Two Indian engineers at Garmin in Kansas shot, one killed(kansascity.com)
kansascity.com
Two Indian engineers at Garmin in Kansas shot, one killed
http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article134508139.html
307 comments
In order to be a terrorist I think you need a political purpose, an ideology and a plan of some kind. From what I read in this case, this seems more like a deranged person.
Instead of trying to apply the thought-blocking "terrorist" label to more people, I'd work to apply it to less people. Terrorist is often a very convenient way of referring to our enemies- when they start to hit back.
Political purpose: get rid of immigrants (of certain colors).
Ideology: right-wing extremism.
Plan: shoot some people in the group you want to leave, striking fear into the rest.
Seems fitting to me.
Ideology: right-wing extremism.
Plan: shoot some people in the group you want to leave, striking fear into the rest.
Seems fitting to me.
This is by far the best comment IMHO
> Plan: shoot some people in the group you want to leave, striking fear into the rest.
The exact same actions could've been terrorism with this as the plan, but it sounds more like an angry drunk than executing on a premeditated plan.
Contrast that with someone like Dylan Roof, who would match the terrorist label much better:
> A friend recalled a drunken Roof ranting one night about his unspecified six-month plan "to do something crazy" in order "to start a race war."
The exact same actions could've been terrorism with this as the plan, but it sounds more like an angry drunk than executing on a premeditated plan.
Contrast that with someone like Dylan Roof, who would match the terrorist label much better:
> A friend recalled a drunken Roof ranting one night about his unspecified six-month plan "to do something crazy" in order "to start a race war."
There are a lot of conflicting definitions of terrorism out there, but they generally don't seem to require an elaborate or long-premeditated plan.
The definition of terrorism - is what attorney general define it as on a whim.
Just like in USSR - where the dictionary definition of communism and 20 other *isms was changed and amended every year
Just like in USSR - where the dictionary definition of communism and 20 other *isms was changed and amended every year
Not sure who downvoted you. I agree with you.
> Plan: shoot some people in the group you want to leave, striking fear into the rest.
A person who shoots two people and then immediately goes to another bar to brag about it probably lacks the mental faculties to come up with such an elaborate plan.
A person who shoots two people and then immediately goes to another bar to brag about it probably lacks the mental faculties to come up with such an elaborate plan.
What exactly is elaborate about a plan to shoot people?
It isn't, but people accuse him of shooting people to scare away others which requires more thought. The murder is obviously premeditated, I am not arguing about that, I just argue that he probably didn't do it for any higher purpose than wanting them dead.
He shouted "Get out of my country!" I'm pretty confident that was not directed solely at the person he then shot.
So you argue that it wouldn't have been terrorism if he instead said "Death to all naggers!" because then it wouldn't serve a higher political purpose? To me those two statements are basically interchangeable in this scenario.
"Death to..." and "Get out of my country" don't seem very interchangeable to me.
Are you saying you think he only wanted specifically those two men out of "his" country? I suppose it's possible but I wouldn't bet money on it.
Elaborate plans are not necessary. All you need to do is radicalize the right people, and plans (and actions) will take care of themselves.
You're right. He should have bragged about it on YouTube instead. Everyone knows that's where the real terrorists do their bragging.
I generally agree that the term requires more conceptual clarity, but it's a matter of propaganda now. And if any deranged Muslim who shoots an American is called a terrorist, we can at least hope for an equally vague use of the term in the other direction.
A terrorist is anyone whose goal is to induce terror among a group of potential targets. The motive is to scare them into changing their behaviors. It doesn't have to be political (even though the term has become so).
>...group of potential targets. The motive is to scare them into changing their behaviors.
In other words, a political motive.
In other words, a political motive.
> In order to be a terrorist I think you need a political purpose, an ideology and a plan of some kind.
Not in the US, where this cowardly, racist attack took place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism#Unite...
Not in the US, where this cowardly, racist attack took place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism#Unite...
I'm sorry. I do not care about dictionaries. Words gain and lose meaning by connotation, not by dictionaries. Good working definitions increase our ability to solve problems. Poor working definitions decrease them. In this case the proposed definition is a poor one.
If this is terrorism, there are dozens of terrorists acts every day. Hate crime? Sure. Drunken armed fool on his way to jail and a couple of guys just in the wrong place at the wrong time? Absolutely. Terrorism. Screw that. The word doesn't describe what happened. The western world is not in a war to stop armed stupid drunken men. Perhaps that's a great idea, but even then it wouldn't be terrorism.
My working definition of terrorism, which has served me well over the years, is "the use of stealth to deliberately target civilians in order to effect political change"
If this is terrorism, there are dozens of terrorists acts every day. Hate crime? Sure. Drunken armed fool on his way to jail and a couple of guys just in the wrong place at the wrong time? Absolutely. Terrorism. Screw that. The word doesn't describe what happened. The western world is not in a war to stop armed stupid drunken men. Perhaps that's a great idea, but even then it wouldn't be terrorism.
My working definition of terrorism, which has served me well over the years, is "the use of stealth to deliberately target civilians in order to effect political change"
> the use of stealth to deliberately target civilians in order to effect political change
Literally the only differences between your definition and the ones provided above are:
1. They specifically mention illegal violence so that e.g. police forces aren't considered terrorist organizations. Fair distinction, IMO.
2. The part about stealth. (Because flying planes into buildings or blowing up cars is... stealthy?)
3. The part about civilians (the parent's definition is more accurate -- terrorist attacks usually but not always involve civilians). IMO yours is a worse definition. It means IED attacks in Iraq weren't terrorism. So confusingly, on the front lines of the global war on terrorism, few if any Americans died at the hands of terrorists.
> Hate crime? Sure.
Sure. Why the hell not? What makes a hate crime not terrorism? Terrorists attacks can be not hate crimes (e.g. if they target indiscriminately), but usually terrorist attacks are also hate crimes.
> Drunken armed fool on his way to jail and a couple of guys just in the wrong place at the wrong time? Absolutely.
How does this fit the "political change" aspect that's included in your parent's definitions? Wanting to not go to jail is only political in the most superficial of ways.
> The western world is not in a war to stop armed stupid drunken men
So who and what are we at war with, exactly? I've been trying to figure that out for close to two decades now. And the prevailing answer has changed at least three times while the name of the war hasn't. So maybe you're the one with a terrible working definition of "terror".
Literally the only differences between your definition and the ones provided above are:
1. They specifically mention illegal violence so that e.g. police forces aren't considered terrorist organizations. Fair distinction, IMO.
2. The part about stealth. (Because flying planes into buildings or blowing up cars is... stealthy?)
3. The part about civilians (the parent's definition is more accurate -- terrorist attacks usually but not always involve civilians). IMO yours is a worse definition. It means IED attacks in Iraq weren't terrorism. So confusingly, on the front lines of the global war on terrorism, few if any Americans died at the hands of terrorists.
> Hate crime? Sure.
Sure. Why the hell not? What makes a hate crime not terrorism? Terrorists attacks can be not hate crimes (e.g. if they target indiscriminately), but usually terrorist attacks are also hate crimes.
> Drunken armed fool on his way to jail and a couple of guys just in the wrong place at the wrong time? Absolutely.
How does this fit the "political change" aspect that's included in your parent's definitions? Wanting to not go to jail is only political in the most superficial of ways.
> The western world is not in a war to stop armed stupid drunken men
So who and what are we at war with, exactly? I've been trying to figure that out for close to two decades now. And the prevailing answer has changed at least three times while the name of the war hasn't. So maybe you're the one with a terrible working definition of "terror".
The part about stealth is there to exclude uniformed irregular fighters/people fighting for an organization not officially recognized as a state. As such one can engage in normal war with them, and can fire weapons at them while NOT firing at civilians.
For instance, uniformed ISIS members are not terrorists - they are an army, albeit the army of a non-recognized state.
For instance, uniformed ISIS members are not terrorists - they are an army, albeit the army of a non-recognized state.
That's a reasonable thing to exclude. But I'd argue we should just write the definition to caveat out of uniformed fighters fighting in war zones directly.
The reason is that stealth is necessary for planning a terrorist attack (and therefore redundant -- any violent attack on a civilian target is going to be stealthily planned almost by definition), and also not a pre-requisite in the after-math of a terrorist attack. In fact, most terrorist organizations brag about their attacks pretty openly. Even in some cases when they weren't actually responsible.
The reason is that stealth is necessary for planning a terrorist attack (and therefore redundant -- any violent attack on a civilian target is going to be stealthily planned almost by definition), and also not a pre-requisite in the after-math of a terrorist attack. In fact, most terrorist organizations brag about their attacks pretty openly. Even in some cases when they weren't actually responsible.
As I understand it, the distinction goes back to the Geneva convention and similar rules of "just war" that aim to minimize harm to civilians.
Specifically, if you openly declare war, wear uniforms, carry weapons openly and follow other rules of war, your opponents can blow you up while leaving civilians alone (and you can do the same to them). Then you've just got a regular war going on.
Specifically, if you openly declare war, wear uniforms, carry weapons openly and follow other rules of war, your opponents can blow you up while leaving civilians alone (and you can do the same to them). Then you've just got a regular war going on.
I think the "war on terror" is an idiotic phrase, so please don't ask me to defend it. The best I have is that some countries have decided to act against people who use terrorism.
The reason why is that terrorism is a form of politics. You can either spend a lot of money and try to persuade a population to agree with your position or you can convince them to live in fear of your power and to do your will out of that fear. This, also, is why terrorism is such an existential threat. It's not because of the body count. It's because a very small number of terrorists can effectively hold hostage millions of voters. That breaks democratic forms of governance in bad ways.
For what it's worth, I view the "war on terror" in much the same way as I view the "war on landmines", or the "war on poverty". "War" is so overloaded as to be meaningless.
I think with terrorism you can at least offer a working definition and drive analysis further. With "war", it's such a mess that I think as a word it's useless now.
The reason why is that terrorism is a form of politics. You can either spend a lot of money and try to persuade a population to agree with your position or you can convince them to live in fear of your power and to do your will out of that fear. This, also, is why terrorism is such an existential threat. It's not because of the body count. It's because a very small number of terrorists can effectively hold hostage millions of voters. That breaks democratic forms of governance in bad ways.
For what it's worth, I view the "war on terror" in much the same way as I view the "war on landmines", or the "war on poverty". "War" is so overloaded as to be meaningless.
I think with terrorism you can at least offer a working definition and drive analysis further. With "war", it's such a mess that I think as a word it's useless now.
Remember von Clausewitz; war in general is also politics.
Also, terrorism as you're defining it has always existed. The difference is that now the USA military-industrial complex and its servants in media and politics have decided to base most of their marketing on the "threat" of terrorism. Bathed as we are in a boiling soup of constant media manipulation, we can't trust our gut reactions to anything that the MIC care about, especially terrorism. As a bias check, consider all the many causes of death that have caused and do cause far more deaths than terrorism.
Also, terrorism as you're defining it has always existed. The difference is that now the USA military-industrial complex and its servants in media and politics have decided to base most of their marketing on the "threat" of terrorism. Bathed as we are in a boiling soup of constant media manipulation, we can't trust our gut reactions to anything that the MIC care about, especially terrorism. As a bias check, consider all the many causes of death that have caused and do cause far more deaths than terrorism.
I agree 'war on terror' is idiotic. Terrorism is a law and order issue. It's an illegal act. Yes sometimes the perpetrators have state sponsors, but that doesn't really change anything about the nature of the crime, though it does actually open up additional means to fight it by applying military, economic or political pressure on that state.
In the case of e.g. Iran they've basically been brought to the negotiating table by economic and political pressure. They're still far from clean, but at least they're tractable. IS on the other hand is functionally a state but politically and economically intractable. We and several Middle Eastern nations are at war with them. However their terrorist activities carried out outside their territory are still criminal activities best dealt with as law and order issues.
Terrorist acts are crimes. Very rarely does the definition of a crime include specific criteria on the nature of the perpetrator. In other words the crime committed only changes based on who committed it in pretty specific ways. For example there's a crime and there's conspiracy to commit the crime. Unless the definition of terrorism explicitly defines it as a crime committed by groups, I see no reason to exclude acts committed by individuals acting alone.
In the case of e.g. Iran they've basically been brought to the negotiating table by economic and political pressure. They're still far from clean, but at least they're tractable. IS on the other hand is functionally a state but politically and economically intractable. We and several Middle Eastern nations are at war with them. However their terrorist activities carried out outside their territory are still criminal activities best dealt with as law and order issues.
Terrorist acts are crimes. Very rarely does the definition of a crime include specific criteria on the nature of the perpetrator. In other words the crime committed only changes based on who committed it in pretty specific ways. For example there's a crime and there's conspiracy to commit the crime. Unless the definition of terrorism explicitly defines it as a crime committed by groups, I see no reason to exclude acts committed by individuals acting alone.
