4 ms·

Regarding radicalization, it's a term that's only used by talking heads. In security work you assume that everyone is a motivated self-aware bad guy who can fin

Regarding radicalization, it's a term that's only used by talking heads. In security work you assume that everyone is a motivated self-aware bad guy who can find many valid reasons to shoot you. The idea that only simpletons, who go through a "radicalization" process (usually guided by a priest), become "terrorists" is dangerously wrong. In the industry you'd be laughed at for a risk-analysis using that term or even that thought-process. Many of those killers had a very specific reason for their attacks that was at least as good as our military uses. Not right or wrong, but as well developed and contextually reasonable. For instance, Timothy McVeigh attacked a military installation because he felt (largely rightly) that they'd illegally and unreasonably conspired to kill his countrymen on trumped up charges. He did the equivalent of bombing an Iraqi military HQ because they'd violated international norms. It's likely that had the initial Waco attack not happened that McVeigh would have had a peaceful life - he wasn't shopping around for targets. I say this not to forgive him but to explain how suicidally stupid our public discourse on internal dangers is. If we really want to be "safe" we have to realize that these aren't random, unguided, and unskilled, attacks. If we shoot up someone's friends we will get responses. Not from radical crazies, but from sane people who believe they're next. Because the FBI believes its own rhetoric they're looking for radical-looking people (usually slightly crazy, as a result) and then try to work backwards to the terrorist attack they assume must be cooking in their head. This will never fail to find them funding, but will never make us one iota safer. The main take-home is that there isn't a special terrorist type that we can find all of, thus making us safe. All of us are potentially terrorists by someone else's definition, French freedom fighters, spies behind Nazi lines, etc. (We now consider those to be "good" but the people on the ground acted from their own initiative at the time, not a comfortable societal safety net which vetted their ideas.) Security can't protect us from ourselves.

dragontamer 10y ago
Consider Timothy McVeigh vs the Bundy Standoff. BOTH of these groups were citing the disastrous Waco as a point of their protest. But one of these groups decided to bomb innocent civilians. While the other was peaceful. (with guns pointed everywhere. But ultimately, the Bundy guys remained peaceful) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Malheur_Nati... The difference is radicalization. Even if the Bundy folk talk a big talk and point their guns out the window, they really don't want to be killers. And their fingers remained off of the trigger. In contrast, Timothy McVeigh straight up wanted to kill people because of his beliefs. Neither group was mentally ill. I disagree with both severely from a political standpoint of course, but they aren't sick.
- EdHominem 10y ago
  > innocent civilians. Not by the definition we use overseas. Family and business associates of terrorists are legitimate targets. And most importantly, not innocent by the definition Timothy McVeigh was trained to use in the army. "He said he later was shocked to be ordered to execute surrendering prisoners [...]" We don't stop to consider if workers in an Iraqi military HQ are conscripts, or have taken their children to work. We'd have bombed the BATF office, and considered it a righteous kill, if we felt they had hurt us the way McVeigh felt they hurt his people. > The difference is radicalization. No, the difference is in their goals. They aren't one-issue simpletons. Assuming they had the same goals, (which they didn't) the difference is opportunity. Different skills, background, and situations give people different tools. > Timothy McVeigh straight up wanted to kill people because of his beliefs. You tell him. That'll keep us safe. But no, you're wrong. McVeigh could have killed thousands by targeting a sporting event or something. He specifically chose the office of his enemy. I'm not defending him, I'm saying that the things you're saying are feel-good mantras that would lead us to being totally ineffective if we universally acted on them. Your virtue signaling is getting in the way of you analyzing people and their motivations.
  - dragontamer 10y ago
    > Not by the definition we use overseas. Family and business associates of terrorists are legitimate targets. Erm... right. You realize that's against the Geneva convention and is the definition of a war crime in the US Military. You literally can be court martialled if you did something like that. When the Navy Seals stormed Bin Laden's home, how many children did they kill? Answer: Zero. Did they kill Bin Laden's wife? No. They didn't. She was let go. The entire family that was staying at Bin Laden's house, hiding with him, were kept safe by the Seals. What's your military background where you can say this sort of stuff with confidence? Methinks you've been reading a bit too many articles and don't have enough experience on your own to create an opinion.
    - EdHominem 10y ago
      > > legitimate targets. > You realize that's against the Geneva convention and is the definition of a war crime in the US Military. You literally can be court martialled if you did something like that. Fwiw, I meant 'legitimate collateral targets'. As in, we don't abort a mission if it'll blow up the family of the terrorist. We'd have dropped a bomb on an enemy government office building despite it having a nursery attached. > When the Navy Seals stormed Bin Laden's home, [...] When done by bomb the standards are much lower. Also, that was a mission they knew would be examined by everyone. > Methinks you've been reading a bit too many articles and don't have enough experience on your own to create an opinion. For what it's worth, being on the ground somewhere is not one of the best ways to see the big picture. People fighting in Vietnam were often the least informed and didn't know what went on a few miles away. > What's your military background where you can say this sort of stuff with confidence? Are you saying that all the torturers at Guantanamo have been found guilty? Because otherwise I'm using the same news you have access to.

