6 ms·

"the FBI said they are not seeking to set a precedent in the case, but to get the company to help them open a single phone that may hold crucial evidence to hel

by froo 11y ago

"the FBI said they are not seeking to set a precedent in the case, but to get the company to help them open a single phone that may hold crucial evidence to help explain the most deadly terrorist attack on U.S. soil since Sept. 11, 2001." What qualifies this as being a terrorist attack? Is it because the colour of the perpetrator's skin wasn't white? Sandy Hook had double the number of resulting deaths and so is technically more deadly. Virgina Tech was done by a South Korean born man with even more deaths than Sandy Hook. Poor reporting WSJ

MacsHeadroom 11y ago
WSJ is simply reporting what the FBI said in reference to Sandy Hook. The FBI is at fault here, not WSJ.
- toyg 11y ago
  He-said/she-said is poor reporting.
  - croon 11y ago
    "He-said/she-said" is referring to reporting rumours. This is reporting of a public statement of a government agency.
    - toyg 11y ago
      It's also about reporting statements verbatim without trying to discern what the truth is. Writing down a public statement is basically just relaying a message; at that point you are writing a press release for them, not doing journalism. And then you wonder why they replace you with a Reuters feed...
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        > at that point you are writing a press release for them Or, as is often the case, cut-and-pasting from a press release they provided you.
bobwaycott 11y ago
This is the national narrative of the event now. Presumably, this is because the perpetrators allegedly voiced some kind of allegiance for ISIS or something. The phrasing is meant to invoke all the fear, uncertainty, and doubt of 9/11. It's also intended to capitalize on the scaremongering that flows so easily into a national consciousness reeling at the shock of an event like this. We can't call mass shootings terrorist attacks when they're perpetrated by disturbed, home-grown killers who haven't made some kind of political statement in connection with their actions. This is arguably why the VA Tech shooting is not terrorism, but this one—and others, like the Planned Parenthood shooting, the Oklahoma City bombing—qualify as terrorism ... and then get repeatedly thrust into the national conversation with those labels so people don't think of them merely as crimes.
- froo 11y ago
  > We can't call mass shootings terrorist attacks when they're perpetrated by disturbed, home-grown killers who haven't made some kind of political statement in connection with their actions. The Virgina Tech shooter sent an 1800 word manifesto and 27 videos to NBC News during his rampage. I'd say that qualifies as making statements.
  - bobwaycott 11y ago
    It's been a few years, and my recollection is hazy. Sorry. Were these statements political statements of a sort that opposes the US government in a clearly defined way? Did they state some kind of ideological agreement and allegiance to ideas considered anti-US or anti-US-govt? It's late, and I guess I wasn't as clear as I needed to be. I was making a pretty obvious and clear distinction on what kind of political statements I meant. I didn't say statements of any sort qualify the terrorism label.
    - froo 11y ago
      Well I have to admit, my understanding of what constitutes terrorism was not solid, so I googled it. It seems the statements don't necessarily need to be political in nature. The FBI defines domestic terrorism[1] as: > "Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics: > - Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law; > - Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and > - Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. The first point, I imagine mass shootings qualify as acts dangerous to human life that violate law. For the second point, I would argue that sending a manifesto[2] to media with nuggets like what follows are designed to intimidate/coerce a civilian population "Thanks to you, I die, like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the Weak and Defenseless people — my Brothers, Sisters, and Chil- dren —that you fuck. Like Moses, I spread the sea and lead my people —the Weak, the Defenseless, and the Innocent Children of all ages that you fucked and will always try to fuck —to eternal freedom. Thanks to you Sinners, you Spillers of Blood, I set the example of the century for my Children to follow." Lastly, the attack occurred on US soil. 1 - https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism... 2 - https://schoolshooters.info/sites/default/files/cho_manifesto_1.1.pdf https://schoolshooters.info/sites/default/files/cho_manifest...
rayiner 11y ago
> FBI investigators have said that Farook and Malik had become radicalized over several years prior to the attack, consuming "poison on the internet" and expressing a commitment to jihadism and martyrdom in private messages to each other. Farook and Malik had traveled to Saudi Arabia in the years before the attack. The couple had amassed a large stockpile of weapons, ammunition, and bomb-making equipment in their home. It's pretty offensive to focus on the shooters' skin color, instead of what they were: violent Islamic fundamentalists.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
  No seriously, how come this case is so much more important than all those other mass shootings (and I'm hearing a lot more about San Bernadino than I'm hearing about Dylan Roof)
  - joezydeco 11y ago
    Because when a fundamentalist Christian shoots up a Planned Parenthood clinic, it's a "lone gunman" and not a "terrorist". Welcome to America.
- froo 11y ago
  We've seen violent Christian fundamentalists recently with the Colorado Planned Parenthood shootings. While many around the world consider that a terrorist activity, it had not been labeled as such by US officials (the guy is only being charged with murder and not additional offenses). I find the double standards to be what is truly offensive.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    The Colorado Planned Parenthood shooters didn't pledge support to a worldwide movement of Christians trying to overthrow the western world order.
    - DanBC 11y ago
      The one still alive describes himself as a "warrior for the babies". He also > Mr. Dear described as 'heroes' members of the Army of God, a loosely organized group of anti-abortion extremists that has claimed responsibility for a number of killings and bombings." He said the attacks were politically motivated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Springs_Planned_Parenthood_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Springs_Planned_Paren...
forrestthewoods 11y ago
A terrorist is someone who uses violence or the threat of violence to coerce or intimidate. Revenge murders or anger murders are not terrorists. They kill people and then kill themselves; directly or by police. Because they are dead they are no longer a threat. There is no parent organization to fear. At least that's my definition. And what I think along the lines of what most people intuitively think.
- froo 11y ago
  > A terrorist is someone who uses violence or the threat of violence to coerce or intimidate. Not trying to nitpick, but with this definition, any police officer who has used the threat of shooting someone with their firearm or taser is using the threat of violence to coerce people. I'm not a supporter of terrorist organisations in the slightest. I am just sick of the racial profiling that goes on which is helping to fuel their cause.
  - krrrh 11y ago
    I think that having a political agenda, and stating that they were loyal to an organization (ISIS) that is calling for acts of violence in order to achieve political aims is what moved San Bernadino into the category of terrorism, and something that was missing from Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook.
  - chopin 11y ago
    >Terror on the other hand is practiced by governments and law enforcement officials, usually within the legal framework of the state.[1] Depending on the circumstances the scenario you describe can be terror. IMHO swatting on shaky grounds would qualify. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_(politics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_(politics)
- DanielBMarkham 11y ago
  "Terrorism" is a topic where we have to come to grips with definitions early on, or the analysis goes seriously astray. To me, terrorism is the use of stealth to deliberately target civilians in a media effort to change political opinion. I've had this definition for several years, and I have never reached some of the crazy conclusions other commentators reach about the topic "George Washington was a terrorist!" "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" and so on. Definitions matter. Note: This is not related to the merits of the FBI's case. My point is simply that we can all use the word "terrorism" and all actually be talking about different things.
ikeboy 11y ago
http://time.com/4136457/terrorism-definition/ http://time.com/4136457/terrorism-definition/ tries to give an answer, which doesn't make much sense to me. That's the "official" answer, though.
- froo 11y ago
  Thank you for the article. Very informative