Fair enough. Maybe calculated or coordinated is better than stealth. Which would perhaps exclude this attack (maybe, maybe not) but include e.g. organized and intentional white nationalists.
There's an implication here that there is some form of organized political desire that you are acting to further -- and that you are deliberately planning to further that effort.
The KKK were terrorists. White bigots in the south were not. They were just bigots. Every stupid, angry, bigoted and violent person is not a terrorist.
To me an almost classic example is that couple out in California that shot up those folks. They had planned for weeks, bought gear, posted online. They were even shooting video in order to publish of the attacks as they occurred. That's terrorism.
The KKK were terrorists. White bigots in the south were not. They were just bigots. Every stupid, angry, bigoted and violent person is not a terrorist.
To me an almost classic example is that couple out in California that shot up those folks. They had planned for weeks, bought gear, posted online. They were even shooting video in order to publish of the attacks as they occurred. That's terrorism.
> There's an implication here that there is some form of organized political desire that you are acting to further -- and that you are deliberately planning to further that effort.
In that case, I would argue that this attack fits your definition of terrorism.
The political ideology is white nationalism clothed in Islamophobic garb.
The immediate political desire is, in the attacker's own words, "get out of my country!"
It's hard to argue that killing someone (and by extension making people like them fear for their safety) is not a deliberate and planned way of getting "them" -- both the individual and the group that individual supposedly represents -- out of your country.
In that case, I would argue that this attack fits your definition of terrorism.
The political ideology is white nationalism clothed in Islamophobic garb.
The immediate political desire is, in the attacker's own words, "get out of my country!"
It's hard to argue that killing someone (and by extension making people like them fear for their safety) is not a deliberate and planned way of getting "them" -- both the individual and the group that individual supposedly represents -- out of your country.
I find this a very difficult argument to accept, but I appreciate your sharing it.
I believe you are conflating "having a political desire" with "...an implication here that there is some form of organized political desire that you are acting to further.."
If a man loved Nazis in 1938 and blew himself up in Times Square?
Not terrorism. There's no use of stealth in a pre-meditated way to instill fear to enact some political change. It's just some Nazi schmuck blowing himself up.
Apologies if I'm responding to what I think you are saying instead of what you are, but fuck me. There's a huge difference in talking about what people feel and what they do, right? I feel a bunch of damned fool things, Never thought that this was some sort of topic for political debate.
I believe you are conflating "having a political desire" with "...an implication here that there is some form of organized political desire that you are acting to further.."
If a man loved Nazis in 1938 and blew himself up in Times Square?
Not terrorism. There's no use of stealth in a pre-meditated way to instill fear to enact some political change. It's just some Nazi schmuck blowing himself up.
Apologies if I'm responding to what I think you are saying instead of what you are, but fuck me. There's a huge difference in talking about what people feel and what they do, right? I feel a bunch of damned fool things, Never thought that this was some sort of topic for political debate.
No, I agree this is a topic upon which reasonable people can disagree. And I agree with your example.
The problem is that a bunch of disparate unorganized attacks can have the same effect as a coordinated intentional terror campaign. At that point, you have to decide whether terror is defined by intent or effect.
One Nazi in times square? OK, not terror. A dozen Nazis all across America, even if uncoordinated? Terror.
I default to intent but am also liberal in allowing effect to stand in for intent.
The problem is that a bunch of disparate unorganized attacks can have the same effect as a coordinated intentional terror campaign. At that point, you have to decide whether terror is defined by intent or effect.
One Nazi in times square? OK, not terror. A dozen Nazis all across America, even if uncoordinated? Terror.
I default to intent but am also liberal in allowing effect to stand in for intent.
Jim Crow was organized. When White Supremacy was the law of the land, and the police wouldn't prosecute the killing of a black man, that's organization.
By that definition, our own government is committing terroristic acts constantly. Hell, Facebook and Google are terrorists by that definition as well.
I don't necessarily agree nor disagree with the particular event at hand being labeled as a terror attack, but I'd implore you to analyze your homebrew definition.
What's added? What's left out? Why should the "mainstream" definition be changed? Is it not specific enough for the people you think we should target with that term? Is it too specifically targeting people you don't think we should care about?
I don't necessarily agree nor disagree with the particular event at hand being labeled as a terror attack, but I'd implore you to analyze your homebrew definition.
What's added? What's left out? Why should the "mainstream" definition be changed? Is it not specific enough for the people you think we should target with that term? Is it too specifically targeting people you don't think we should care about?
You have it backwards with that war; it's the "war on terror" that is a conceptual absurdity, it does not serve to prop up your definition of terror.
Stealth - what does this mean? The people committing the acts need to be creeping around beforehand? Or that they need to not announce what they're going to do before they do it (not the case for Northern Ireland terrorism, where warning phone calls were all part of the terror tactic - get everyone evacuated).
Further, in Northern Irish terrorism, civilians weren't deliberately targeted; in fact, many plots were modified to reduce the risk of injury to civilian bystanders. Disruption to civilians, sure, but the targets were more usually economic or governmental than civilian per se.
"Effecting political change with violence committed by non-state civilian actors" might be a working definition. And I think right-wing nutjobs killing specifically targeted ethnicities counts, just as much in the US as it did in 1930s Germany.
Stealth - what does this mean? The people committing the acts need to be creeping around beforehand? Or that they need to not announce what they're going to do before they do it (not the case for Northern Ireland terrorism, where warning phone calls were all part of the terror tactic - get everyone evacuated).
Further, in Northern Irish terrorism, civilians weren't deliberately targeted; in fact, many plots were modified to reduce the risk of injury to civilian bystanders. Disruption to civilians, sure, but the targets were more usually economic or governmental than civilian per se.
"Effecting political change with violence committed by non-state civilian actors" might be a working definition. And I think right-wing nutjobs killing specifically targeted ethnicities counts, just as much in the US as it did in 1930s Germany.
> there are dozens of terrorists acts every day
Yes, that is correct. You recognized that well. Have a gold star.
Yes, that is correct. You recognized that well. Have a gold star.
This attack deliberately targeted civilians and was an attempt to effect political change. There was no stealth, but I really don't see why that would be part of the definition of terrorism. Plenty of terrorist acts involve just walking into a place and shooting it up.
There probably was stealth, given that in Kansas anyone can carry concealed, it's likely the terrorist did that.
I haven't reread Gulag Archipelago for many years, though the last time was after the rhetoric of terrorism had entered English language politics as a substitute for the red menace.
One of the things that struck then me about the stories Solzhenitsyn tells is that terrorism winds up being a common charge under which people were sent to the Gulag under Stalin's regime. Terrorism is violence committed by one's political opponents when the political opponent has been classified as the other.
The rhetoric of terrorism achieved its current form with the bombing of the Beirut Marine barracks in 1982. Previously, during Vietnam the attackers of a military target would have been described in military terms because the US interests were such that the Vietnamese could not be cast as 'the other.' In Lebanon the US interests were such that there was no contradiction in casting the attackers as 'the other' (existing political alignments indeed encouraged it).
One of the things that struck then me about the stories Solzhenitsyn tells is that terrorism winds up being a common charge under which people were sent to the Gulag under Stalin's regime. Terrorism is violence committed by one's political opponents when the political opponent has been classified as the other.
The rhetoric of terrorism achieved its current form with the bombing of the Beirut Marine barracks in 1982. Previously, during Vietnam the attackers of a military target would have been described in military terms because the US interests were such that the Vietnamese could not be cast as 'the other.' In Lebanon the US interests were such that there was no contradiction in casting the attackers as 'the other' (existing political alignments indeed encouraged it).
"Terrorist" means "Somebody who hijacks media panic about shocking violence against innocents to spread his ideological message."
Agreed. Call it what it is. Your first thoughts are worth examining, a lot of times they're right.
In the nineties the FBI categorized things like church burnings as acts of terrorism, understandably so. (and that's an important example, as there are depressingly many church burnings every year)
I'm pretty sure those sorts of crimes still fall under the FBI's terrorism label but their political masters don't really play that up. "Violent crimes committed by people who are not like you who we'd like you to hate" is as accurate a definition of terrorism as anything at the political level, nowadays.
I'm pretty sure those sorts of crimes still fall under the FBI's terrorism label but their political masters don't really play that up. "Violent crimes committed by people who are not like you who we'd like you to hate" is as accurate a definition of terrorism as anything at the political level, nowadays.
when the perp is in the "in group" he's a lone wolf, when he's not he's a terrorist. simple really.
The FBI definition of terrorism doesn't require it to be a group activity.
In-group is a sociology term. He is saying it is bigger/different from whether or not the individual is white, but whether they are a member of the in-group.
it also have to be politically motivated too, but conducted by someone alienated by the populace (i.e war doesn't count)
and white lunatic doesn't count as a terrorist, but dylan roof or eliot rogers does.
and white lunatic doesn't count as a terrorist, but dylan roof or eliot rogers does.
I think you may have misunderstood the comment you are commenting on. I believe they were saying that members of the socially dominate group who perform crimes are seen as outliers while members of minority groups are seen as reflecting the values of the group.
"Lone wolves" often turn out to have been participants in online groups which talk about doing these kinds of things. It's not exactly a system of orders, just that "wouldn't it be great if some of those people got killed" will eventually come true if people repeat it enough.
If he was in an organized group he would have easier access to weapons.
This is America. You can get a gun as easily as picking up a pack of diapers
Easier still.
Checkout http://www.armslist.com/. The first time I bought a gun it was eye-opening: email a random person, give them cash, drive back with a gun.
So easy it's scary.
Checkout http://www.armslist.com/. The first time I bought a gun it was eye-opening: email a random person, give them cash, drive back with a gun.
So easy it's scary.
There's another, remarkably simple reason why Islamic terrorist attacks are less likely to be referred to as lone wolf attacks: because they're not. See https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/04/world/asia/isis-messaging... They're pretty much all centrally co-ordinated, even the ones that were initially assumed not to be, including the smaller-scale ones that just target a handful of people at a single bar or involve someone going on an axe rampage on a train.
An attack can be lone-wolf at the same time as being an Islamically-motivated attack.
Similarly, an attack can be lone-wolf at the same time as being a politically-motivated attack.
Similarly, an attack can be lone-wolf at the same time as being a politically-motivated attack.
It was not a planned attack. I would call it a hate crime instead of a terrorist attack.
Why should it not be both? "I hate non-white immigrants and I want them to get out of my country, and will use deadly force on a random subset of them in order to scare the others into leaving or not coming here" is both a racist and a political statement.
> I'm glad the writer used the term 'terrorist', something the MSM tend to shy away from when the perp is white
I think in this case it is easy one. Left wing white would still be outside terrorist category.
I think in this case it is easy one. Left wing white would still be outside terrorist category.
Assuming the facts of the case are as reported, this looks like simple second-degree murder to me.
Why do you think it's 'terrorism'?
Why does the race of the parties involved matter to you?
Why do you think it's 'terrorism'?
Why does the race of the parties involved matter to you?
> Assuming the facts of the case are as reported, simple second-degree murder to me
Second degree murder is: 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"; or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life.
Most articles state the equivalent of the following, I'm using the one from The Verge: " Purinton has been charged with one count of premeditated first degree murder, and two counts of attempted premeditated first degree murder. "
> Why does the race of the parties involved matter to you?
" A witness said he yelled “get out of my country” to two of the victims, reportedly saying the men, believed to originally be from India, were “Middle Eastern.” "
That's the description of a hate-crime as he had no prior interaction with the victims. He picked on them precisely because of his perception of their skin color and mistakenly assuming they were his intended target out-group.
Second degree murder is: 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"; or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life.
Most articles state the equivalent of the following, I'm using the one from The Verge: " Purinton has been charged with one count of premeditated first degree murder, and two counts of attempted premeditated first degree murder. "
> Why does the race of the parties involved matter to you?
" A witness said he yelled “get out of my country” to two of the victims, reportedly saying the men, believed to originally be from India, were “Middle Eastern.” "
That's the description of a hate-crime as he had no prior interaction with the victims. He picked on them precisely because of his perception of their skin color and mistakenly assuming they were his intended target out-group.
They killed him to send a message to immigrants. Leave or die. They sent this message using murder, so yes they 'terrorised' a migrant to stop them coming over.
Unless you know the state of mind of the shooter, I'm pretty sure you can't really say that, one thing or another. Nothing that it was reported that the suspect said points to anything other than animus against the particular victims.
the title of the article
“Get out of my Country!” White Terrorist Shoots Asian-American Engineers in Wake of Trump Visa Ban"
“Get out of my Country!” White Terrorist Shoots Asian-American Engineers in Wake of Trump Visa Ban"
Also, why are you so insistently trying to make this into something other than terrorism, which is clearly is, even by your own definition?
