Bomber prediction

[SHRED]

If the bomber is of caucasian descent he will be labeled "deranged" and "mentally ill" a "loner".

If the bomber is of middle-eastern descent an entire religion and race will be condemned.

---

[slackmaster]

1. How could someone who does something like that NOT be deranged and mentally ill?

This is a serious question. It makes no difference what race, religion, gender, etc. the person happens to be. Someone who commits a mass murder is sick in the head.

[get the red out]

2. Yes, but a white guy won't likely be called a "terrorist", even if he is

The media will only use that word in a way that condemns every human being that happens to share a particular ethnicity and/or religious belief system.

[slackmaster]

3. So what? A horrible crime was committed. The person or people who did it will probaby get caught.

Probably soon, and they will be punished.

What difference does it make what someone calls them?

[get the red out]

6. I makes a difference

It just promotes the idea that only Arabic, Muslim people are terrorists. That is more than a little harmful to people who fit that description.

[slackmaster]

8. You are very worried about something that has not yet happened, and might not happen.

[get the red out]

12. Just responding to the OP

I didn't say I was "worried" just carrying on a discussion. I just happened to agree with the OP.

[Cal Carpenter]

17. It *does* happen, it will likely happen in this case

(if the OP's hypothetical is correct) and it will surely happen again in the future, by media, politicians, and even well-intentioned everyday folks.

It is *racism* - systemic racism.

It is *xenophobia* - American exceptionalism.

It is *propaganda* used to justify all sorts of state-sponsored violence.

It is *real* and dismissing those who bring the topic up serves only to continue and legitimize it.

[FuzzyRabbit]

54. We don't go to war if we call them deranged loner white Christians.

We just forget about it and go about our business as if nothing happened.

But we do go to war on an entire region of the world (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan) if the murderers are dark skinned Muslims from Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

[kestrel91316]

55. Ask that of the 99.99999999% of US Muslims who are law abiding

and not troublemakers.

[bushisanidiot]

18. Regardless of how the media reports it, he is a terrorist whether he is homegrown or international

a terrorist is a terrorist regardless of country, religion, etc.

And as far as I'm concerned it's up to US to use the correct language and refer to him
as a terrorist when the media wants to insist it was just a loner and not part of a
documented terrorist organization. We must correct the media when they are WRONG.

[Zambero]

11. People are often negatively biased toward those who are "different"

Given a perpetrator of a terrorist attack:

"If it's one of my kind, that person is a sick and isolated nut"
"If it's one of them, it proves that they are a bunch of terrorists"

[slackmaster]

13. Someone who plants bombs to injure and kill people is very different from me.

Even if he looks just like me.

[Ikonoklast]

25. Tell that to the vast majority of Arabic or Islamic people on this planet.

That is the point you are deliberately ignoring.

[1StrongBlackMan]

29. Do a site search of ...

the terms: "White Priviledge" and "Slackmaster" and the picture/agenda will become clear.

[Ikonoklast]

34. Oh, I know what he is already.

One of the few low fliers left here, fools no one.

Trouble is, flying low will put you right into a mountain sooner or later.

[BlueToTheBone]

21. Of course it doesn't...but the MEDIA

will do its work and soft peddle white guy and condemn all others. I don't think I ever saw Timothy McVeigh labeled a terrorist after OKC. I think troubled vet was bandied about.

[TM99]

23. Of course, McVeigh was labeled a Terrorist.

From the very beginning, all of the major news organizations at the time labeled him thus.

Do you know what a 'lone wolf' actually is? It is used by US LEO to describe an individual outside of a command structure or known group that perpetrates an act of terrorism.

So, yes, if the 'white guy' is labeled a lone wolf, he is being called a terrorist. No, he is may not be Muslim and brown and therefore a terrorist member of Al Qaeda for example. But most definitely, he is a terrorist.

[BlueToTheBone]

27. Lone wolf sounds much more romantic

than terrorist.

[TM99]

31. Romantic sounding or not

that is a proper term for an individual terrorist like McVeigh.

