casualties from the attack in sweden. Quote 15 when it was actually 5, and I was corrected on that.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
I'm sure that will be quite a relief for the victims families to hear.

You aren't going to get anywhere in understanding terrorism if you feel an obligation to hype up every random murderous as some kind of expert terrorist just to make the families of the victims feel better.

I say it's about as healthy as ensuring you split hairs on every last one...

 Crablezworth wrote:
Overnight, 12 months, seems no hyperbole detected. Even I made a mistake earlier in the thread when quoting casualties from the attack in sweden. Quote 15 when it was actually 5, and I was corrected on that.

Wait, I thought he was too impulsive to make a better plan?

"Or he was a very unintelligent and impulsive person who got recruited, and his natural lack of intellect and impulsiveness resulted in a poorly planned attack. He doesn't have to be crazy or have any other factors which were actually the cause instead of him being an islamic terrorist, he could just have been a dumb and impatient Jihadi."

And now we're seriously supposed to believe that, with a full year to prepare, this was the best he could do? 20 victims, picking a random bike path as the target? I could come up with a more successful attack overnight, if I was a murderous . Nothing about that one year claim adds up, at all.

There's no way he planned this for 12 months.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Or he was a very unintelligent and impulsive person who got recruited, and his natural lack of intellect and impulsiveness resulted in a poorly planned attack. He doesn't have to be crazy or have any other factors which were actually the cause instead of him being an islamic terrorist, he could just have been a dumb and impatient Jihadi.

Recruiting implies some kind of extended contact, during which the people recruiting him could give him a better plan. Normal, stable people don't go from zero to terrorism overnight, and if the process of turning him into a terrorist took longer than that we should expect to have seen better planning. The much more likely explanation is that any "recruiting" was minimal at best, and his issues go way beyond a calculated attempt at fighting a war through terrorism.

Take a look at the press relase from New York attorney generals office and NYPD today. It not only goes into detail about charges being prepared and the progression of the police investigation, it will also give you info so you can see the pattern for yourself.
IMHO the police are giving too much info away, perhaps because they want to look busy. I think it would be better of they handed out the minimum like 'police are continuing with their enquiries, as happens in Europe after events like this.

Saipov was found to have in his possession a large volume of Daesh propaganda, including instructions on preparing evidence to be found to link an attack formally to IS ( the UK police would never include that type of info in a press release). There was also evidence from his phone that he had been self radicalised on the internet and researched how to commit a vehicle ramming attack. And the phone had various links to a possible network ( why put stuff like that in a press release!!! it will scatter the roaches and also make the next terrorist more cautious and help prepare better jihadist training 101).




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


The method being common doesn't make it an extensively-planned attack.

The planned terrorist attack wasn't planned enough... right

It wasn't. It was a minimum-effort attack, with zero apparent planning beyond googling "HALP HOW DO I TERRORIST" the night before.

Not true read the reports. We now know he did a practice run.

Also terrorists have to prepare themselves, its hard to just do the things they do, it takes mental preparation a fair number bottle out. One of the 7/7 bombers bottled out.

Depending on the sect there might be spiritual preparation also, rites to perform, fasting etc. Clerics include this to help indoctrinate, evidently one doesnt always need to jump through religious hoops beyond bein a willing Moslem, but being told you have to jump through religious troops can be used to work alongside psychological training to indoctrinate the would be attacker. After all this is about motivating people for suicide attacks, you need to get into their heads.

Even if Saipov was radicalised online and trained remotely, it could easily take 12 months indoctrination to get him ready for a suicide attack.

And apparently nobody, in all that 12 months of preparation to commit a suicide attack, bothered to cover such trivial details like "how to commit a suicide attack effectively".

 Hollow wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

Also, does this mean we need stricter vehicle laws in the US?

No. But you guys need stricter gun laws.

No thanks brah.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

Saipov reportedly immigrated under the State Department's diversity visa program, which distributes visas via lottery to applicants from countries with low immigration rates. Applicants to the diversity visa program must "have a high school education, or its equivalent, or two years of qualifying work experience as defined under provisions of U.S. law," according to the State Department.