Well, let's see.
>the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims
I think the very clear and undisguised political aim here is to stop non-whites from feeling welcome or safe to live and work in America.
>the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims
I think the very clear and undisguised political aim here is to stop non-whites from feeling welcome or safe to live and work in America.
> Why does the race of the parties involved matter to you?
Because it mattered to the murderer.
EDIT: For clarity, it can be both a hate crime and terrorism.
Because it mattered to the murderer.
EDIT: For clarity, it can be both a hate crime and terrorism.
Not sure why that was downvoted. That is a pretty simple litmus test for a hate-crime.
I think what is really objectionable about making this into purely a hate crime is that you are effectively saying because it's a hate crime, it can't also be politically-motivated i.e. terrorism.
Much of the anger here is coming from this undeniable attempt to deflect what this really is. Like that other guy said, own it.
Much of the anger here is coming from this undeniable attempt to deflect what this really is. Like that other guy said, own it.
Hang on, it's perfectly possibly for hate crime to be terrorism. It's idiotic to suggest a hate crime cannot be terrorism.
Nothing in my comment suggests this isn't terrorism. Saying "it matters to the murderer" can be applied equally to an act of terrorism or to hate crime.
Nothing in my comment suggests this isn't terrorism. Saying "it matters to the murderer" can be applied equally to an act of terrorism or to hate crime.
I guess I don't understand the distinction of a hate crime vs terrorism. I would think hate crimes are a subset of terrorism and not a lessor charge.
In theory, it's possible for hate crimes to not be terrorism. Kill someone because they are a certain color, but have no intent for any end goal beyond killing that one person.
In practice, that probably never happens. Hate crimes almost always coincide with the intent to terrorize the target population.
In practice, that probably never happens. Hate crimes almost always coincide with the intent to terrorize the target population.
Practically they are, but in the US you aren't supposed to say it out loud.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> Why do you think it's 'terrorism'?
Because it was a politically motivated attack on civilians, the standard the FBI uses to determine terrorism.
Because it was a politically motivated attack on civilians, the standard the FBI uses to determine terrorism.
Nothing that's been reported conclusively demonstrates this at all.
For all we know, there was some prior history between the suspect and the victims.
For all we know, there was some prior history between the suspect and the victims.
> For all we know
Then you should attempt to know more before commenting, such as reading the article, or any of the other articles about this incident, where the gunman literally stated what his motives were.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/02/kansas-city-shooting-i...
Then you should attempt to know more before commenting, such as reading the article, or any of the other articles about this incident, where the gunman literally stated what his motives were.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/02/kansas-city-shooting-i...
My one google didn't find the definition on the FBI website. But there is a description from the Atlantic:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/fbi-def...
Edit:formatting
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/fbi-def...
“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.
Edit:formatting
How is this act not intended to intimidate migrants from "Middle Eastern countries" to the US?
https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-20... has the FBI definition
>(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
mozumder(3)
[deleted]
"Srinivas Kuchibhotla, died of his injuries in a Kansas City hospital. He is said to have left behind a wife who is five months pregnant.
...
His bereaved wife and his family are trying to raise money to send his body back to India for his funeral.
"
I'm terribly ashamed of the state of our shining city upon on a hill.
I'm terribly ashamed of the state of our shining city upon on a hill.
Senseless violence is a plague.
I hope they are able to send his body back where they want him buried.
I hope they are able to send his body back where they want him buried.
I think they'd want him cremated. But I get you sentiment.
There is no more shining city on a hill. Sorry!
It is indeed a terrible loss. But what I don't understand is:
> His bereaved wife and his family are trying to raise money to send his body back to India for his funeral
Is it a common thing to raise money as in community support etc or despite being engineers and all people just do not save money for their emergency needs.
Edit: Sorry about this question. Now I think it is rather tactless question, asked on this unfortunate occasion.
> His bereaved wife and his family are trying to raise money to send his body back to India for his funeral
Is it a common thing to raise money as in community support etc or despite being engineers and all people just do not save money for their emergency needs.
Edit: Sorry about this question. Now I think it is rather tactless question, asked on this unfortunate occasion.
Even assuming his wife was also working, it's a good bet she has plenty of bills to pay, and dipping into savings for funeral expenses when you just lost half your household income is not something I would ever suggest anyone do.
The costs of a funeral, transportation, and legal work can be excessive. Additionally, no one plans to be shot at a young age. I am sure they would rather spend their savings on their children/healthcare/rent now that there is no one providing for their household. Just because he was an engineer does not mean he was paid 10x everyone else.
It seems very weird for a person that age to be setting aside money for funeral expenses.
You don't know their story before the guy was killed for the color of his skin.
You don't know whether they had some emergency funds that had recently been drained, or whether they chose to send money back to India to support someone else, or whatever.
You don't know whether they had some emergency funds that had recently been drained, or whether they chose to send money back to India to support someone else, or whatever.
You don't understand that sometimes people don't hove money?
Didn't they just deplete their emergency funds on the hospital treatment?
High time citizens from rest of the world actively boycott travelling & working in the USA. It is just not worth getting shot by a random idiot while walking on the street.
This kind of news about racists and bigots running around the country coupled together with the fact that one person at the border can mess up your entire life for not giving away your passwords makes me want to stay away from the U.S for now.
Don't get me wrong, visiting the US has always been a dream for me and almost everyone I know, since it was this place where someone could go to make something of themselves, you know a place where they accepted and rewarded you for the hard work you did. May be we grew up and now realize that dream was just really good marketing. Who knows, I am just sad I have to read stuff like this too frequently these days.
Don't get me wrong, visiting the US has always been a dream for me and almost everyone I know, since it was this place where someone could go to make something of themselves, you know a place where they accepted and rewarded you for the hard work you did. May be we grew up and now realize that dream was just really good marketing. Who knows, I am just sad I have to read stuff like this too frequently these days.
I can understand your unease with visiting the US, and I certainly don't wish to dismiss your valid concerns, but I think tragic and hateful events like this can also serve to highlight the good in people.
It should be noted that one of the injured was some random white dude who tried to pursue the gunman.
Again, I understand why you feel the way you do and I'm not dismissing those concerns, but there are a lot of wonderful people in the US as well.
It should be noted that one of the injured was some random white dude who tried to pursue the gunman.
Again, I understand why you feel the way you do and I'm not dismissing those concerns, but there are a lot of wonderful people in the US as well.
Sadly all it takes is a gun in the hands of a non-wonderful person. Not dismissing your comment but as an Indian, I'm seeing the damage just one a can do compared against the wonderful people.
Agreed. And to add to our comment his name is
Ian Grillot the hero in this story. There is a go-fund me page that was set up for him by his sisters.
https://www.gofundme.com/a645d-ians-road-to-recovery
Ian Grillot the hero in this story. There is a go-fund me page that was set up for him by his sisters.
https://www.gofundme.com/a645d-ians-road-to-recovery
Other than the US, which countries do you feel provide similar opportunities to immigrants? I'm currently 17 years old and it has been my childhood dream to somehow make it to the US, but such news deeply saddens me and insights fear into my mind. It is with deep regret that I have to read such news everyday and realise that it just takes 1 messed up person to destroy your life.
Aren't there any other countries where hardwork would pay and dreams could come true, without having a general fear of getting shot?
There's nothing quite like it, but there are alternatives that may be better along different (mostly cultural) axis. If it's your desire to work for a big tech company, they have offices in Europe and elsewhere, it's not quite HQ, but it's an option, particularly given how challenging the visa situation is.
>This kind of news about racists and bigots running around the country coupled together with the fact that one person at the border can mess up your entire life for not giving away your passwords makes me want to stay away from the U.S for now.
Couple that with the fact that you are being fingerprinted and photographed, like you are some kind criminal, just because you want to visit the country and spend money there. That alone is enough for me to never visit the U.S..
Couple that with the fact that you are being fingerprinted and photographed, like you are some kind criminal, just because you want to visit the country and spend money there. That alone is enough for me to never visit the U.S..
"since it was this place where someone could go to make something of themselves, you know a place where they accepted and rewarded you for the hard work you did"
absolutely. im saddened that it feels so risky to visit/work in a country founded on(and to a large part lived up to) such lofty principles.
absolutely. im saddened that it feels so risky to visit/work in a country founded on(and to a large part lived up to) such lofty principles.
This is just as silly as the people who say that we need to ban Muslims from entering the US because they're too dangerous.
Your odds of being murdered in a hate crime in this country are quite low. You're far more likely to be killed by a drunk driver or by falling down the stairs. As a general rule, any event that shows up in the national news is something not common enough to be afraid of, because anything that common is no longer newsworthy pretty much by definition.
Your odds of being murdered in a hate crime in this country are quite low. You're far more likely to be killed by a drunk driver or by falling down the stairs. As a general rule, any event that shows up in the national news is something not common enough to be afraid of, because anything that common is no longer newsworthy pretty much by definition.
assuming normal distibution, murder is at one extreme of the bell curve of hate. it's not just about getting shot.
Sure, our current statistics show your statement to be true. But, I think many people are alarmed at the trajectory of hate and intolerance in the US.
Also, being murdered is the worst thing that could happen, and maybe that event is still rare, but a set of stairs isn't going to harass you or discriminate against you. There's a whole spectrum of bad things that could happen to people because of the climate in the US.
Also, being murdered is the worst thing that could happen, and maybe that event is still rare, but a set of stairs isn't going to harass you or discriminate against you. There's a whole spectrum of bad things that could happen to people because of the climate in the US.
The original comment said, "It is just not worth getting shot by a random idiot while walking on the street."
If you want to talk about other negative aspects, then fine, but that's a gigantic move of the goalposts.
If you want to talk about other negative aspects, then fine, but that's a gigantic move of the goalposts.
Care to explain why?
For me, getting shot while walking on the street and getting shot when having a normal conversation in a bar looks almost same.
I genuinely want to know, what is the difference between the above comment and this particular incident. Because, this reasoning might also be the reason, why in U.S people prefer to have guns in their daily life (where living is the goal, and not how to prevent dying).
For me, getting shot while walking on the street and getting shot when having a normal conversation in a bar looks almost same.
I genuinely want to know, what is the difference between the above comment and this particular incident. Because, this reasoning might also be the reason, why in U.S people prefer to have guns in their daily life (where living is the goal, and not how to prevent dying).
I think you've misunderstood the conversation. I am including getting shot while having a normal conversation in a bar. When I pointed out how unlikely it is to get shot as part of a hate crime, the response moved the goalposts to include "a whole spectrum of bad things that could happen" including non-fatal harassment and discrimination.
Having someone call you names or refuse you service, while bad, isn't what the original comment was talking about.
Having someone call you names or refuse you service, while bad, isn't what the original comment was talking about.
FYI:
There were 33,636 deaths due to "injury by firearms" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Sta...
And there were 32,719 fatal car crashes http://www.statisticbrain.com/car-crash-fatality-statistics-... (ok, not serious source but I guess the real numbers are not too far away)
There were 33,636 deaths due to "injury by firearms" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Sta...
And there were 32,719 fatal car crashes http://www.statisticbrain.com/car-crash-fatality-statistics-... (ok, not serious source but I guess the real numbers are not too far away)
Traffic fatalities have ticked up quite a bit in the past couple of years, with about 40,000 deaths in 2016, but the rough magnitude is correct.
But I'm specifically talking about hate crimes. The vast majority of those firearm deaths were suicides, and the vast majority of the homicides weren't hate crimes. According to the FBI, there were 18 murders that qualified as hate crimes in 2015 (the most recent year available): https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2015/topic-pages/incidentsand...
But I'm specifically talking about hate crimes. The vast majority of those firearm deaths were suicides, and the vast majority of the homicides weren't hate crimes. According to the FBI, there were 18 murders that qualified as hate crimes in 2015 (the most recent year available): https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2015/topic-pages/incidentsand...
When I first moved to the US (Capitol Hill, Seattle), reading the local news about someone being shot and killed in street robberies gone wrong a few blocks from my apartment were a bit of a shock having moved from Australia.
...the majority of that 33,636 number being suicides:
>21,175 suicides
>21,175 suicides
Correct, but how many people died in the average fatal car crash?
Also, how many of those gun deaths were accidents, suicides, etc.?
Also, how many of those gun deaths were accidents, suicides, etc.?
Read the wikipedia entry ;)
Please don't do this. In fact I encourage the opposite, that people travel more (not just to the US), and further solidify the idea that we are one planet that needs to unite and should not be afraid to travel.
Overwhelm the borders. Double or triple the numbers. Show peacefully that we are positive and not backing down to the pettiness and ignorance of the current (and temporary) leaders and their cronies.