by froo 11y ago

MacsHeadroom 11y ago

WSJ is simply reporting what the FBI said in reference to Sandy Hook. The FBI is at fault here, not WSJ.

toyg 11y ago
He-said/she-said is poor reporting.
- croon 11y ago
  "He-said/she-said" is referring to reporting rumours. This is reporting of a public statement of a government agency.
  - toyg 11y ago
    It's also about reporting statements verbatim without trying to discern what the truth is. Writing down a public statement is basically just relaying a message; at that point you are writing a press release for them, not doing journalism. And then you wonder why they replace you with a Reuters feed...
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > at that point you are writing a press release for them Or, as is often the case, cut-and-pasting from a press release they provided you.

bobwaycott 11y ago

This is the national narrative of the event now. Presumably, this is because the perpetrators allegedly voiced some kind of allegiance for ISIS or something. The phrasing is meant to invoke all the fear, uncertainty, and doubt of 9/11. It's also intended to capitalize on the scaremongering that flows so easily into a national consciousness reeling at the shock of an event like this. We can't call mass shootings terrorist attacks when they're perpetrated by disturbed, home-grown killers who haven't made some kind of political statement in connection with their actions. This is arguably why the VA Tech shooting is not terrorism, but this one—and others, like the Planned Parenthood shooting, the Oklahoma City bombing—qualify as terrorism ... and then get repeatedly thrust into the national conversation with those labels so people don't think of them merely as crimes.