On a side note, I don't think i am too keen on this. Obviously when you're taking refugees in and granting asylum, you take what you can get. This seems more like "this ethnic group is underrepresented in the US, so lets get some", which is OK in theory but maybe we could aim a little higher? Must have a HS diploma or 2 years of work history? Man, you sure can't get into Canada with creds like that.

...eh... I get the idea and I think it has merits. But, yeah that program should aim higher in skillsets/education.

"Investigators who question Saipov told the prosecutors that Saipov requested to display the ISIL flag in his hospital room and that he said he "felt good about what he had done".


I really can't wait to hear the parsing out of that one. He sounds like a real charmer.


http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/11/nyc-attack-sayfullo-saipov-charged-terrorism-171101215417508.html



"The documents added that Saipov decided to use a truck to "in order to inflict maximum damage against civilians", and that he had planned to drive to the Brooklyn Bridge "to continue to strike pedestrians"."

Oh and this seems like an odd fact for someone so confused and rife with neuroticism. Certainly a spur of the moment decision.


I can't help but think he seems rather devout and resolute given these developments.

 Crablezworth wrote:
"Investigators who question Saipov told the prosecutors that Saipov requested to display the ISIL flag in his hospital room and that he said he "felt good about what he had done".


I really can't wait to hear the parsing out of that one. He sounds like a real charmer.


http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/11/nyc-attack-sayfullo-saipov-charged-terrorism-171101215417508.html



"The documents added that Saipov decided to use a truck to "in order to inflict maximum damage against civilians", and that he had planned to drive to the Brooklyn Bridge "to continue to strike pedestrians"."

Oh and this seems like an odd fact for someone so confused and rife with neuroticism. Certainly a spur of the moment decision.


I can't help but think he seems rather devout and resolute given these developments.

Yeah, him doubling down on this is not surprising. What is surprising is that he decided to take the scenic route to the Brooklyn Bridge, which I assume would have much more foot traffic and would cause much more harm. Really well thought out plan there.

On the upside, if you want to capture a terrorist, just send in the NYPD. Notoriously bad shots.

I heard an interesting interview with John Safran here in Australia some months ago. He's a lapsed Jew who's done a bit of work with extremist religion. He made a very good point that it's easy for a lot non-religious people to assume that extremist beliefs are just a cover for underlying issues. But he tells of his own upbringing in an extreme Jewish school, where they were taught a very dogmatic and very confrontational doctrine. He says it is false to believe those beliefs aren't part of the issue - because people really believe this end of the world, clash of civilisations stuff and it's part of why these people do what they do.

Now, we don't know in this case if this guy belonged to a more radical islamic sect, or even he was particularly devout at all. But if he was, it's a mistake to say it didn't play any part and it must really be because of other reasons. That's as big a mistake as seeing he was a muslim and concluding that's the beginning and end of the motive. There is a complex middle ground here, where radical teaching plays a part among other factors.

 Crablezworth wrote:
It explains his motivation for murdering the people he murdered, and again in his own words. As for the "whole issue" perhaps you could elaborate on what that ascribed (islam) motivation leaves out?

Think about another crime, like a guy who killed his wife. Report comes out that they had a screaming row just before. Sure, that screaming row played a part but it'd be stupid to conclude that the screaming row explains everything. Because husbands and wives argue all the time but don't kill each other. So it only makes sense to look at what else was going on. Was this a particularly unhappy marriage in other ways? Were there previous acts of violence? Did he have a violent record outside of the home? Other causes of strain on him or the marriage, like money problems?

Same thing with this guy. Because there's a billion muslims who didn't murder 8 people in NY yesterday, so this guy is obviously different to all of them. So it's important to ask how he's different. What mosque did he attend? Did he regularly attend, or recently change his attendance patterns? Did he have a prior criminal record? Was he in contact with ISIS figures on-line? That kind of thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Ya seb already did the no true scotsman thing, it didn't add much.

I never attempted or even hinted at anything that could be read as a 'No True Scotsman' argument. That's an objectively awful bit of reading on your part.