dragontamer 10y ago

Consider Timothy McVeigh vs the Bundy Standoff. BOTH of these groups were citing the disastrous Waco as a point of their protest. But one of these groups decided to bomb innocent civilians. While the other was peaceful. (with guns pointed everywhere. But ultimately, the Bundy guys remained peaceful) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Malheur_Nati... The difference is radicalization. Even if the Bundy folk talk a big talk and point their guns out the window, they really don't want to be killers. And their fingers remained off of the trigger. In contrast, Timothy McVeigh straight up wanted to kill people because of his beliefs. Neither group was mentally ill. I disagree with both severely from a political standpoint of course, but they aren't sick.

EdHominem 10y ago
> innocent civilians. Not by the definition we use overseas. Family and business associates of terrorists are legitimate targets. And most importantly, not innocent by the definition Timothy McVeigh was trained to use in the army. "He said he later was shocked to be ordered to execute surrendering prisoners [...]" We don't stop to consider if workers in an Iraqi military HQ are conscripts, or have taken their children to work. We'd have bombed the BATF office, and considered it a righteous kill, if we felt they had hurt us the way McVeigh felt they hurt his people. > The difference is radicalization. No, the difference is in their goals. They aren't one-issue simpletons. Assuming they had the same goals, (which they didn't) the difference is opportunity. Different skills, background, and situations give people different tools. > Timothy McVeigh straight up wanted to kill people because of his beliefs. You tell him. That'll keep us safe. But no, you're wrong. McVeigh could have killed thousands by targeting a sporting event or something. He specifically chose the office of his enemy. I'm not defending him, I'm saying that the things you're saying are feel-good mantras that would lead us to being totally ineffective if we universally acted on them. Your virtue signaling is getting in the way of you analyzing people and their motivations.
- dragontamer 10y ago
  > Not by the definition we use overseas. Family and business associates of terrorists are legitimate targets. Erm... right. You realize that's against the Geneva convention and is the definition of a war crime in the US Military. You literally can be court martialled if you did something like that. When the Navy Seals stormed Bin Laden's home, how many children did they kill? Answer: Zero. Did they kill Bin Laden's wife? No. They didn't. She was let go. The entire family that was staying at Bin Laden's house, hiding with him, were kept safe by the Seals. What's your military background where you can say this sort of stuff with confidence? Methinks you've been reading a bit too many articles and don't have enough experience on your own to create an opinion.
  - EdHominem 10y ago
    > > legitimate targets. > You realize that's against the Geneva convention and is the definition of a war crime in the US Military. You literally can be court martialled if you did something like that. Fwiw, I meant 'legitimate collateral targets'. As in, we don't abort a mission if it'll blow up the family of the terrorist. We'd have dropped a bomb on an enemy government office building despite it having a nursery attached. > When the Navy Seals stormed Bin Laden's home, [...] When done by bomb the standards are much lower. Also, that was a mission they knew would be examined by everyone. > Methinks you've been reading a bit too many articles and don't have enough experience on your own to create an opinion. For what it's worth, being on the ground somewhere is not one of the best ways to see the big picture. People fighting in Vietnam were often the least informed and didn't know what went on a few miles away. > What's your military background where you can say this sort of stuff with confidence? Are you saying that all the torturers at Guantanamo have been found guilty? Because otherwise I'm using the same news you have access to.