Overwhelm the borders. Double or triple the numbers. Show peacefully that we are positive and not backing down to the pettiness and ignorance of the current (and temporary) leaders and their cronies.
On this note, I would encourage people to visit India (my country). I think the general perception people have (or had) about India is poor people all over the place begging. But, you will be amazed at how demographics (language, food, culture, day to day way of living) change for every 100 miles and still we stick together irrespective of countless language, religion, caste and cultural differences.
But, on the other hand, I'm also amazed that with so many people in US carrying guns in their daily lives, it is a miracle that most people are walking and living and doing some great things. Whatever it is, this whole gun culture is beyond my comprehension and I think it is good thing.
But, on the other hand, I'm also amazed that with so many people in US carrying guns in their daily lives, it is a miracle that most people are walking and living and doing some great things. Whatever it is, this whole gun culture is beyond my comprehension and I think it is good thing.
This is completely the USA's own responsibility to fix. This is your responsibility to fix. Don't expect anyone to risk life and limb for your failures.
Why?
Why bother risking personal harm to visit a country that expressly doesn't seem to want you?
Edit: Would down-voters like to comment on why this isn't a valid stance?
Why bother risking personal harm to visit a country that expressly doesn't seem to want you?
Edit: Would down-voters like to comment on why this isn't a valid stance?
I agree with your opinion. Why visit a country that elected a President that completely opposes immigrants coming into his country? USA's President has made it very clear that the country doesn't want any immigrants. I know that he's facing a lot of backlash and most people here would say that they're not with the same view as Trump, but guess what? Trump calls the shots for at least the next 4 years. It is extremely saddening, but the United States government is officially showing immigrants the finger.
I don't feel it is valid because it is rather nonsensical to group an entire country of 300 plus million into the same teaspoon of, at most, a handful of mentally insane killers.
It's not about saying everyone or even most people in the US are racist. It's about considering whether a visit would be marred by the current miasma of (institutional?) racism/anti-immigrant sentiment.
For example: would you, as a US citizen, choose to visit Iran vs going somewhere else?
For example: would you, as a US citizen, choose to visit Iran vs going somewhere else?
The country wants you to visit! Please don't mistake the misguided actions of a few as the opinion of the entire country.
While this particular incident is the action of the one nutter, 63m people voted for Trump despite his anti Muslim, anti Mexican, etc. rethoric & his alt-right team. So I'd have questions about what the opinion of the entire country actually is. If I were a person of colour/muslin faith I'd be even more reluctant.
Despite all harassment that you'll receive at the border an the snide comments you'll receive from the people, we want you here!
[deleted]
isn't that what an anti-immigrant terrorist wants?
Huh. It is up to govt of other nations to raise this issue or issue travel/work advisories. Instead Indian govt for the lure of dollars is pushing for more visas and ease of travel would do show anything more than 'concern'.
If you don't mind saying, what country are you from?
Well, he's probably from a country with fewer guns per capita than the US.
Which means.. all of them.
Why would a developed country need 112 guns per 100 residents is beyond me. The US:
* is less dangerous than Yemen (where there's a war going on right now)
* most likely has smaller hunting areas than Russia
* has a standing army, unlike Switzerland
yet it still has more guns per capita than any of them!
Which means.. all of them.
Why would a developed country need 112 guns per 100 residents is beyond me. The US:
* is less dangerous than Yemen (where there's a war going on right now)
* most likely has smaller hunting areas than Russia
* has a standing army, unlike Switzerland
yet it still has more guns per capita than any of them!
Nearly everywhere in the US that isn't city is open to hunting. A big exception is the National Park System, but only a few of those are very large. Of course Russia is the largest country by land area so what you say is likely to be true, but still, pretty much everyone in the US is fairly close to viable hunting grounds.
Of course not everyone hunts, but then owning 2 or 3 firearms for different types of hunting isn't really outlandish.
Of course not everyone hunts, but then owning 2 or 3 firearms for different types of hunting isn't really outlandish.
> Of course not everyone hunts, but then owning 2 or 3 firearms for different types of hunting isn't really outlandish.
The US literally has more than 1 gun per person. The US population includes:
* children
* senior citizens
* disabled citizens
* urban residents who most likely see hunting grounds once per decade
* the largest prison population in the world
* etc.
I don't buy your argument.
The US literally has more than 1 gun per person. The US population includes:
* children
* senior citizens
* disabled citizens
* urban residents who most likely see hunting grounds once per decade
* the largest prison population in the world
* etc.
I don't buy your argument.
I bought a shotgun to shoot clay, and then I was given another shotgun that was 70 years old from someone who was cleaning out a relative's house that just died. I now own 2 guns bringing the guns per capita in my household to 1.
Guns unlike cars which also approach 1 per capita never really disappear. Not saying this is a good thing. Over the history of our gun owning country a lot have been made. Surely there are nuts out there that buy an arsenal but many guns are handed down over the years and kept. People also collect historical weapons.
It is hard to understand as suburban/city dwellers like myself, but in most other places in the country it is perfectly fine to be given granddad's guns and to keep them around adding to the statistics.
Guns unlike cars which also approach 1 per capita never really disappear. Not saying this is a good thing. Over the history of our gun owning country a lot have been made. Surely there are nuts out there that buy an arsenal but many guns are handed down over the years and kept. People also collect historical weapons.
It is hard to understand as suburban/city dwellers like myself, but in most other places in the country it is perfectly fine to be given granddad's guns and to keep them around adding to the statistics.
Just so you know, I am from the same City and University as the victim in this story. In our country(most other countries too) we, the common citizens, which includes most of the population, don't own firearms, use firearms, even as show-pieces or even see them everyday. It is hard for us to understand why they even allow you to own them.
Perhaps if you did the British would not have robbed your country blind. Unlike almost every? Country on this planet our constitution was written to protect the people from the government.
Giving your citizens the RIGHT to keep and use arms is a vital part of ensuring freedom and that tyranny by government or invading armies is terminated at the will of the people.
Would the British have invaded India had everyone been armed like the US citizenry is? I seriously doubt it. The army would have been liquidated by the people in short order. It would be suicide to invade a country of that many armed people.
This is why we have a right to own them. Because armies invade and governments become tyrannies.
Giving your citizens the RIGHT to keep and use arms is a vital part of ensuring freedom and that tyranny by government or invading armies is terminated at the will of the people.
Would the British have invaded India had everyone been armed like the US citizenry is? I seriously doubt it. The army would have been liquidated by the people in short order. It would be suicide to invade a country of that many armed people.
This is why we have a right to own them. Because armies invade and governments become tyrannies.
Your point that every person in the then India carrying a weapon would have prevented a British Invasion is downright dumb.
The whole idea of current united India came from opposing the British Rule. Before that, India was just numerous bunch of small kingdoms ruling their own tiny part of current India.
British entered India as East India Company, a trading arm of Britain, which I think is wholly independent of Britain in its ability to rule (politically and military wise) the parts of the world where it had trade operations.
You should also note that Britain had America under its control before US gained independence. If we just extend your logic, then you mean, US got independence just because all of its population were carrying a gun, and not because of strong will shown by personalities like Washington to have an independent nation.
The whole idea of current united India came from opposing the British Rule. Before that, India was just numerous bunch of small kingdoms ruling their own tiny part of current India.
British entered India as East India Company, a trading arm of Britain, which I think is wholly independent of Britain in its ability to rule (politically and military wise) the parts of the world where it had trade operations.
You should also note that Britain had America under its control before US gained independence. If we just extend your logic, then you mean, US got independence just because all of its population were carrying a gun, and not because of strong will shown by personalities like Washington to have an independent nation.
IIRC, weapon ownership in India was pretty common during the Raj. The British then introduced something called the Arms Act, I don't recall the correct name though, which forbid civilians from opening firearms and even edged weapons like swords. Also there are some districts in UP where per capita gun ownership is extremely high.
Your narrative of British invasion of India is plain wrong. Also if the USG decided to become a tyranny there is nothing that the citizenry can do about it in this far and age. Guns or no guns.
Your narrative of British invasion of India is plain wrong. Also if the USG decided to become a tyranny there is nothing that the citizenry can do about it in this far and age. Guns or no guns.
The USA/USG is and has been a tyranny for many years now.
You're so far off it's not even funny. The British robbed his country blind because it was divided. It was splintered in dozens of small states the British pit against each other.
Britain could have never conquered a fully united India, the same way it couldn't conquer China (though it chipped away at it for the better part of a century).
Regarding invasions, who's going to invade you? Canada? Mexico? Even if someone wanted to/could, they wouldn't be afraid of your personal weapons but instead they'd be afraid of your nuclear arsenal, of the largest navy, airforce and military budget in the world. A military budget equal to that of the next 10 countries.
All your guns do is promote unreasonable policing practices where people are shot on sight cause you never know if a suspect is carrying a gun. Oh, they also have a great side effect: if you ever have major internal problems or say, a civil war, millions of people will die cause everyone has a gun. Not that a lot of people wouldn't die either way, after all we've been using knives and machetes for millenia, but there's a reason all of today's armies use guns as the main infantry weapons.
Britain could have never conquered a fully united India, the same way it couldn't conquer China (though it chipped away at it for the better part of a century).
Regarding invasions, who's going to invade you? Canada? Mexico? Even if someone wanted to/could, they wouldn't be afraid of your personal weapons but instead they'd be afraid of your nuclear arsenal, of the largest navy, airforce and military budget in the world. A military budget equal to that of the next 10 countries.
All your guns do is promote unreasonable policing practices where people are shot on sight cause you never know if a suspect is carrying a gun. Oh, they also have a great side effect: if you ever have major internal problems or say, a civil war, millions of people will die cause everyone has a gun. Not that a lot of people wouldn't die either way, after all we've been using knives and machetes for millenia, but there's a reason all of today's armies use guns as the main infantry weapons.
> Would the British have invaded India had everyone been armed like the US citizenry is? I seriously doubt it. The army would have been liquidated by the people in short order. It would be suicide to invade a country of that many armed people.
The British never "invaded" India. This is a common misconception about Colonial Rule in India. Read about the "Company Rule in India" to understand better: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_rule_in_India
TLDR: The British established the "English East India Company" in 1600 to trade with India and did well for almost 150 years. The British had made friends with local princes and nawabs promising them protection if they allowed them to establish their Company. During the same time, the Portuguese, French, Dutch and Danish began to establish their businesses in other princely states of India. This caused friction between the British and the rest causing civil wars to break out. These wars continued for almost 200 years more and involved princely states fighting each other for the benefit of the foreign companies established in their states.
This in turn caused weakening of the princely rulers and strengthening of the foreign companies which commanded garrisons (supplied by the princely rulers) and funded by their business. This shift in power was instrumental in the British devising the Annexation policy called "Doctrine of Lapse" which was signed by these unsuspecting satraps. The doctrine basically stated: "Any princely state or territory under the direct influence of the British East India Company, as a vassal state under the British subsidiary system, would automatically be annexed if the ruler was either "manifestly incompetent or died without a male heir"." This along with the "Divide and Rule policy" enabled the British to establish a Colonial rule in India. All battles the British fought were through proxies (loyal princely satraps) and very rarely did the British actually involve in the fight. Once the Colonial rule was established (powers of the Company were transferred back to the Crown), the British started abusing their powers which in turn caused a surge in Nationalism (read about the First War of Indian Independence of 1857) which eventually ended in the Independence of India (in 1947).
The British technically never waged a single War (there were small skirmishes/battles) with India because that would have triggered all princely states to come together and fight them.
The British never "invaded" India. This is a common misconception about Colonial Rule in India. Read about the "Company Rule in India" to understand better: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_rule_in_India
TLDR: The British established the "English East India Company" in 1600 to trade with India and did well for almost 150 years. The British had made friends with local princes and nawabs promising them protection if they allowed them to establish their Company. During the same time, the Portuguese, French, Dutch and Danish began to establish their businesses in other princely states of India. This caused friction between the British and the rest causing civil wars to break out. These wars continued for almost 200 years more and involved princely states fighting each other for the benefit of the foreign companies established in their states.
This in turn caused weakening of the princely rulers and strengthening of the foreign companies which commanded garrisons (supplied by the princely rulers) and funded by their business. This shift in power was instrumental in the British devising the Annexation policy called "Doctrine of Lapse" which was signed by these unsuspecting satraps. The doctrine basically stated: "Any princely state or territory under the direct influence of the British East India Company, as a vassal state under the British subsidiary system, would automatically be annexed if the ruler was either "manifestly incompetent or died without a male heir"." This along with the "Divide and Rule policy" enabled the British to establish a Colonial rule in India. All battles the British fought were through proxies (loyal princely satraps) and very rarely did the British actually involve in the fight. Once the Colonial rule was established (powers of the Company were transferred back to the Crown), the British started abusing their powers which in turn caused a surge in Nationalism (read about the First War of Indian Independence of 1857) which eventually ended in the Independence of India (in 1947).