froo 11y ago
> We can't call mass shootings terrorist attacks when they're perpetrated by disturbed, home-grown killers who haven't made some kind of political statement in connection with their actions. The Virgina Tech shooter sent an 1800 word manifesto and 27 videos to NBC News during his rampage. I'd say that qualifies as making statements.
- bobwaycott 11y ago
  It's been a few years, and my recollection is hazy. Sorry. Were these statements political statements of a sort that opposes the US government in a clearly defined way? Did they state some kind of ideological agreement and allegiance to ideas considered anti-US or anti-US-govt? It's late, and I guess I wasn't as clear as I needed to be. I was making a pretty obvious and clear distinction on what kind of political statements I meant. I didn't say statements of any sort qualify the terrorism label.
  - froo 11y ago
    Well I have to admit, my understanding of what constitutes terrorism was not solid, so I googled it. It seems the statements don't necessarily need to be political in nature. The FBI defines domestic terrorism[1] as: > "Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics: > - Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law; > - Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and > - Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. The first point, I imagine mass shootings qualify as acts dangerous to human life that violate law. For the second point, I would argue that sending a manifesto[2] to media with nuggets like what follows are designed to intimidate/coerce a civilian population "Thanks to you, I die, like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the Weak and Defenseless people — my Brothers, Sisters, and Chil- dren —that you fuck. Like Moses, I spread the sea and lead my people —the Weak, the Defenseless, and the Innocent Children of all ages that you fucked and will always try to fuck —to eternal freedom. Thanks to you Sinners, you Spillers of Blood, I set the example of the century for my Children to follow." Lastly, the attack occurred on US soil. 1 - https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism... 2 - https://schoolshooters.info/sites/default/files/cho_manifesto_1.1.pdf https://schoolshooters.info/sites/default/files/cho_manifest...

rayiner 11y ago

> FBI investigators have said that Farook and Malik had become radicalized over several years prior to the attack, consuming "poison on the internet" and expressing a commitment to jihadism and martyrdom in private messages to each other. Farook and Malik had traveled to Saudi Arabia in the years before the attack. The couple had amassed a large stockpile of weapons, ammunition, and bomb-making equipment in their home. It's pretty offensive to focus on the shooters' skin color, instead of what they were: violent Islamic fundamentalists.

GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
No seriously, how come this case is so much more important than all those other mass shootings (and I'm hearing a lot more about San Bernadino than I'm hearing about Dylan Roof)
- joezydeco 11y ago
  Because when a fundamentalist Christian shoots up a Planned Parenthood clinic, it's a "lone gunman" and not a "terrorist". Welcome to America.
froo 11y ago
We've seen violent Christian fundamentalists recently with the Colorado Planned Parenthood shootings. While many around the world consider that a terrorist activity, it had not been labeled as such by US officials (the guy is only being charged with murder and not additional offenses). I find the double standards to be what is truly offensive.
- rayiner 11y ago
  The Colorado Planned Parenthood shooters didn't pledge support to a worldwide movement of Christians trying to overthrow the western world order.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    The one still alive describes himself as a "warrior for the babies". He also > Mr. Dear described as 'heroes' members of the Army of God, a loosely organized group of anti-abortion extremists that has claimed responsibility for a number of killings and bombings." He said the attacks were politically motivated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Springs_Planned_Parenthood_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Springs_Planned_Paren...

forrestthewoods 11y ago

A terrorist is someone who uses violence or the threat of violence to coerce or intimidate. Revenge murders or anger murders are not terrorists. They kill people and then kill themselves; directly or by police. Because they are dead they are no longer a threat. There is no parent organization to fear. At least that's my definition. And what I think along the lines of what most people intuitively think.

froo 11y ago
> A terrorist is someone who uses violence or the threat of violence to coerce or intimidate. Not trying to nitpick, but with this definition, any police officer who has used the threat of shooting someone with their firearm or taser is using the threat of violence to coerce people. I'm not a supporter of terrorist organisations in the slightest. I am just sick of the racial profiling that goes on which is helping to fuel their cause.
- krrrh 11y ago
  I think that having a political agenda, and stating that they were loyal to an organization (ISIS) that is calling for acts of violence in order to achieve political aims is what moved San Bernadino into the category of terrorism, and something that was missing from Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook.
- chopin 11y ago
  >Terror on the other hand is practiced by governments and law enforcement officials, usually within the legal framework of the state.[1] Depending on the circumstances the scenario you describe can be terror. IMHO swatting on shaky grounds would qualify. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_(politics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_(politics)
DanielBMarkham 11y ago
"Terrorism" is a topic where we have to come to grips with definitions early on, or the analysis goes seriously astray. To me, terrorism is the use of stealth to deliberately target civilians in a media effort to change political opinion. I've had this definition for several years, and I have never reached some of the crazy conclusions other commentators reach about the topic "George Washington was a terrorist!" "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" and so on. Definitions matter. Note: This is not related to the merits of the FBI's case. My point is simply that we can all use the word "terrorism" and all actually be talking about different things.

ikeboy 11y ago

http://time.com/4136457/terrorism-definition/ http://time.com/4136457/terrorism-definition/ tries to give an answer, which doesn't make much sense to me. That's the "official" answer, though.

froo 11y ago
Thank you for the article. Very informative