To be NTS, I would have to argue that muslims don't kill, he killed, therefore he's not a muslim. And that would be a terrible argument, but its one that no-one made, particularly not me. What was argued, that you appear to be really struggling to follow, is that Islam in itself is not a motivation, because there are a billion muslims who aren't murderers, therefore Islam in itself is not a complete motive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
That's how they promote themselves. That's how they appear far larger and more influential than they actually are. I mean, look at their 'heartlands'. Pushed back on every front, losing ground every day. They're on the wane. So in order to keep recruiting, they need to pretend their reach is truly global.

The caliphate is falling apart so they're transforming themselves in to another franchise terror network, pretty much becoming the same thing AQ did after the response to 9/11 collapsed their cell structures.

 Peregrine wrote:
And apparently nobody, in all that 12 months of preparation to commit a suicide attack, bothered to cover such trivial details like "how to commit a suicide attack effectively".

Not relevant.

1. It appears he got his training by reading online jihadist how-tos and local contacxts encouraged him..

2. He training was successful from the point of view of Daesh, they placed info where radicalist scum would find it, and helped them motivate for an attack.

3. This is a new attack on the vicinity of the World Trade Centre, it worked and people died.

Saipov's only failure from the point of view of Daesh is that he didnt get martyred. Allowing for how detached that organisation is they probably couldnt give a rodents rectum about that. Though not destroying his media would likely be considered a mistake, but then again if his compatriots are also caught Daesh itself will not care, so long as attacks happen..

 cuda1179 wrote:
That stat is actually a few years old, so it was Obama era, not "current administration".

I can't find anything reporting that number, and you seem indifferent to actually providing it.

Also I believe the largest limiting factors on terror attacks are funding, ability, and infighting. I make more money than a vast majority of people in the Middle East, yet I know I don't have enough spare cash to attack someone halfway across the world.

Yeah, so they're 'radicalised', which is complex term to which you've not given the government report's definition, but they're not radicalised enough to actually, you know, do anything. So you're describing a vast sea of angry people, quietly stewing, grumpily eating their dinner and thinking about the death to Americans they're totally gonna do if they get a better paying job.

Meanwhile, in a more sensible world, it's almost certain that 'radicalisation' refers to people with hardline beliefs, such as supporting Sharia law, not people actually supporting terror attacks. Or possibly it's a totally made up number. Hard to tell without the report.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:
This is true. Also, the main factor that links most of the spree killings around the world, more than any particular religion, is the state of the perpetrator's personal life. No job, no money, no partner, and usually drug and alcohol abuse.
I'm sure the usual fething suspects who gleefully celebrate these stories because they think it validates their ignorant world views will point out specific attacks where this is not the case, but note I said most.

Most of spree killings around the world are committed not because of Islam or Christianity or even the Dark Side of the Force, but because some guys just can't handle being nobodies, failures, losers.

The other very common factor is that they're generally men in their early to mid 20s, when the instinct to turn rage and anger in to violence is at its strongest. By the time they hit 30 most guys just don't have that same urge.

One of the interesting things about this murderer is that he was 29, a bit outside the age bracket of most of these guys.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
On a side note, I don't think i am too keen on this. Obviously when you're taking refugees in and granting asylum, you take what you can get. This seems more like "this ethnic group is underrepresented in the US, so lets get some", which is OK in theory but maybe we could aim a little higher? Must have a HS diploma or 2 years of work history? Man, you sure can't get into Canada with creds like that.

The visa lottery is crazy*, and for the life of me I can't imagine what Reagan and a bi-partisan congress were thinking when they signed it in to law. But note that just because the visas are assigned by lottery, there's still extensive vetting. In fact, this guy like almost every US domestic Islamic terrorist, was radicalised once he reached the US. The problem isn't who is being letting in. The problem is what happens to a few of them once they get there.





*Crazy because one of the best things about being an immigrant nation is you get to pick the best of the best from among all the people you want to bring in to the country. You can pick the best educated, the people who's skills perfectly much whatever shortage your country is lacking at that moment. Giving that up to hand out a whole lot of visas by lottery is pretty weird. It's probably why the Gang of 8 bi-partisan deal planned to replace the lottery. Shame that got sunk by the hardliners of the Republican party.

Yeah the latter part is struck me as so odd. I'd like to assume we always vet people, my concern is why would we take people that have 2 years of work equivalent of a HS diploma? That seems like a ludicrously low bar. Surely we can expect more from immigration candidates.