The British technically never waged a single War (there were small skirmishes/battles) with India because that would have triggered all princely states to come together and fight them.
Well, you can never feel safe around a person who carries a gun around with him. I guess you keep a radioactive deposit under you to keep people away. And point guns at people with your FREEDOM to have your way.
There are other ways of protecting people and their rights other than having animals roam around who will shoot whenever there is conflict of interests(I understand that not everyone is like that).
There are other ways of protecting people and their rights other than having animals roam around who will shoot whenever there is conflict of interests(I understand that not everyone is like that).
You might want to clarify that you mean same city and university from Hyderabad, India. When I was reading your comment, it looked like you were speaking about Kansas.
What argument is it you think I am making?
I thought I was saying that hunting can make a large contribution to gun ownership and not trying real hard to quantify it.
I thought I was saying that hunting can make a large contribution to gun ownership and not trying real hard to quantify it.
India, down south, from Madras
Edit: Information about Madras Oregon deleted.
You have linked to Madras, OR, USA.
They are from Madras, Tamil Nadu, India.
They are from Madras, Tamil Nadu, India.
Rofl. Just like the shooter picked on the indians thinking they're arabs. If you're trying to prove that americans have no idea there is a world outside their borders, you're succeeding wonderfully.
>Rofl. Just like the shooter picked on the indians thinking they're arabs. If you're trying to prove that americans have no idea there is a world outside their borders, you're succeeding wonderfully.
Actually, it was the existence of Madras, Oregon that I was unaware of. That's why I assumed the page was about Madras, India.
Actually, it was the existence of Madras, Oregon that I was unaware of. That's why I assumed the page was about Madras, India.
To be fair, the map you linked to was entirely unhelpful, seeing how it didn't display big bald eagles and a star-spangled banner next to the Ochoco National Forest, the Warm Springs Reservations and Camp Sherman.
Well, and Madras is now Chennai.
The difference is that he isn't very likely to get killed in Madras because of his skin color.
Vallavarayan is a Tamil name.
I don't know why you are downvoted. Most sources in this world are better than Juan Cole.
Freak incidents are heart-breaking, particularly when we don't really know what one could have done to prevent them. As an outsider to a typical U.S lifestyle, one thing that puzzles me is why do people need a gun even when they are in a social place like a bar. This is not a first of its kind shooting happening in U.S. As far as I can remember, all the freak incidents in U.S some way or other involve shooting, out of the mind gunmen etc.
I'm thankful that at least in my country I will not get killed by a random person with whom I'm having conversation with.
P.S: I'm from India.
I'm thankful that at least in my country I will not get killed by a random person with whom I'm having conversation with.
P.S: I'm from India.
You may not but it is more likely because you are affluent at least by Indian standards and when poor die all the time, it will be invisible to you.
It is likely you are not at receiving end of nativists in Mumbai/Bengaluru/Hyderabad and so on.
Your thankfulness looks more like an arrogance where death of less fortunate people would be random people dying in random towns/villages/cities and you couldn't possibly be bothered.
It is likely you are not at receiving end of nativists in Mumbai/Bengaluru/Hyderabad and so on.
Your thankfulness looks more like an arrogance where death of less fortunate people would be random people dying in random towns/villages/cities and you couldn't possibly be bothered.
I disagree. Yes, there are freak deaths in India by its own standards. People die without being able to afford a nominal medical fee etc. I'm not at all denying that.
But, this is whole different thing, where individual's frustration and wrong perceptions results in death of people, which is not at all a case in India (or not as frequent as US gun killings).
Your point of poor people dying has nothing to do with any individual in India. It is a result of our whole political system which is designed in such a way that it is not easy to get solutions for seemingly straight forward things.
The closest thing which is similar to this incident is attacks based on caste which is common in India, but that too are not random, as victims are not taken by surprise when they are attacked/killed. Mostly they are overpowered by small group of narrow minded individuals, resulting in freak deaths.
I'm not sure if you are from India, and if yes from which part, as I really don't get the "nativists in Mumbai/Bengaluru/Hyderabad" part. I'm also not sure what you mean by nativists in India, as it may signify one of 100 things, depending on which part of India you are from.
Again, I'm not saying there are no freak deaths in India. It is common in every corner of the world where there is more than one man. But, death by an individual in a public setting is not common and that too by a gun is almost impossible in India. That was my whole point.
But, this is whole different thing, where individual's frustration and wrong perceptions results in death of people, which is not at all a case in India (or not as frequent as US gun killings).
Your point of poor people dying has nothing to do with any individual in India. It is a result of our whole political system which is designed in such a way that it is not easy to get solutions for seemingly straight forward things.
The closest thing which is similar to this incident is attacks based on caste which is common in India, but that too are not random, as victims are not taken by surprise when they are attacked/killed. Mostly they are overpowered by small group of narrow minded individuals, resulting in freak deaths.
I'm not sure if you are from India, and if yes from which part, as I really don't get the "nativists in Mumbai/Bengaluru/Hyderabad" part. I'm also not sure what you mean by nativists in India, as it may signify one of 100 things, depending on which part of India you are from.
Again, I'm not saying there are no freak deaths in India. It is common in every corner of the world where there is more than one man. But, death by an individual in a public setting is not common and that too by a gun is almost impossible in India. That was my whole point.
> Again, I'm not saying there are no freak deaths in India. It is common in every corner of the world where there is more than one man. But, death by an individual in a public setting is not common and that too by a gun is almost impossible in India. That was my whole point.
Absolutely understandable observation. Factual even. I don't own a gun and have no financial interest in companies that manufacture or sell ammunition. However, I'm afraid the perception among readers might be that this is a problem we can solve by reducing or eliminating access to guns.
I'm not aware of the full details of what happened but I think we need to address the underlying issues as well.
There's clearly a lot of cognitive dissonance and leaps of faith even in this discussion because apparently the Klan's activities amount to terrorism but actions of a deranged lone wolf do not.
As much as we talk about us being civilized, conversations like this remind us that we are all fundamentally animals with a very limited capacity to care about issues that we don't see as directly affecting us.
I think the question I care about is how do we prevent these things from happening repeatedly? I'll be blunt. I have no interest in "justice" for the victim's family for the sake of "justice".
By the way, I wouldn't call what happens in India as "freak deaths".
http://m.hindustantimes.com/india/it-is-beef-says-lab-about-...
> Police maintained that the report was of no use in the investigation into the murder and assault.
Not trying to single out India. There are people who benefit from this bountiful harvest of fear and hatred everywhere. I'm just saying the issue is more than gun control.
Absolutely understandable observation. Factual even. I don't own a gun and have no financial interest in companies that manufacture or sell ammunition. However, I'm afraid the perception among readers might be that this is a problem we can solve by reducing or eliminating access to guns.
I'm not aware of the full details of what happened but I think we need to address the underlying issues as well.
There's clearly a lot of cognitive dissonance and leaps of faith even in this discussion because apparently the Klan's activities amount to terrorism but actions of a deranged lone wolf do not.
As much as we talk about us being civilized, conversations like this remind us that we are all fundamentally animals with a very limited capacity to care about issues that we don't see as directly affecting us.
I think the question I care about is how do we prevent these things from happening repeatedly? I'll be blunt. I have no interest in "justice" for the victim's family for the sake of "justice".
By the way, I wouldn't call what happens in India as "freak deaths".
http://m.hindustantimes.com/india/it-is-beef-says-lab-about-...
> Police maintained that the report was of no use in the investigation into the murder and assault.
Not trying to single out India. There are people who benefit from this bountiful harvest of fear and hatred everywhere. I'm just saying the issue is more than gun control.
It is perfectly well-known how to avoid such things: Stronger gun control to raise the difficulty of achieving death of others; state-enforced education levels with low to zero cost. Sadly these things run counter to the convictions of a loud enough part of the US population that they cannot usefully be implemented.
Problem is not enough people carry guns. This guy knew he wouldn't be met with any resistance and that's why he was able to do what he did.
Often, people like this don't have the right to bear arms. It's not described whether the victim was a permanent resident but considering when he graduated from college, I think it's reasonable to say that he wasn't.
Being an Indian national, he would have had to have waited 8 years or more to become a permanent resident. In that time, he would have had his visa renewed repeatedly. His visa is likely to have been an H1-B.
I suppose, then, the questions are: Are you in favour of foreigners in America bearing arms? Or are you in favour of a faster permanent residency process?
Both of those things are the only real way that the victim could have legally carried a firearm.
Being an Indian national, he would have had to have waited 8 years or more to become a permanent resident. In that time, he would have had his visa renewed repeatedly. His visa is likely to have been an H1-B.
I suppose, then, the questions are: Are you in favour of foreigners in America bearing arms? Or are you in favour of a faster permanent residency process?
Both of those things are the only real way that the victim could have legally carried a firearm.
I am in favor of legal immigrants carrying arms provided they can pass all the other legal requirements for ownership and carry.
Even still, it need not be just the intended target victim that is armed. You need a critical mass of enough bystanders having the capability to defend others. That is the only way to provide a chance at an effective defense as well as a strong psychological deterrent.
Even still, it need not be just the intended target victim that is armed. You need a critical mass of enough bystanders having the capability to defend others. That is the only way to provide a chance at an effective defense as well as a strong psychological deterrent.
Talk to soldiers, talk to police officers, talk to marines, talk to any professional who's ever experienced actual battle. Ask them:
Would you feel confident to use your gun when you're relaxed in a social setting and someone suddenly starts shooting?
(I won't spoil the answer for you, plenty have been asked, you can google it.)
Would you feel confident to use your gun when you're relaxed in a social setting and someone suddenly starts shooting?
(I won't spoil the answer for you, plenty have been asked, you can google it.)
It's a reasonable question, but I know I certainly wouldn't feel confident unarmed in that scenario.
Why doesn't this logic work in the rest of the developed world?
Not sure what you're saying. Every place in the world has shootings and mass killings, not just the US. They're all marked by the same tragic feature - the total inability of the victims to defend themselves.
I understand, but in the developed world, every country with lower murder rates than the US (nearly all of them) has stricter gun laws, and in most cases much stricter. There is a somewhat rough relationship between stricter gun control and lower violent crime rates, which is the opposite of what you would expect if violent criminals were encouraged by defenseless civilians.
Also, there are instances in the US and elsewhere of shootings on places like military bases where everyone is armed, and many cases where the shooter planned for a confrontation with armed police. It might seem counter-intuitive, but much like the death penalty does not seem to be an effective deterrent for murderers, I don't see much evidence that armed civilians are an effective deterrent for murderers. I think murderers in general just don't think very logically.
The core question I'm asking is, why is gun control so effective in every other developed country? Why don't murder rates increase when gun control increases and ordinary people can't defend themselves?
Edit: Also, I want to address this claim:
> They're all marked by the same tragic feature - the total inability of the victims to defend themselves.
This is not always true. For a recent example, look at the shooting in Dallas. The victims were all armed, as were many civilians in the area:
> [The Dallas police chief] said 20 to 30 people, some of them wearing camouflage, showed up at the peaceful Black Lives Matter protest carrying AR-15 rifles and such items as gas masks, ammunition gear and bulletproof vests. “Doesn’t make sense to us,” he said, “but that’s their right in Texas,” where people can legally carry long firearms in public.
> Those people “began to run” when the shooting started, Brown said. “For our officers, they were suspects” until any involvement in the deadly sniper attack could be ruled out, he added.
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dallas-police-chief-...
You can also look at the history of shootings on military bases: http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/A-History-of-Shootin...
There's shootings like the 2011 one in Tucson, Arizona, where very lenient concealed carry laws did not seem to deter the shooter.
There are also instances of crimes being stopped by civilians with guns, I just want to point out that "all mass killings are marked by this feature" is not true.
Also, there are instances in the US and elsewhere of shootings on places like military bases where everyone is armed, and many cases where the shooter planned for a confrontation with armed police. It might seem counter-intuitive, but much like the death penalty does not seem to be an effective deterrent for murderers, I don't see much evidence that armed civilians are an effective deterrent for murderers. I think murderers in general just don't think very logically.
The core question I'm asking is, why is gun control so effective in every other developed country? Why don't murder rates increase when gun control increases and ordinary people can't defend themselves?
Edit: Also, I want to address this claim:
> They're all marked by the same tragic feature - the total inability of the victims to defend themselves.