It is your choice how you want to interpret the correct meaning.

[1StrongBlackMan]

28. That's an interesting tid-bit ...

that is completely unassociated with how lay-people use and understand the term, "Lone Wolf; not the general public, not the media, not the militias, not the klan, not the violent anti-abortion folks, or any of the other terroristic organizations operating in this country.

But it's an interesting tib-bit, in deed.

[TM99]

30. So in other word,

using the correct definition of the word "Lone Wolf" does not fit certain individuals political agenda in this thread.

I understand.

[1StrongBlackMan]

35. Okay ...

if that's what you took from what I wrote ... Fine.

But I'm not pursuing any political agenda ... just says that there are technical definitions that may be correct; but used to pursue a political agenda (as you appear to be doing, i.e., defining away the common meaning of a word).

[TM99]

36. Facts rarely drive an agenda.

To use the correct technical definitions is to set a boundary such that political agendas and excessive emotionalism are scrupulously avoided. Medicine, science, justice & the law rely on these technicalities.

The only people in this thread, including yourself whether you believe it or not, who are pursuing a political agenda are those using the 'common meaning of a word' instead of the precise definition. Common meanings are open to interpretation. Actual definitions are not.

[1StrongBlackMan]

37. Should have stopped reading at ...

the patently ridiculous "Facts rarely drive an agenda" statement. The best agenda arguments are fact driven. And, in the law (an area in which I am more than a little bit familiar) the use of the technical term is very much a rhetorical device to "drive an agenda." In fact, your injecting the technical definition into this discussion is agenda driven.

But since you included me in the group that is "pursuing a political agenda" and being so ignorant as to not know it ...

I'll just ask, read through ... pull out my 4 post and educate me: what is my agenda?

{I'll get the pop-corn in preparation of a serious "intellectualized" boundary established fact-driven, rather than excessively emotional, agenda dance routine.},

[TM99]

39. Sorry

I am not going to get sucked into your script.

Have a good morning.

[1StrongBlackMan]

40. Okay ...

Not trying to "suck" you into anything ... Just pointing out the fallacy of your worldview. You will either reflect ... or not.

[TM99]

42. Look in the mirror instead. NT

[1StrongBlackMan]

43. I do so ...

on a daily basis, with the goal of self-reflection ... can you honestly, say you do the same?

[TM99]

44. Persistent aren't you?

Yes, I have been practicing radical self-reflection for decades.

There is no 'fallacy' in my 'worldview'. I strive to understand, accept, & deal with reality as it actually is. Words and their correct meanings are one such way to accomplish this.

A 'lone wolf' is a terrorist without a group or command structure. Period. It doesn't matter if 'common understandings' are employed. McVeigh? Yes, a lone wolf. DC Snipers? Yes, lone wolves. These two brothers in Boston? Unless new information shows they were actually a part of a cell, then yes, they were lone wolves as well.

Despite any agendas about discrimination, racism, etc., the correct definition allows for a better chance of experiencing reality without bias.

As this does seem to be challenging your worldview, let me give you one more recent example.

Shelter in place.

http://www.ready.gov/shelter

It covers a wide range of reasons to do so - biological or chemical terrorist attacks, weather events, and other dangers to public safety (oh, like perhaps a fugitive with grenades, guns, and possibly wearing an explosive vest running through a residential neighborhood fleeing the police).

It does not mean 'martial law'. It is not 'involuntary'. No one will be 'arrested'. They will not be 'denied their civil rights'. It is not a 'lock down'. It does not matter if the media says it is. It does not matter if that is a common understanding of the term. It just isn't so. To attempt to make it so reveals the numerous, yes, agendas that individuals had and have on these forums about authority, the police, the government, terrorism, etc.

Do you see where I am coming from now and what point I am making? If not, fine, let's just drop this.

[1StrongBlackMan]

45. Yes ...

I see where you are coming from; but please, since you have ascribed to me some agenda, please tell me what my agenda might be.

I think you have a broad brush and a whole lot of assumptions that inform your worldview.