People with a high level of education get in with different classes of visas.

 Ouze wrote:
Yeah the latter part is struck me as so odd. I'd like to assume we always vet people, my concern is why would we take people that have 2 years of work equivalent of a HS diploma? That seems like a ludicrously low bar. Surely we can expect more from immigration candidates.

I think setting that low bar and then having a lottery among all the qualifying applicants is unique US thing. I think most countries have a points system, or some other way of setting standards high enough that the number of qualifying applicants is pretty close to the desired immigrant intake. It was weird to see the freakout earlier this year when Trump put out a proposed points system, as if such a scheme was somehow inherently bad. I mean, sure, the actual system Trump put out was really stupid, including less recognition for degrees from first tier international unis like Oxford than for third tier US colleges, but people were making out like that points system or any kind of criteria for applicants was bad.

And the Gang of 8 immigration reform bill dropped the lottery, and I'm pretty sure the replacement was a points system. Shame that bill got trashed.

 Hollow wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

Also, does this mean we need stricter vehicle laws in the US?

No. But you guys need stricter gun laws.

The city where this attack happened has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. Turning the US into Europe isn't going to solve the problem.

We have the same problem in Europe anyway.

The basic problem is that it is impossible to stop a disaffected individual from getting a car and driving it into a bunch of people.

The very difficult to solve problem is how to discover people who are in danger of becoming disaffected and resorting to this kind of random killing spree, before they do so, and then how to defuse the social pressures and triggers that are leading them down that path.

This is an area where a blanket distrust of Muslims is actively negative. One of the things that sets these guys off is feeling alienated from the society they live in.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
We have the same problem in Europe anyway.

The basic problem is that it is impossible to stop a disaffected individual from getting a car and driving it into a bunch of people.

The very difficult to solve problem is how to discover people who are in danger of becoming disaffected and resorting to this kind of random killing spree, before they do so, and then how to defuse the social pressures and triggers that are leading them down that path.

This is an area where a blanket distrust of Muslims is actively negative. One of the things that sets these guys off is feeling alienated from the society they live in.

This.

Never lose sight that it's been 16 years now since the atrocities at the World Trade Centre and Pentagon.

Ever since then, certain corners (including Das Daily Heil, Express and The Scum) have mounted an insidious campaign of bigotry against Muslims.

That's long enough for many young Muslim men to have only known a world hostile to their faith.

Is it any wonder a tiny minority then fall prey to the vicious circle? Remember, those doing the radicalisation rarely seem to get their hands dirty. They're recruiting very angry young men, and giving them an excuse.

If they hate the US and Europe so much maybe they could I dunno... stay in the middle east? I wouldn't consider moving to a new country if I felt that their standard way of living conflicted with or forced me to compromise my morals. If by some circumstance I found myself living in such a place I'd do whatever it takes to leave. Just as you're free to enter the country you're also free to leave if you decide you don't like it. Too many of these extremist want to glorify the way of living in their old world country but seem unwilling to continue living there, what's so great about it if they themselves can't endure their own homeland?

 stanman wrote:
If they hate the US and Europe so much maybe they could I dunno... stay in the middle east? I wouldn't consider moving to a new country if I felt that their standard way of living conflicted with or forced me to compromise my morals. If by some circumstance I found myself living in such a place I'd do whatever it takes to leave. Just as you're free to enter the country you're also free to leave if you decide you don't like it. Too many of these extremist want to glorify the way of living in their old world country but seem unwilling to continue living there, what's so great about it if they themselves can't endure their own homeland?

Good point, but for them it's not enough to simply avoid the kuffar. The fact that the kuffar even exist in any capacity is intolerable to them. Basically they are told to "fight them (them being the disbelievers) until there is no more disbelief and religion will be for Allah alone". It's a command to forcibly convert everyone to Islam and to not stop until that is done. They utterly reject any notion of live and let live.

