Shooting in Florida airport

So because this was not a Muslim , he is being called a shooter not a terrorist. The headline says "gunman open fire" not a terrorist attack. He was unharmed as the police never fired a shot. And it's "too early" to assign motive. the hypocrisy of the media...

format_quote Originally Posted by aaj

So because this was not a Muslim , he is being called a shooter not a terrorist. The headline says "gunman open fire" not a terrorist attack. He was unharmed as the police never fired a shot. And it's "too early" to assign motive. the hypocrisy of the media...

Motive is the single guiding principle for calling someone a terrorist. And it was too early to assign motive, which is always what's said up until it's known.

Once motive is known, then we can determine if he's a terrorist. If he is, he stops being called a shooter and starts being called a terrorist.

And we now have some idea of what that motive looked like. He believed he was under some kind of mind control, and seems to have been hearing voices in his head. Here's a source.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...icials-n704081

Terrorism is the use of intimidation and violence in the interest of political aims. Of course there are plenty of terrorists that aren't pursuing the aims of political Islam. White nationalism is a pretty popular one, there's your anti-abortion people, you've also got some militia type groups that are all about rebelling against the federal government. But in this particular instance, this man doesn't appear to be affiliated with any other people or any larger group that has any sort of political interest that they hope to achieve through violence or intimidation, and his random extreme violence does not appear to have any political motive.

I already said there are plenty of terrorists that aren't Muslims. Remember that? This particular man is not one of those, he's a killer with no political motive stated or otherwise. So in this Particular instance, calling him something other than a terrorist is absolutely the correct decision. In the interest of total accuracy, it would be better to say there is not any evidence so far of a terror related motive or of any terror-network affiliation, and that's pretty much where we're at.

format_quote Originally Posted by cooterhein

Motive is the single guiding principle for calling someone a terrorist. And it was too early to assign motive, which is always what's said up until it's known.

Once motive is known, then we can determine if he's a terrorist. If he is, he stops being called a shooter and starts being called a terrorist.

And we now have some idea of what that motive looked like. He believed he was under some kind of mind control, and seems to have been hearing voices in his head. Here's a source.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...icials-n704081

Terrorism is the use of intimidation and violence in the interest of political aims. Of course there are plenty of terrorists that aren't pursuing the aims of political Islam. White nationalism is a pretty popular one, there's your anti-abortion people, you've also got some militia type groups that are all about rebelling against the federal government. But in this particular instance, this man doesn't appear to be affiliated with any other people or any larger group that has any sort of political interest that they hope to achieve through violence or intimidation, and his random extreme violence does not appear to have any political motive.

I already said there are plenty of terrorists that aren't Muslims. Remember that? This particular man is not one of those, he's a killer with no political motive stated or otherwise. So in this Particular instance, calling him something other than a terrorist is absolutely the correct decision. In the interest of total accuracy, it would be better to say there is not any evidence so far of a terror related motive or of any terror-network affiliation, and that's pretty much where we're at.

That's not what is true when the attacker is a supposed muslim. Literally within hours of the recent German truck attack, in which an innocent man was not only arrested but his life dragged through hell, every major media outlet in the western world labelled it a terrorist attack. At no point was the investigation complete or any understanding of the motives articulated (it could not happen considering they had the wrong man). So why is it that a non muslim, in this case a Christian who called himself the son of God, is cautiously investigated and the police, along with the media actually do the right thing and hold back on labeling him. Btw his motives were/are political so his not being labelled a terrorist is yet more hypocrisy from the media and western governments.


Why was there not the same level of caution with regards to the innocent man in Germany?

format_quote Originally Posted by Born_Believer

That's not what is true when the attacker is a supposed muslim.

When little else is known other than that there's been an attack, efforts are made to ascertain motive, to see if a particular terror group was named by the attacker, and of course we keep an eye out for any terror network that takes credit for the attack.

Literally within hours of the recent German truck attack, in which an innocent man was not only arrested but his life dragged through hell, every major media outlet in the western world labelled it a terrorist attack.