[TM99]

46. Easy to point out

"Slackmaster" and "White Privilege" I don't need to say anything more than that to see that is an agenda of yours from thread to thread.

Your capacity for psychological projection is astounding but not that surprising.

Who is making 'assumptions' and painting with a 'broad brush' when such terms as those are thrown around.

[1StrongBlackMan]

48. Thank you for your pyscho-analysis ...

Doctor. "psychological projection"? Do you have the faintest idea what you are talking about?

Have you searched those terms on this site? Or are you just doing more pyscho-analysis stuff?

Never-mind ... I don't think I'm gonna be talking with you much longer.

BTW, you still haven't told me what my agenda to be ... just that you know. Your pyscho-analysis stuff is strong!

[TM99]

49. Do I have the faintest idea?

Actually, yes, I do.

I hold both Masters and Doctorates in clinical psychology. My post-graduate training and supervision are in psychodynamics, psychoanalysis, and somatics. I also have some training in neuropsychology, artificial intelligence, forensics, and trauma recovery.

If you had looked at my profile before, you would have seen that. If you had actually read what I have replied to you and elsewhere in this thread, you would see that I communicate from professional experience on just such a topic.

And sadly, I did get sucked into your little 'script'. Ah, well, I never claim to be perfect.

I am quite content with no further communication with you as well.

Take care.

[1StrongBlackMan]

50. It must be true ...

because I read it on the intertubes! I, typically, don't check the profiles of those I converse with because ... well ... this IS an anonymous bulletin board and it would have little affect on what I say.

BTW ... You STILL haven't identified my "agenda"; nor, how that "agenda" is relevant to this portion of the thread, i.e., the common usage of the term "lone wolf."

But that's fine.

Peace!

[Faux pas]

4. My prediction is that it's not a 'lone' bomber and

it will be a home grown conspiracy. The hate groups are rising.

[Puzzledtraveller]

5. Timothy McVeigh was not labelled deranged.

[MrBig]

10. I think you're right

I don't remember it too well, but I thought he was pretty much universally referred to as a domestic terrorist

[Puzzledtraveller]

14. and he was executed.

[TM99]

22. No he wasn't because

'deranged' would usually support a diagnosis of such psychotic intensity that the perpetrator was not aware of the actions he or she took. Most mass murders, terrorists, etc. are not 'deranged'.

However, Timothy McVeigh was diagnosed by a court psychiatrist with depression, OCD, and at least one panic attack. So, yes, McVeigh did have 'mental illness'.

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=132276&page=1

I wish as a professional in this field for almost three decades that I could impress upon everyone that mental health is not a white (you are normal and nothing is wrong) and black (you are ill and therefore have a disease) proposition. Mental health and well-being falls along a continuum. One can be relatively healthy and normal - i.e. no depression, no panic attacks, etc. - and still commit a crime of passion under pressure either internal or external. And under day to day stressors, one could become situationally depressed because of the loss of a child. That may or may not resolve. If it does, it was acute. If it doesn't, it evolves into chronic depression.

One can be relatively mentally ill - i.e. suffer from chronic depression, long-term panic attacks, have Autism, etc. - and never commit such a violent crime. And, yet, individuals with these diagnoses still can. If Lanza was only diagnosed with Autism and he still perpetrated that horrific crime, no, it doesn't mean that all Autistics are violent. But in his individual case, he was. Anyone can go to the furthest extremes of psychological behavior from whatever the starting point.

Sometimes we know why. Sometimes we guess why. Sometimes we just never will know why.

When something horrible like this happens, we all wonder why and how and what caused this individual or individuals to act as they did. It is absolutely normal for members of society to immediately question the 'sanity' of an individual who perpetrates such an act because it bluntly violates the social contract. No, you don't kill 3 people and injure scores others with home-made bombs and remain a 'normal' and 'sane' member of the society that you were once a part of.

[egold2604]

7. The bomb has had its expected result

As a result of the bomb, I have decided that the bomber is correct and I have changed all my views on politics and will only think as the bomber wants me to.