There is an element of cognitive dissonance to it as well. They want to maintain the laws, customs and standards of their own countries, but they also want to escape all the gak that comes with that whilst seeking to capture all the benefits of western culture too. That's why they fight tooth and nail to get into the west only to then turn around and demand that we become more like the middle east whilst occasionally carrying out acts of terror on us. Irony is completely lost on them.

 stanman wrote:
If they hate the US and Europe so much maybe they could I dunno... stay in the middle east? I wouldn't consider moving to a new country if I felt that their standard way of living conflicted with or forced me to compromise my morals. If by some circumstance I found myself living in such a place I'd do whatever it takes to leave. Just as you're free to enter the country you're also free to leave if you decide you don't like it. Too many of these extremist want to glorify the way of living in their old world country but seem unwilling to continue living there, what's so great about it if they themselves can't endure their own homeland?

That's assuming they were radicalised or at risk of it when they moved to the US or to Europe.

Seriously, this isn't a simple matter. As we know from crime stats, most homicides/murders involve people known to each other, whether premeditated or heat of the moment.

For someone to go off the deep end and target complete strangers is very unusual human behaviour, and not something that's done on a whim.

The whole 'don't like it go home' mentality just adds to the general ignorance about the actual causes. For whatever reason, they want to harm and punish their adopted homeland. I can't even begin to conceive how someone gets to feel that way - and I'm willing to bet you can't conceive of it either.

These people are damaged. They are not normal. They are not sane. They are not rational. There's far, far more behind their appalling actions than 'Muslim *shrug*'

Look at the Vegas Shooter. Deadliest shooting in US history. Was he a migrant? Nope. I've not heard much more on that this side of the Atlantic since the initial shock. What's happening there? Is anyone now discussing his creed and ethnicities and ways to keep tabs on everyone who happens to also fall into those categories?

 stanman wrote:
If they hate the US and Europe so much maybe they could I dunno... stay in the middle east? I wouldn't consider moving to a new country if I felt that their standard way of living conflicted with or forced me to compromise my morals. If by some circumstance I found myself living in such a place I'd do whatever it takes to leave. Just as you're free to enter the country you're also free to leave if you decide you don't like it. Too many of these extremist want to glorify the way of living in their old world country but seem unwilling to continue living there, what's so great about it if they themselves can't endure their own homeland?

Sure and many would get killed. Have you met anybody who tried to come elsewhere, were sent back and were killed by the very guys trying to flee from? I have.

Most of the Muslims doing these car attacks get killed. The same happens to most white middle-aged men doing gun massacres, like the bloke in Las Vegas.

These kinds of people aren't afraid of being killed, or they would not put themselves in a position where they are very likely to be killed.

It follows that the Muslim ones aren't afraid of "going home" and getting killed so they decide to stay. Clearly they don't want to "go home", they want to take revenge where they are now.

The New York guy had two imitation guns he brandished at police. It was very lucky he was not fatally shot, because he can be questioned and his psychology can be investigated.

tneva82 wrote:

 stanman wrote:
If they hate the US and Europe so much maybe they could I dunno... stay in the middle east? I wouldn't consider moving to a new country if I felt that their standard way of living conflicted with or forced me to compromise my morals. If by some circumstance I found myself living in such a place I'd do whatever it takes to leave. Just as you're free to enter the country you're also free to leave if you decide you don't like it. Too many of these extremist want to glorify the way of living in their old world country but seem unwilling to continue living there, what's so great about it if they themselves can't endure their own homeland?

Sure and many would get killed. Have you met anybody who tried to come elsewhere, were sent back and were killed by the very guys trying to flee from? I have.

Plus in many cases (in Europe at least) these attacks are also comitted by second or third generation immigrants. Europe/the US might be all they know and it would be their homeland. Being born here means that they don't have anywhere to 'go back to'. There are factors at work here that need to be identified that push the next generation to do these things.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It was very lucky he was not fatally shot, because he can be questioned and his psychology can be investigated.

It was the NYPD. It was lucky he was hit and not a bystander.

Personally, I think the guy couldn't find a reason to live, and ISIS was an ideology that would allow him to die with the knowledge that someone would celebrate his accomplishments . A lot of people commit suicide because they feel they have no reason to live, and noone cares about them. In this case, he found someone who would take pride in his accomplishments, as horrible as they were. A sort of instant radicalization, but not religion based.

If that made any sense, I'm tired and at work.

EDIT: Spelling