ChatterBank1 min ago
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by vernonk. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I think that maybe what we are talking about here is not 'political correctness' but 'the rule of law'.
Consider, would any of us like to live in a politically incorrect society, where, for example, young women could be sworn at or otherwise harassed for rejecting unwanted advances? Or disabled people routinely abused?
The rule of law [which I take to be the opposite of terrorism] includes such concepts and practices as fair trials, no arbitrary punishments and free and fair elections. When we abandon these and similar ideals we become more like the terrorists. Of course, 'the price of democracy is eternal vigilence' and that means vigilence over potential terrorists as well.
Consider, would any of us like to live in a politically incorrect society, where, for example, young women could be sworn at or otherwise harassed for rejecting unwanted advances? Or disabled people routinely abused?
The rule of law [which I take to be the opposite of terrorism] includes such concepts and practices as fair trials, no arbitrary punishments and free and fair elections. When we abandon these and similar ideals we become more like the terrorists. Of course, 'the price of democracy is eternal vigilence' and that means vigilence over potential terrorists as well.
Muntin, //I think that maybe what we are talking about here is not 'political correctness' but 'the rule of law'.//
I don’t think we are. What we’re actually talking about is the propensity to cloak reality under a blanket of socially acceptable language because the truth is racially sensitive. Atrocities committed under the auspices of Islamic jihad are attributed to small and, allegedly, insignificant groups, to ‘Lone Wolf’ attacks and to mental illness. Names of perpetrators are often withheld and in some instances westernised, nationality has been known to have been disguised, and reports suppressed and ‘dumbed down’ – and let us not forget that according to some, since we have interfered in foreign affairs, we are wholly responsible for the appalling result so the perpetrators are, in effect, justified in their actions. You talk about the law, but for fear of causing offence we bow incessantly to religious foibles which in any other circumstance would be deemed absolutely unacceptable to western society. Fundamentalist Islam is without doubt an enemy that is determined to conquer and rule, but in our efforts to be seen to be impartial and to give everyone the benefit of the doubt regardless of the outcome, our flaccid refusal to acknowledge that, or for some even to acknowledge the tenor of this question, together with the plethora of silent support that radical Islam garners from people residing within our own communities renders us not only an object of ridicule to that enemy, but our own worst enemy.
I don’t think we are. What we’re actually talking about is the propensity to cloak reality under a blanket of socially acceptable language because the truth is racially sensitive. Atrocities committed under the auspices of Islamic jihad are attributed to small and, allegedly, insignificant groups, to ‘Lone Wolf’ attacks and to mental illness. Names of perpetrators are often withheld and in some instances westernised, nationality has been known to have been disguised, and reports suppressed and ‘dumbed down’ – and let us not forget that according to some, since we have interfered in foreign affairs, we are wholly responsible for the appalling result so the perpetrators are, in effect, justified in their actions. You talk about the law, but for fear of causing offence we bow incessantly to religious foibles which in any other circumstance would be deemed absolutely unacceptable to western society. Fundamentalist Islam is without doubt an enemy that is determined to conquer and rule, but in our efforts to be seen to be impartial and to give everyone the benefit of the doubt regardless of the outcome, our flaccid refusal to acknowledge that, or for some even to acknowledge the tenor of this question, together with the plethora of silent support that radical Islam garners from people residing within our own communities renders us not only an object of ridicule to that enemy, but our own worst enemy.
" Atrocities committed under the auspices of Islamic jihad are attributed to small and, allegedly, insignificant groups, to ‘Lone Wolf’ attacks and to mental illness."
There is not necessarily any contradiction between any of these three things. A huge proportion of the attacks (albeit not the most deadly) have, to the best of our knowledge, been lone wolf attacks. This is a list of all the terror attacks that have happened in Europe between 2012 and 2016. Notice how many of them are lone wolves:
https:/
That is one of the most dangerous aspects of the terrorism we're facing today - in a lot of cases, groups like IS actually don't need to co-ordinate a lot of it. They just put out the call and local radicals do the rest. In the cases where IS or equivalent clearly have co-ordinated it (like Paris), you won't see anyone referring to it as a lone wolf attack.
I understand it's frustrating, but all you are describing here is a desire for accuracy and understanding the problem in a comprehensive way. We can't do anything about these attacks if we are not realistic about what they are.
There is not necessarily any contradiction between any of these three things. A huge proportion of the attacks (albeit not the most deadly) have, to the best of our knowledge, been lone wolf attacks. This is a list of all the terror attacks that have happened in Europe between 2012 and 2016. Notice how many of them are lone wolves:
https:/
That is one of the most dangerous aspects of the terrorism we're facing today - in a lot of cases, groups like IS actually don't need to co-ordinate a lot of it. They just put out the call and local radicals do the rest. In the cases where IS or equivalent clearly have co-ordinated it (like Paris), you won't see anyone referring to it as a lone wolf attack.
I understand it's frustrating, but all you are describing here is a desire for accuracy and understanding the problem in a comprehensive way. We can't do anything about these attacks if we are not realistic about what they are.
Krom, but they’re not actually ‘Lone Wolf’ attacks. They might be perpetrated by one attacker, but they are instigated by a fundamentalist Islamic philosophy and encouraged by fundamentalist Islamic groups who don’t ‘need’ to co-ordinate such attacks. The Nice and recent Berlin slaughters were initiated by the instruction from IS to basically, grab a lorry and drive it into crowds. As you say, we can't do anything about these attacks if we are not realistic about what they are – and it’s high time we stopped pussyfooting around reality and recognised them for what they are.