[HereSince1628]

9. News flash: The bomber was already labelled as deranged and mentally ill

it took less than 20 minutes after the explosions for MSNBC to air that from a former FBI profiler.

[LibertyLover]

15. It only matters if President Obama uses the word "terrorist"

If he did not use the label "terrorist" in his first remarks about the incident, because he was being cautious and waiting for facts, then it an error on his part and he must be condemned. If however, he did in fact use the word "terrorist" to describe the bombing incident before all the facts were known, then he must also be condemned for prejudging a situation. Just in case:

[bushisanidiot]

16. Yep, that's always how it is.

I was just thinking about something similar this morning...

that if a gay person dies of terminal illness or is murdered, the right will blame their demise
on their sexual orientation. Whereas, if a white, hetero christian dies of a terminal illness
or is murdered, it's because God called them home because he or she had special work that
needed to be done.

If a gay person jaywalks, it's because they are gay. If a white, hetero christian is a serial killer,
then it's just the deranged individual and their race, sexual orientation, or religious beliefs have
nothing to do with it.

of course, you could insert black, hispanic, atheist, women, muslim, budhist, etc for gay and it
would still be true in the eyes of the far right.

[kenny blankenship]

19. They are looking for 2 bombers,

Last edited Thu Apr 18, 2013, 11:18 AM - Edit history (1)

and possibly other conspirators. They say they have clear video of two bombing suspects. (Or I should say that NBC says the investigators are looking for two people, one of whom supposedly can be seen putting a pack down at a blast location and hurrying away- and I don't know why they think the other is involved.)
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/16/17784776-investigators-in-boston-blasts-hunt-2-men-from-scene?lite
The odds of this attack having a political motivation have gone from high to virtually certain. The 2 Columbine shooters conspired to murder, but they were not what you would call terrorists, so it's conceivable that you could have two conspirators who just want to kill and maim large numbers of people so they can hear the news media talking endlessly about what they did. But probably two people acting in concert in a public, random attack have some political cause or beef they seek to advance by it. The bombers may not be the picture of mental health, but they are not deranged from the point of view of the law. They are compos mentis enough to cooperate with each other in a highly planned attack and evade capture, and therefore they surely are sufficiently competent to know that what they did was a harmful, punishable offense. If it bears out that there were two people acting together, there will be no question of an insanity defense either in court or out of it.

[Coyotl]

20. What if they are Republicans?

[4Q2u2]

24. Too Soft

He probably thinks the Pubs are too soft and have sold out "HIS" country. It is definitely pinko libs like the ones in Boston's fault though. He will show us all that he is right, because in case you missed it. He was elected Lord High Protector of American Ideals. At least in his head he was.

[Mnpaul]

26. What if he is Korean?

with ties to North Korea

That is the one that scares me.

[Renew Deal]

32. Get ready for the draft

[Recursion]

33. A blogger I read did this thought experiment after Virginia Tech

Imagine this headline:

"Two killed, three injured at shooting in local college. Gunman in custody."

Ask yourself: even though you obviously don't know, do you assume the gunman is mentally ill?

Then, he reveals the full news story, which was that this was at an HBCU in Delaware. Now: do you still assume the gunman is mentally ill? It sucks, but I had to be honest and admit "no".

Anyways, his point was that so many people refused to accept even the possibility that Cho was not mentally ill, despite no diagnosis at that point.

[Zax2me]

38. Well. Wrong. Heard Caucasian and terrorist thousand times over.

In regards to these two.
Additionally, they are Islamic radicals and I have heard no one condemn Islam the religion.

[Nye Bevan]

41. Kudos for not self-deleting, even though your prediction turned out to be wrong (nt)

[Fumesucker]

47. Eh, he left one word out, Christian

I don't think anyone was expecting Caucasian Muslims..

[malaise]

51. ROFL

[dkf]

52. And how can you be more Caucasian than being from the Caucasus ;)

[treestar]

53. You were right

Bomber turned out to be Caucasian and Muslim. Entire religion condemned.

Race not mentioned at all - Muslim trumps it all.