This is not always true. For a recent example, look at the shooting in Dallas. The victims were all armed, as were many civilians in the area:
> [The Dallas police chief] said 20 to 30 people, some of them wearing camouflage, showed up at the peaceful Black Lives Matter protest carrying AR-15 rifles and such items as gas masks, ammunition gear and bulletproof vests. “Doesn’t make sense to us,” he said, “but that’s their right in Texas,” where people can legally carry long firearms in public.
> Those people “began to run” when the shooting started, Brown said. “For our officers, they were suspects” until any involvement in the deadly sniper attack could be ruled out, he added.
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dallas-police-chief-...
You can also look at the history of shootings on military bases: http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/A-History-of-Shootin...
There's shootings like the 2011 one in Tucson, Arizona, where very lenient concealed carry laws did not seem to deter the shooter.
There are also instances of crimes being stopped by civilians with guns, I just want to point out that "all mass killings are marked by this feature" is not true.
Please tell me you mean this as a joke. D:
It's not an uncommon belief in the US. Whenever a school shooting occurs or other mass shooting occurs, Americans come out in droves to blame it on gun control, and insist that the solution to gun violence is more guns in the hands of the "right" people.
Events like that tend to lead Americans to buy more guns and ammo in anticipation of stricter gun control laws, rather than consider whether the proliferation of guns contributes to the problem at all.
Events like that tend to lead Americans to buy more guns and ammo in anticipation of stricter gun control laws, rather than consider whether the proliferation of guns contributes to the problem at all.
You need to be a special kind of idiot to actually think that increases safety.
Is the fix to some countries having nuclear weapons that everyone has the right to nuclear weapons?
Or, have we come to the conclusion that non-proliferation is the answer?
Is the fix to some countries having nuclear weapons that everyone has the right to nuclear weapons?
Or, have we come to the conclusion that non-proliferation is the answer?
First, you can't control a right.
Second the cities in the US with the strictest gun control laws have the highest gun death rates. I.e Detroit.
Second the cities in the US with the strictest gun control laws have the highest gun death rates. I.e Detroit.
American just love their bear arms.
The thing that puzzles me most is the seemingly American tendency of aggression towards strangers. The same man in Europe might have thrown the same slurs, but just gotten drunk after that; or if he were so deranged, maybe killed himself. Maybe I misunderstand it, but there seems to be a tendency to let others pay for your bad feelings.
This is a stereotype that isn't racism only because it is nationalist in nature.
I haven't had a personal altercation get violent since I was a child. I could find dozens of anecdotes of violence in Europe, but that wouldn't lead to any greater understanding...
I haven't had a personal altercation get violent since I was a child. I could find dozens of anecdotes of violence in Europe, but that wouldn't lead to any greater understanding...
You cannot deny that murders are way off the charts in the US. I also keep hearing anecdotes like "random guy stands on a highway bridge with a semi automatic rifle and shoots down at the oncoming cars, until one of the people on the highway snipes him down". Those are WAY rarer in other parts of the world.
I get that you are offended, I think I could have gotten my wording better. I'm referring to the American culture somehow not suppressing such behavior enough, and I'm not saying people in the US are intrinsically worse than others.
I get that you are offended, I think I could have gotten my wording better. I'm referring to the American culture somehow not suppressing such behavior enough, and I'm not saying people in the US are intrinsically worse than others.
> why do people need a gun...
That's my sincere question, too. Even a sight of people toting guns gives me chills.
That's my sincere question, too. Even a sight of people toting guns gives me chills.
> Even a sight of people toting guns gives me chills.
That sounds like a psychological condition known as hoplophobia. I think it's best treated by familiarising oneself with weapons of all sorts.
In general weapons aren't, in and of themselves, scary. It's the intent of the people carrying them which can be scary or not. Drunken half-wit shouting slurs? Scary. Single mother buying groceries with her kids? Not scary.
A sidearm on a belt is as inherently scary as a knife clipped to a pocket: not very, IMHO. It's all about the person carrying it.
As for why folks need weapons, IMHO arms-bearing is the fundamental difference between a slave and a freeman. I'd love to live in a modern Western society in which every adult carried a weapon of some sort as part of daily life, although I'm not wishful enough to think that our current society could do so safely.
That sounds like a psychological condition known as hoplophobia. I think it's best treated by familiarising oneself with weapons of all sorts.
In general weapons aren't, in and of themselves, scary. It's the intent of the people carrying them which can be scary or not. Drunken half-wit shouting slurs? Scary. Single mother buying groceries with her kids? Not scary.
A sidearm on a belt is as inherently scary as a knife clipped to a pocket: not very, IMHO. It's all about the person carrying it.
As for why folks need weapons, IMHO arms-bearing is the fundamental difference between a slave and a freeman. I'd love to live in a modern Western society in which every adult carried a weapon of some sort as part of daily life, although I'm not wishful enough to think that our current society could do so safely.
> That sounds like a psychological condition known as hoplophobia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoplophobia
"Hoplophobia is a political term and not a recognized medical phobia."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoplophobia
"Hoplophobia is a political term and not a recognized medical phobia."
Where I come from, there's no need for firearms or other weapons.
Guns are already forbidden where drinks are consumed. More laws was not the answer in this case.
20 minutes drive from me.
People might perceive Kansas as a backwards agrarian holdfast, but Olathe where this happened is a pretty thriving tech and aerospace corridor. Everyone here is pretty upset about it. Hopefully justice will be served.
People might perceive Kansas as a backwards agrarian holdfast, but Olathe where this happened is a pretty thriving tech and aerospace corridor. Everyone here is pretty upset about it. Hopefully justice will be served.
It will be. The shooter is going to get the death penalty I'm quite certain of it.
I think the words of the third man, who was shot pursuing the shooter (He had thought the man had emptied his gun), are powerful:
“It’s not about where he [victim] was from or his ethnicity. We’re all humans, so I just did what was right to do.”
“It’s not about where he [victim] was from or his ethnicity. We’re all humans, so I just did what was right to do.”
Here's a video of the interview: http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article134581204....
Tragic story. A GoFundMe page has been set up for Kuchibhotla’s wife and family, if you're interested in helping out.
https://www.gofundme.com/srinus-familyrecovery-support
https://www.gofundme.com/srinus-familyrecovery-support
Timothy McVeigh was a white terrorist. This is a hate crime committed by a racist alcoholic. "Terrorism" is the wrong word here. I also take issue with this statement:
>"Remember, the shooter had been told by Trump-Bannon that Muslims hate America and should be excluded from the US."
This lays bare the author's intention to blame Trump for every crime that is ever committed against middle-eastern people in the US. This is obviously an absurd and extreme notion.
So this article is an extremely biased, politicized version of a legitimate news event. I thought HN had an "original source" policy. The link should probably be changed to the actual news article upon which this drivel is based, which is here [1].
[1] http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article134508139....
>"Remember, the shooter had been told by Trump-Bannon that Muslims hate America and should be excluded from the US."
This lays bare the author's intention to blame Trump for every crime that is ever committed against middle-eastern people in the US. This is obviously an absurd and extreme notion.
So this article is an extremely biased, politicized version of a legitimate news event. I thought HN had an "original source" policy. The link should probably be changed to the actual news article upon which this drivel is based, which is here [1].
[1] http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article134508139....
Lets not try to minimize his racism by allocating ANY of the blame on his possible alcoholism. He's a racist murder, who just happens to be a drunkard.
I guess I wouldn't ever excuse or minimize any crime based upon alcoholism, so I didn't take into account that others might. I just meant that he was a drunk racist.
I have a disagreement with - "blame Trump for every crime that is ever committed against middle-eastern people in the US". Why should we not blame the people whose rhetoric is inspiring the violence towards immigrants? Obviously, no one is saying that Trump personally killed Srinivas, but (afaik) then neither did Hitler.
Trump is not Hitler, as much as leftists and the media love the comparison. Did the killer even mention Trump? People with racist views were doing terrible things before Trump was even born, and they will be doing them long after he dies. If Trump has ever endorsed the murder of anyone, let alone murder based upon the intended victim's race, I would love to see the footage. Then I will stand behind your comment all the way. Until then, I don't even see a passive link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPtZAakAXns
Complaining about leftists reveals someone's brain damage. Sow now you stand by it, riiight?
Complaining about leftists reveals someone's brain damage. Sow now you stand by it, riiight?
"People with racist views were doing terrible things before Trump" -> Yes, but now with support from white supremacists inside WH (Bannon, Miller) and a President with concordant views, the racists are feeling emboldened to commit the hate crimes. The devil is out of the bottle.
Can you show me the "support" that any of these people have lent to racists since entering the White House? Or any proof that Trump has "concordant views" with racists? If you have it, I think the world would be interested in seeing it. I certainly would not have put Bannon anywhere near the government, but I think Trump judges people more on their business abilities than on any alleged views.
The fact that Trump wants to partially enforce long-standing immigration laws does not make him a racist or someone that lends support to racists, and neither does the mere observation that the vast majority of large-scale terrorist acts happen to be committed by people from specific parts of the world. If that is all you've got, your argument isn't going anywhere.
This is the problem with all of the Trump criticism. It's all innuendo. If there are facts to make a case, then make it and people will support it. Right now all I see is a President that is enforcing some laws. You know, like the ones he has to swear to uphold when he takes office.
The fact that Trump wants to partially enforce long-standing immigration laws does not make him a racist or someone that lends support to racists, and neither does the mere observation that the vast majority of large-scale terrorist acts happen to be committed by people from specific parts of the world. If that is all you've got, your argument isn't going anywhere.
This is the problem with all of the Trump criticism. It's all innuendo. If there are facts to make a case, then make it and people will support it. Right now all I see is a President that is enforcing some laws. You know, like the ones he has to swear to uphold when he takes office.
Okay, here you go -
(1) Your President - "the mexicans are rapists, drug dealers, ... some are good people" "bad hombres/bad dudes"
(2) Bannon at CPAC yesterday - "we are a nation with a culture not based on economy or borders"
(3) What can I write about targeting Muslims - the muslim ban, Bannon saying that we need a war to unite the country and next war will be the war against Islam in which (he believes) Russia can help.
(4) Shouting everyday that the WH is implementing and will implement all the hateful rheotric they campaigned on
And you say "you would not put Bannon anywhere near the government" -- Seriously? He is a member of National Security Council and chief strategist to your President.
Let us know what will it take for you to accept that the current WH has racists in powerful positions? Should Trump post a tweet proclaiming that he is a racist?
Also please have a response better than "but Mexicans/Islam are not a race, that is a country/religion".
(1) Your President - "the mexicans are rapists, drug dealers, ... some are good people" "bad hombres/bad dudes"
(2) Bannon at CPAC yesterday - "we are a nation with a culture not based on economy or borders"
(3) What can I write about targeting Muslims - the muslim ban, Bannon saying that we need a war to unite the country and next war will be the war against Islam in which (he believes) Russia can help.
(4) Shouting everyday that the WH is implementing and will implement all the hateful rheotric they campaigned on
And you say "you would not put Bannon anywhere near the government" -- Seriously? He is a member of National Security Council and chief strategist to your President.
Let us know what will it take for you to accept that the current WH has racists in powerful positions? Should Trump post a tweet proclaiming that he is a racist?
Also please have a response better than "but Mexicans/Islam are not a race, that is a country/religion".
(1) He didn't say that all Mexicans were those things. He said some illegal immigrants have committed rape and deal drugs, which is absolutely true. That isn't to say that Americans don't also do those things, but we have to put up with Americans, good or bad. We don't have to put up with people being here illegally doing those things...we have enough problems with actual citizens.
(2) I'm not sure how that supports racism
(3) I disagree with the travel ban. However, the vast majority of large-scale terrorist attacks - the kind that shake economies and make people scared to travel and shop - have been committed by people from one specific religion who tend to be from very specific parts of the world. It isn't racist to make that factual observation and attempt to at least curb it.
(4) Again, I disagree that I have heard any "hateful rhetoric" from Trump. I've heard a somewhat dire worldview, but he isn't entirely wrong about that. There are many things that are out of whack in this world. If you're referring to his stance on immigration, we have immigration laws that previous Presidents refused to enforce. He just wants to partially enforce them. That isn't "hateful rhetoric" - that's just what Presidents are supposed to do.
I said that I, personally, wouldn't have chosen Bannon for a cabinet postion. Further, Trump isn't "my president". I predicted that both Hillary and Trump would be disasters. We were screwed when the primaries ended. I just don't like to denigrate people without facts, and all I see in the media and in your response is "I'm pissed that my side lost, so I'm going to take everything that Trump or anyone associated with him does or says and interpret it negatively".
(2) I'm not sure how that supports racism
(3) I disagree with the travel ban. However, the vast majority of large-scale terrorist attacks - the kind that shake economies and make people scared to travel and shop - have been committed by people from one specific religion who tend to be from very specific parts of the world. It isn't racist to make that factual observation and attempt to at least curb it.