The innocent man was arrested Monday night, and although it would be some time before the true attacker was identified, Daesh did claim that it had inspired the attack on Tuesday.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/20/europe...uck/index.html

Although a simple claim like that is not immediately verifiable, it is worth reporting such as it is. Notice I did not say that as of Tuesday, we knew for certain that Daesh was truly and directly responsible. What I said was, as of Tuesday, Daesh claimed it and said that it inspired the attack. That type of claim ought to be reported.

At no point was the investigation complete or any understanding of the motives articulated (it could not happen considering they had the wrong man).

Yes, that's correct, as of Tuesday they were only just beginning to understand they had the wrong man. And they did not yet have the right man. However, however, However, that was also a Tuesday on which Daesh claimed the attack. They move pretty fast on these things, don't they?

Since you're so interested in making a side by side comparison, let's try this. In the more recent attack at the airport, has there been a public statement by a terror network claiming any form of responsibility for said attack? Go ahead and take a minute to research that, please.

So why is it that a non muslim, in this case a Christian who called himself the son of God, is cautiously investigated and the police, along with the media actually do the right thing and hold back on labeling him.

Well, that's because they actually do try to be in the habit of doing the right thing. Don't act so surprised, this is not so unusual. You simply don't give them enough credit.

Like you said just now, in this particular instance- which is the entire focus of this thread, and the only thing on which I have commented previous to this post- the whole matter was handled as it should have been. From the investigation to the media, to anyone else involved- everyone did their jobs, they did what they were supposed to do. And even you are able to admit this.

You your real complaint has to do with some other thing. Oh look, there's some other example where it was handled badly. Sure, Americans in Florida handled it well, but this other time some Germans did not meet with your approval. You just don't know why they labeled it an act of terror so quickly....

And I am telling you, it was labeled that way once Daesh took credit for it. That happened on a Tuesday, and I gave you a link.

So....at this point, do you want to go back to talking about the original topic? Please, feel free to talk in some more detail about how well the whole thing was handled in Florida. If you really want to cast about for some different thing to complain about though, I will suggest that you start a thread of your own.

Btw his motives were/are political so his not being labelled a terrorist is yet more hypocrisy from the media and western governments.

Source or it didn't happen.

I repeat. Regarding your claim that his motives are political, and that they are somehow known to you....

Source.

Link, source. Evidence. Provide a source.

Or. It. Didn't. Happen.

Is that clear?

Social media is not a source, btw. Don't be giving me a tweet or anything like that.

Why was there not the same level of caution with regards to the innocent man in Germany?

I'm not exactly sure why they arrested an innocent man, but they did release him pretty quickly once they figured out they had the wrong guy. As to the reports of it being an act of terror though, that initial report had nothing to do with the innocent man, or with any unfounded assumptions concerning the person of the guilty party. What happened was this- Daesh claimed it. And when Daesh or any other group claims something, that gets reported.

There is a Daesh-affiliated media outfit called Amaq News Agency. And I'll tell you this one more time- the attack happened on Monday night in Germany. The wrongly accused man was released the next day, on Tuesday, and it was also on that day that Daesh, via Amaq, claimed to be the inspiration and motivation behind the attack. So that claim was reported.

And as a follow-up to that claim, CNN terror analyst Paul Cruickshank said this: "This should not be taken to mean the group is claiming it directed the attack. Investigators have not uncovered any links to ISIS." Angela Merkel also said they must "assume this is a terrorist attack."

And guess what? It was a terrorist attack. It wasn't directly orchestrated by Daesh, but they did claim it in a certain way within hours of it happening. This led to a measured response from the media that actually made good sense. The exact nature of the claim was parsed out, it was reported as a claim that needed to be followed up on, and Merkel made a statement using the language of assumptions that we must make, not of facts that we officially have.

Here's the link again, all of this comes from there.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/20/europe...uck/index.html

The terror connection was made pretty quickly in that particular instance, you're right about that. But I can tell you exactly where the media got it from- they pulled that claim from Amaq. You must have thought they pulled it from somewhere else, but that would be an incorrect assumption.

Has there been a corresponding claim from Amaq in the wake of the attack that is the subject of this thread?

No? There isn't? Well then. You go ahead and look into that if you need to.