But that's what a lone wolf attack is, Naomi.
Calling an attack "Lone Wolf" just means that the attacker hasn't received material support from an external group - that's all that government or media mean when they use the term, because that is its definition. Most LW attackers are indeed motivated by ideas from other groups. But I really don't think anyone denies that.
Calling an attack "Lone Wolf" just means that the attacker hasn't received material support from an external group - that's all that government or media mean when they use the term, because that is its definition. Most LW attackers are indeed motivated by ideas from other groups. But I really don't think anyone denies that.
Well... with greatest respect, you're wrong.
The definition of a Lone Wolf is an attacker who hasn't received direct material support or personal from an external group. But most Lone Wolves are motivated by the ideas of external groups.
https:/
"“a lone wolf is a standalone operative who by his very nature is embedded in the targeted society and is capable of selfactivation
at any time.
...
" These acts are politically or religiously motivated and aim to influence public opinion or political decision-making. This excludesviolent acts by standalone individuals that are motivated for other reasons, such as Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho or Matti Saari, who was responsible for the Jokelahigh school shooting in Finland and whoseems to have been inspired by Cho"
When authorities or experts use this term, this is what they mean and the occasional liberal who extends it or uses it incorrectly is not evidence of the term's use to "mask" or mislead people about the nature of terror attacks. "Lone Wolf" as a term is explicitly not intended to be a denial of an attacker's religious or ideological motives - all it does is refer to the logistics of how their attack was carried out, which is an important distinction to make for the purposes of preventing them.
The definition of a Lone Wolf is an attacker who hasn't received direct material support or personal from an external group. But most Lone Wolves are motivated by the ideas of external groups.
https:/
"“a lone wolf is a standalone operative who by his very nature is embedded in the targeted society and is capable of selfactivation
at any time.
...
" These acts are politically or religiously motivated and aim to influence public opinion or political decision-making. This excludesviolent acts by standalone individuals that are motivated for other reasons, such as Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho or Matti Saari, who was responsible for the Jokelahigh school shooting in Finland and whoseems to have been inspired by Cho"
When authorities or experts use this term, this is what they mean and the occasional liberal who extends it or uses it incorrectly is not evidence of the term's use to "mask" or mislead people about the nature of terror attacks. "Lone Wolf" as a term is explicitly not intended to be a denial of an attacker's religious or ideological motives - all it does is refer to the logistics of how their attack was carried out, which is an important distinction to make for the purposes of preventing them.
Indeed, this paper - and the one it references, which appears to be the standard go-to paper for defining Lone Wolves among terror researchers - actually only use the term LW for attackers with religious or ideological motives.
I.e. a self-motivated and self-resourced attacker who commits an act of terror for personal reasons unconnected to ideology actually does not fit the working definition of a lone wolf attack. If anything, the researchers who actually put the term to use are heavily on your side!
So I'm not sure these uses of language that you object are necessarily examples of PC aiding terrorists.
I.e. a self-motivated and self-resourced attacker who commits an act of terror for personal reasons unconnected to ideology actually does not fit the working definition of a lone wolf attack. If anything, the researchers who actually put the term to use are heavily on your side!
So I'm not sure these uses of language that you object are necessarily examples of PC aiding terrorists.
Krom, you misunderstand me. What I’m saying is that when people are told that an attack was perpetrated by a ‘Lone Wolf’, they often interpret that as not simply someone acting alone, but as someone who is also acting solely by his own volition – in effect unconnected to and uninfluenced by others. This is why a collective sigh of relief was heard when the Nice attacker was initially declared to be ‘A Lone Wolf’. To all intents and purposes he wasn’t, at that time, considered by the public at large to have been directly influenced by jihadists. One contributor here even concluded that there was no religious motivation but that he simply harboured a grudge against society! I think the term is misleading, and therefore it does aid terrorism insofar as it conceals the perpetrator’s true allegiance and motivation.
//What I’m saying is that when people are told that an attack was perpetrated by a ‘Lone Wolf’, they often interpret that as not simply someone acting alone, but as someone who is also acting solely by his own volition – in effect unconnected to and uninfluenced by others. ///
Well, then people are idiots who should read into things more carefully.
I'm still not sure how this is an example of PC enabling terrorism - if what you're saying is true, then this just seems to be yet another example of the public (and the poster here, whoever it was) being unable to process information properly.
Well, then people are idiots who should read into things more carefully.
I'm still not sure how this is an example of PC enabling terrorism - if what you're saying is true, then this just seems to be yet another example of the public (and the poster here, whoever it was) being unable to process information properly.
Krom, //Well, then people are idiots who should read into things more carefully. //
I agree.
//I'm still not sure how this is an example of PC enabling terrorism//
I didn’t say it enables terrorism, I said it serves to conceal the truth.
Incidentally, I wonder if the OP is reading all this. He hasn’t surfaced since he posted the question.
I agree.
//I'm still not sure how this is an example of PC enabling terrorism//
I didn’t say it enables terrorism, I said it serves to conceal the truth.
Incidentally, I wonder if the OP is reading all this. He hasn’t surfaced since he posted the question.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
How's This For A Business Idea?
ChatterBank6 mins ago
ChatterBank43 mins ago
TV44 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles79 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.