(4) Again, I disagree that I have heard any "hateful rhetoric" from Trump. I've heard a somewhat dire worldview, but he isn't entirely wrong about that. There are many things that are out of whack in this world. If you're referring to his stance on immigration, we have immigration laws that previous Presidents refused to enforce. He just wants to partially enforce them. That isn't "hateful rhetoric" - that's just what Presidents are supposed to do.
I said that I, personally, wouldn't have chosen Bannon for a cabinet postion. Further, Trump isn't "my president". I predicted that both Hillary and Trump would be disasters. We were screwed when the primaries ended. I just don't like to denigrate people without facts, and all I see in the media and in your response is "I'm pissed that my side lost, so I'm going to take everything that Trump or anyone associated with him does or says and interpret it negatively".
I will backoff from continuing this discussion here, as the submitted story is about the death of an innocent person. Thanks.
Its quite sad to see innocent folks getting killed in the crossfire/emotions that were invoked for politics. I used to live in Kansas, am an Indian and have young kids. This has disturbed me so much emotionally I'm not even sure what to look for next and the way things are going, this is just the beginning.
Why not come back to India? I know the lifestyle cannot be compared to the US but hey at least you can be part of directly building the Nation. It's better to live in peace (with freedom) than live in fear (and in a golden cage).
India is not all that great either...I was in India for 6 months last year, and I have seen kids getting kidnapped for ransom by friends. My wife's cousin was killed for ransom last year. Dont know which is better/worse.
True and I'm not disputing you. In India it also depends on the kind of social circle you have. I have heard of such stories myself. However, it largely depends on who you make friends with or have relations with.
But these are all incidents that have a backdrop of some sort and these stories are quite common in any country you go to. I'm not talking about such incidents. What I'm talking about is random shootings: Rarely is it the case (at least I haven't heard of any in India) that some random stranger comes up to you and starts unloading bullets just because you are of some different ethnicity/background. Be it school shootings or pub fights, most incidents that come out of USA are racial targeting where the perpetrator does not have any idea about his targets (victims).
Even the caste-based violence in India stems out of some real backdrop: Inter-caste marriages, dowry harassment etc. All these are avoidable if you have the right social circle. What you can't avoid is crazies going around with guns shooting random people based on how their look.
But these are all incidents that have a backdrop of some sort and these stories are quite common in any country you go to. I'm not talking about such incidents. What I'm talking about is random shootings: Rarely is it the case (at least I haven't heard of any in India) that some random stranger comes up to you and starts unloading bullets just because you are of some different ethnicity/background. Be it school shootings or pub fights, most incidents that come out of USA are racial targeting where the perpetrator does not have any idea about his targets (victims).
Even the caste-based violence in India stems out of some real backdrop: Inter-caste marriages, dowry harassment etc. All these are avoidable if you have the right social circle. What you can't avoid is crazies going around with guns shooting random people based on how their look.
This is terrifying. I am speechless now. One thing comes to my mind is to avoid those encounters as possible, maybe those states as whole. Just sad.
That's absurd. This took place in *Olathe, Kansas- which is adjacent to the Kansas City metro area that straddles the KS MO border. This is as much an anomoly here as it would be when it happens anywhere else: https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/activeshooter_incidents_...
Are you sure about that? Kansas City has a problem with this sort of stuff:
http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article134041159....
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-kansas-city...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overland_Park_Jewish_Community...
http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article134041159....
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-kansas-city...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overland_Park_Jewish_Community...
You could say this about any city that has enough people in it:
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C5...
https://www.google.com/search?q=Paris+Terror+Threat&rlz=1C5C...
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C5...
I think that this stuff is really, truly tragic and that one of the takeaways is that terrorism is really effective. Please don't be terrorized.
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C5...
https://www.google.com/search?q=Paris+Terror+Threat&rlz=1C5C...
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C5...
I think that this stuff is really, truly tragic and that one of the takeaways is that terrorism is really effective. Please don't be terrorized.
I am an Indian student awaiting a J-1 Visa. Should I drop my plans of visiting USA?
I do not feel safe travelling there myself anymore.
You'll be fine. The murder rate in the US is comparable to India's. Pretty much by definition, anything that makes the (inter)national news is a rare event.
There's some bad shit going down in this country, but it's not to the point where people need to fear for their lives. (And I think/hope it will remain that way.)
There's some bad shit going down in this country, but it's not to the point where people need to fear for their lives. (And I think/hope it will remain that way.)
> I do not feel safe travelling there myself anymore.
Why? A single incident in a country of 300 million people does not make it an unsafe place. Do not live in fear.
Why? A single incident in a country of 300 million people does not make it an unsafe place. Do not live in fear.
Rationally?
No, you shouldn't drop your plans of visiting.
No, you shouldn't drop your plans of visiting.
As a counterpoint, elsewhere in Kansas:
http://www.npr.org/2017/02/19/516016940/a-thriving-rural-tow...
Olathe, and I guess Johnson County in general, is a weird place. It's like the Texas of the Kansas City Metro area: wealthy, egotistical, and clueless. Based on some of the jaw-dropping shit I've heard locals say, this is probably not the first time these engineers experienced an incident of public racism.
http://www.npr.org/2017/02/19/516016940/a-thriving-rural-tow...
Olathe, and I guess Johnson County in general, is a weird place. It's like the Texas of the Kansas City Metro area: wealthy, egotistical, and clueless. Based on some of the jaw-dropping shit I've heard locals say, this is probably not the first time these engineers experienced an incident of public racism.
From Olathe. Grew up here. Ate at that restaurant last week, even.
I don't find our level of racism any different than when I travel elsewhere in the US. There are bigoted people everywhere, but most people around here just want to raise a family and hang out with their neighbors, whatever color they are.
I don't find our level of racism any different than when I travel elsewhere in the US. There are bigoted people everywhere, but most people around here just want to raise a family and hang out with their neighbors, whatever color they are.
A counterpoint to your counterpoint:
http://www.kwch.com/content/news/Federal-officials-to-announ...
Although you're correct about Johnson County.
Although you're correct about Johnson County.
Thanks, I had a little feeling that I was forgetting something about Garden City. Frankly I don't see how anyone could live there, although I suppose it's a good potential source for Mars colonists. They won't miss trees or geographical features...
3 People were shot, it should be noted.
You'll get more objective info from the YouTube video than the editorializing article.
Guns don't help make the world a better place. I'm non-partisan.
You're risking downvotes by expressing an expectation of downvotes, which is explicitly against the guidelines.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit to add: Thanks for updating your comment!
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit to add: Thanks for updating your comment!
> Please don't bait other users by inviting them to downvote you or proclaim that you expect to get downvoted.
+1. I had to remove I know I'm risking downvotes, but.
+1. I had to remove I know I'm risking downvotes, but.
That's a wake-up call. Thank you :)
Aww man, this is sad
Url changed from http://www.juancole.com/2017/02/terrorist-american-engineers..., which points to this.
It's quite unkind to tell someone who's feeling fear because a murder happened that they are being "absurd".
You two went seriously off the rails in this thread. No more descents into flamewar madness, please. That's not why we're all here, and it's bloody tedious.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13723202 and marked it off-topic.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13723202 and marked it off-topic.
Sorry dang, will avoid this sort of thing in the future.
I agree the deeper part of the thread was useless. That's why i stopped participating. However:
All i did was try to give him the benefit of the doubt until it was clear he was trolling. If things like this bother you, i recommend actually taking steps that discourage people from arguing in bad faith.
It is extremely hard to determine when someone is just ignorant, or when they're taking the piss; but when it's clear the latter should not be acceptable.
All i did was try to give him the benefit of the doubt until it was clear he was trolling. If things like this bother you, i recommend actually taking steps that discourage people from arguing in bad faith.
It is extremely hard to determine when someone is just ignorant, or when they're taking the piss; but when it's clear the latter should not be acceptable.
You've done this kind of thing repeatedly; it's not just about the other person.
HN depends on us keeping our comments more civil and substantive as a topic gets contentious or another person's comments get annoying. I say more because we all have a bias not to perceive how we're slipping in such situations (it always feels like someone else started it, and did worse, while "I merely", etc.), so there needs to be a conscious counteraction.
HN depends on us keeping our comments more civil and substantive as a topic gets contentious or another person's comments get annoying. I say more because we all have a bias not to perceive how we're slipping in such situations (it always feels like someone else started it, and did worse, while "I merely", etc.), so there needs to be a conscious counteraction.
I'm sorry for further discussing here, and would prefer to do this in private if you care, but i feel quite frustrated with you seemingly accusing me of having done something i cannot perceive even when trying to look for it, and thus having no clue what should've been done differently here in your opinion.
Do you honestly think i was uncivil? Made unsubstantive (non-factual?) comments? If so, where?
Because quite frankly on reviewing the conversation i cannot see it. I can see only comments from me that are perfectly polite and factual, except for the last edit in the last post i made, where i stopped being polite.
Do you honestly think i was uncivil? Made unsubstantive (non-factual?) comments? If so, where?
Because quite frankly on reviewing the conversation i cannot see it. I can see only comments from me that are perfectly polite and factual, except for the last edit in the last post i made, where i stopped being polite.
Yes, the problems are incivility and an unwillingness to let an unproductive argument drop.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13724307 was uncivil, as you mention. So was https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13723815. I don't mean to pick on you personally, but your username sticks in my mind as someone who's done this kind of thing a fair bit. You're a good commenter otherwise, so I/we'd appreciate it if you'd work on this.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13724307 was uncivil, as you mention. So was https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13723815. I don't mean to pick on you personally, but your username sticks in my mind as someone who's done this kind of thing a fair bit. You're a good commenter otherwise, so I/we'd appreciate it if you'd work on this.
These incidents are not limited to Kansas City nor are they common. KC is a welcoming and open minded place. If I held this same attitude I would have never visited places such as Paris or Istanbul(not that KC is as wonderful as either of those places).
No. Rational heads should prevail even in these situations. What if "I guess I should just avoid white people" was the conclusion? It's just as absurd and just as demeaning to Kansas.
Good grief, this thread went haywire. Would you please avoid flamewars like this on HN? Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13730418.
Please read my post again, i said "tell someone ... they're being absurd". Operative word being "tell". Feel free to think it, feel free to correct them kindly, but if you actually tell them those words then you ARE being unkind.
Given that you value "rational heads" it is ironic you managed to not read my post with a rational head.
Edit: Also, given that, as a state Kansas failed to enact measures that are proven to minimize occurence of such things, i think it does not get to complain about being demeaned. These deaths are on Kansas, as a state.
Given that you value "rational heads" it is ironic you managed to not read my post with a rational head.
Edit: Also, given that, as a state Kansas failed to enact measures that are proven to minimize occurence of such things, i think it does not get to complain about being demeaned. These deaths are on Kansas, as a state.
I wasn't going to rise to this until your edit:
>Kansas failed to enact measures that are proven to minimize occurence of such things
Source?
>Kansas failed to enact measures that are proven to minimize occurence of such things
Source?
http://statelaws.findlaw.com/kansas-law/kansas-gun-control-l...
"In 2015, for instance, a law was passed allowing Kansas residents to carry a concealed firearm without a permit or training."
I could likely find more (education, social services, etc.), but well, i don't think i need to look further after that.
E: Also have this: https://i.imgur.com/6f7lRRH.png
"In 2015, for instance, a law was passed allowing Kansas residents to carry a concealed firearm without a permit or training."
I could likely find more (education, social services, etc.), but well, i don't think i need to look further after that.
E: Also have this: https://i.imgur.com/6f7lRRH.png
So you're suggesting that posession of guns increases the frequency of hate crimes? Source?
Sorry i wasn't more clear: Gun possession increases the frequency of deaths due to terrorist attacks.
Source?
Basic physics. Guns make it easier to achieve death of others. All other things being equal, less guns = less deaths, more guns = more deaths. Kansas makes it worse by not even pretending to restrict guns to anyone of any mental disposition.
It might make it easier, but that isn't evidence to suggest it makes people more likely to do it. A sufficiently motivated person could kill someone with any number of means. You still haven't tied more guns to more terrorist attacks.
That's not the argument i'm making, and i feel i stated it perfectly clearly in the earlier post.
You're suggesting that Kansas is at fault for not taking measures to prevent terrorist attacks. When asked to elaborate, you said that their gun laws are to blame. I asked you to correlate increased gun ownership to increased terrorist attacks. You can't, and your argument is bollocks.
As I've said earlier in this story thread, you CANT restrict a RIGHT. If you can it's not a right it is a privelage.
The courts are quite clear we have a constitutional right not privelage to keep and bear arms.
Perhaps the state of Kansas and Missouri as well, was simply recognizing that trying to control this right would be ultimately shot down in the courts and a waste of time and energy to futilely do so.
The Boston bombers used explosives not guns, Timothy Mcvey used a truck load of explosives not guns made from fertilizer and fuel oil. The scale of death from that far FAR out numbered any mass shooting to date.
The guy in France that just drove a truck and ran over people didn't use a gun.
It's nonsense to focus on guns. Mental illness is what you should focus on. But you and others don't because it's not as easy to define or pin down as a black piece of metal.
Shame because that is the real issue in these tragedies. Mental state.
The courts are quite clear we have a constitutional right not privelage to keep and bear arms.
Perhaps the state of Kansas and Missouri as well, was simply recognizing that trying to control this right would be ultimately shot down in the courts and a waste of time and energy to futilely do so.
The Boston bombers used explosives not guns, Timothy Mcvey used a truck load of explosives not guns made from fertilizer and fuel oil. The scale of death from that far FAR out numbered any mass shooting to date.
The guy in France that just drove a truck and ran over people didn't use a gun.
It's nonsense to focus on guns. Mental illness is what you should focus on. But you and others don't because it's not as easy to define or pin down as a black piece of metal.
Shame because that is the real issue in these tragedies. Mental state.
you CANT restrict a RIGHT. If you can it's not a right it is a privelage.
Setting aside the discussion at hand, will you unpack what you mean by this? Both the 1st and 2nd amendments are considered rights, yet do have constitutionally-upheld restrictions in the US. Please note I'm not arguing one way or the other whether your statement or these restrictions are correct or not. I'm just trying to understand fully what you mean by this statement.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act
Do you mean can in the sense of constitutionally pass a law restricting them? Do you consider these restrictions, or something else? In your opinion should the restrictions above be lifted? Something else entirely?
Setting aside the discussion at hand, will you unpack what you mean by this? Both the 1st and 2nd amendments are considered rights, yet do have constitutionally-upheld restrictions in the US. Please note I'm not arguing one way or the other whether your statement or these restrictions are correct or not. I'm just trying to understand fully what you mean by this statement.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act
Do you mean can in the sense of constitutionally pass a law restricting them? Do you consider these restrictions, or something else? In your opinion should the restrictions above be lifted? Something else entirely?
And you're more likely to die to shark attacks than to terrorist attacks, even before redefining the word "terrorist".
Are you sure you want to stick with this argument?
Are you sure you want to stick with this argument?
Sure, especially given Kansas doesn't have to worry about shark attacks due to low amounts of sharks within its borders, but should worry about guns due to the absolutely preposterous amounts of them within its borders.
[deleted]
hermanni666(2)
This is terrible. At best, it was a drunken asshole murdering someone. It sounds like it might have been a racially motivated hate crime, though. (I'm not sure if I'd call it terrorism unless the goal were to terrorize other people, but quite possibly.)
> not sure if I'd call it terrorism unless the goal were to terrorize other people
One of the things we've been working on in our office is learning empathy. So we take the characters in an incident narrative, reverse/flip all persons/locations and then see how it changes our perception of the incident. So in this example, if we reverse everything, it becomes: "An Indian man shouting "Get Out Of My Country" in a bar shoots and kills two promising young American engineers working in India.". The effect that has would naturally be to make Americans afraid of going to or being in India, hence: terror alert, terrorism. So I can empathize and understand why the author of the article described the murderer as a terrorist.
One of the things we've been working on in our office is learning empathy. So we take the characters in an incident narrative, reverse/flip all persons/locations and then see how it changes our perception of the incident. So in this example, if we reverse everything, it becomes: "An Indian man shouting "Get Out Of My Country" in a bar shoots and kills two promising young American engineers working in India.". The effect that has would naturally be to make Americans afraid of going to or being in India, hence: terror alert, terrorism. So I can empathize and understand why the author of the article described the murderer as a terrorist.
Honestly reading this comment restores some of my hope in people. And it's refreshing seeing the reaction of the comments in this thread. Even though we are relatively unknown as a 'group' or whatever, it's good to know that among the ranks of programmers/engineers etc, the vast majority of us are overwhelmingly right-minded people.
Guessing you don't work at Uber ;)
I wanna work in your office too!
You can empathise, but is this right? I think it would be silly to describe it as terrorism if it had happened in India. The fact that US's mainstream media would have done exactly that, wouldn't have made it less silly.
So maybe (I mean it in a good way, even if it sounds a bit direct) you should use empathy to stop labelling things like this as terrorism, instead of doing the exact opposite.
If an Indian man shouted that immigrants should leave their country as they murder immigrants in India that's a pretty rhetoric to imply that they want to intimidate other immigrants.
Total silence about this in the msm. I wonder why?
NY Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/24/world/asia/kansas-attack-...
Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-kansas-india-idUSKBN1630LZ
CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/24/us/kansas-olathe-bar-shooting/...
Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/02/2...
Ah yes, all that "silence".
Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-kansas-india-idUSKBN1630LZ
CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/24/us/kansas-olathe-bar-shooting/...
Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/02/2...
Ah yes, all that "silence".
[deleted]
He might be racially charged, but my intuition is telling me he would not have committed the crime if he were not under the influence.
Alcohol doesn't kill people, people kill people? :)
And oddly enough, while we see people in this thread arguing for the end of the fundamental human right to bear arms, we don't see them arguing for the end of the fundamental human right to intoxication.
would that bring back the dead...
No, for sure. What I'm trying to say is racist thoughts coupled with intoxication must have clouded his mind and led him to such an extreme.
Is a drunk terrorist any less deplorable than a sober one?
No. A situation involving terrorists carrying firearms and getting drunk is more dangerous.
Can we deep-six this blatantly biased article and get a real news report instead?
I think sometimes it helps to biased when the MSM narrative is going to deliberately shy away from calling things out as they actually are.
But still the facts here speak for themselves. The guy shot 2 Indians specifically because he thought they were 'Middle-Eastern' (i.e. Muslim). It's terrorism and it's good the writer called it terrorism, since the BBC article seems to not use this term.
But still the facts here speak for themselves. The guy shot 2 Indians specifically because he thought they were 'Middle-Eastern' (i.e. Muslim). It's terrorism and it's good the writer called it terrorism, since the BBC article seems to not use this term.
I think the BBC use is very fair, so long as it is applied consistently. The guidelines for 'terrorist':
Terrorist
The word ‘terrorist’ is not banned, but its use can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding. We should convey to our audience the full consequences of the act by describing what happened. We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as bomber, attacker, gunman, kidnapper, insurgent and militant. We should not adopt other people's language as our own. Our responsibility is to remain objective and report in ways that enable our audiences to make their own assessments about who is doing what to whom.
When we do use the term we should strive to do so with consistency in the stories we report across all our services, and in a way that does not undermine our reputation for objectivity and accuracy. It is also very important that we strive for consistency across the international and UK facing sites. If a BBC World story uses very measured language but a UK version does not, a user will rightly question the different approaches.
The words ‘terror’ and ‘terrorist’ may be used in a non-specific context, or in direct quotes - but it is not for us to label a particular group or specific act as terrorist.
Beware of paraphrasing and selective quotation, eg: “The Israeli prime minister said that while ‘terrorist’ attacks continued he would not back down.” Putting the single word ‘terrorist’ in quotes may give the impression that the BBC is sceptical about the prime minister’s assessment of the nature of the attacks.
Domestically, we tread a similar line on Northern Ireland. The IRA is so well known, worldwide, that a label is not necessary. Groups such as the Real IRA and Continuity IRA can often be best labelled as dissident. A second reference to organisations such as the UFF and UVF could be along the lines of: The loyalist paramilitary organisation warned...
Terrorist
The word ‘terrorist’ is not banned, but its use can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding. We should convey to our audience the full consequences of the act by describing what happened. We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as bomber, attacker, gunman, kidnapper, insurgent and militant. We should not adopt other people's language as our own. Our responsibility is to remain objective and report in ways that enable our audiences to make their own assessments about who is doing what to whom.
When we do use the term we should strive to do so with consistency in the stories we report across all our services, and in a way that does not undermine our reputation for objectivity and accuracy. It is also very important that we strive for consistency across the international and UK facing sites. If a BBC World story uses very measured language but a UK version does not, a user will rightly question the different approaches.
The words ‘terror’ and ‘terrorist’ may be used in a non-specific context, or in direct quotes - but it is not for us to label a particular group or specific act as terrorist.
Beware of paraphrasing and selective quotation, eg: “The Israeli prime minister said that while ‘terrorist’ attacks continued he would not back down.” Putting the single word ‘terrorist’ in quotes may give the impression that the BBC is sceptical about the prime minister’s assessment of the nature of the attacks.
Domestically, we tread a similar line on Northern Ireland. The IRA is so well known, worldwide, that a label is not necessary. Groups such as the Real IRA and Continuity IRA can often be best labelled as dissident. A second reference to organisations such as the UFF and UVF could be along the lines of: The loyalist paramilitary organisation warned...
Here's another link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39072816
Hmm...
"“Get out of my Country!” White Terrorist Shoots Asian-American Engineers in Wake of Trump Visa Ban"
Oh so the guy shot two Asian-Americans because of Trump's Visa Ban. Too bad that's not at all what the article says. At most the article says
"The White House sets a tone in a country. Trump’s assertion that “Islam hates us” and his project of a Muslim ban sent a signal permitting hate crimes to the millions of unbalanced people in the US into whose hands the National Rifle Association has insisted on putting firearms. "
So let me get this strait. For this thought experiment I'm going to present the ideas as how I feel the author may see them.
Also, I very much take umbridge with the statement that the NRA advocates, or results in, "unbalanced people" owning guns. I'd like to see some proof of why that claim is made. The NRA is perfectly fine with a specific set of gun control measures like FIDs, the right to refuse sale, and citizen run background checks. I don't think just stomping your feet and saying "the NRA is the problem" is going to make this (or any situation) better.
I also find it very funny that the only victim not mentioned in the title is the one who isn't "Asian-American". I know many far right-wing people who I'll send this to so they can have a chuckle at this sort of white washing. Big Brother would be proud at this authors ability to create a narative in such few words. He's given "For Sale, Baby Shoes; Never worn" a run for it's money with this one.
A better title would be "Three shot, one killed in Racist Attack" or something. I'm not a writer but leaving out a victum because it doesn't sound good in your title is just extremely sad in my opinion.
"“Get out of my Country!” White Terrorist Shoots Asian-American Engineers in Wake of Trump Visa Ban"
Oh so the guy shot two Asian-Americans because of Trump's Visa Ban. Too bad that's not at all what the article says. At most the article says
"The White House sets a tone in a country. Trump’s assertion that “Islam hates us” and his project of a Muslim ban sent a signal permitting hate crimes to the millions of unbalanced people in the US into whose hands the National Rifle Association has insisted on putting firearms. "
So let me get this strait. For this thought experiment I'm going to present the ideas as how I feel the author may see them.
A -> B -> C
A: Some guy, who was democratically elected by laws and regulations set up, established, and agreeded upon by all citizens of the US. He ran on a platform of ideas that he wanted and by extension, due to his ability to have a majority election, are mirrored by a majority of the states in the union.
B: This guy does what he said he would do, or at least the closest political equivilent.
C: People take this to mean we can just kill people whenever we want!
Also, I very much take umbridge with the statement that the NRA advocates, or results in, "unbalanced people" owning guns. I'd like to see some proof of why that claim is made. The NRA is perfectly fine with a specific set of gun control measures like FIDs, the right to refuse sale, and citizen run background checks. I don't think just stomping your feet and saying "the NRA is the problem" is going to make this (or any situation) better.
I also find it very funny that the only victim not mentioned in the title is the one who isn't "Asian-American". I know many far right-wing people who I'll send this to so they can have a chuckle at this sort of white washing. Big Brother would be proud at this authors ability to create a narative in such few words. He's given "For Sale, Baby Shoes; Never worn" a run for it's money with this one.
A better title would be "Three shot, one killed in Racist Attack" or something. I'm not a writer but leaving out a victum because it doesn't sound good in your title is just extremely sad in my opinion.
A: Some guy, who was democratically elected....
B: This guy ran on a xenophobic platform, declaring to ban an entire religion (unconstitutional). Travel ban, by the admission of his own people, was a way of "making it legal".
C: Emboldens extremists and racists in his fan base to commit murders.
A -> B -> C
There, fixed it for you.
B: This guy ran on a xenophobic platform, declaring to ban an entire religion (unconstitutional). Travel ban, by the admission of his own people, was a way of "making it legal".
C: Emboldens extremists and racists in his fan base to commit murders.
A -> B -> C
There, fixed it for you.
edit:
Definiton of terrorism from
Google:
Wikipedia:
FBI:
Just in case there's some confusion about this very obvious terrorist act.