What happened?

Islamic guy shot up a US Navy recruiting post, killing 4-5 marines

A guy killed 5 marines at a Navy Reserve base.

That the person who did it has an arab name doesn't make the loss of lives any different.

It doesn't make the loss of lives any different, but finding out the reason for the attack is certainly something of significance.

A guy killed 4 marines and also died himself. We may never know the motive.

The reason for the attack is important. Let's not just assume because someone is named Mohammed that they are (a) Islamic, (b) that religion played a role in this incident, or that (c) it's any more heinous than someone who named Dylann who marched into a church and killed 9 people.

Terrorism is terrorism, regardless of the religion or color of the terrorist.

*someone who is named...

But a and b are overwhelmingly true. Stereotypes, yes, but overwhelmingly true.

And I won't try to contend C, but internationally motivated terrorist attacks are more addressable than homegrown domestic terrorist attacks

Overwhelmingly true?

What evidence do you have that this person was of Islamic faith?
What evidence do you have that this person was motivated by his religion to do this?

What makes these things true, let alone overwhelmingly so?

How are internationally motivated terrorist attacks more "addressable" than domestic terrorist attacks?

it's not OVERWHELMINGLY true, but it's where i'd place my money. Sadly the stereotype is becoming more of a statistic

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/four-marines-and-gunman-killed-in-tennessee-shootings/ar-AAd3U69?ocid=ansspreu11

"NBC News reported that Abdulazeez was a naturalized American who was born in Kuwait." So, he is a Muslim.

"The SITE Intelligence Group, which tracks extremist groups, said that Abdulazeez blogged on Monday that "life is short and bitter" and Muslims should not miss an opportunity to "submit to Allah." " So, religion plays a huge role in his life.

"The New York Times, citing unnamed law enforcement officials, reported that his father had been under investigation several years ago over possible ties to a foreign terrorist organization and had been on a terrorist watch list."

Yeah. Do you want more?

If you look up terrorist incidents like this in the West committed by a dude named [insert Arabic name here] I will bet my salary that more than 90% of them were religiously motivated. That qualifies as overwhelmingly so to me.

Internationally motivated terrorist attacks are more "addressable" because there are already watchlists and monitors in place for this sort of thing. Its all about fine-tuning the dragnet.

Gold, you have evidence, not a case. Odds are that you're right but wait for more.

I also want to ask how an international attack is more addressable than a domestic attack. I would argue the opposite because it can be done without retaliating with unnecessary force and stooping down to a terrorist's level.

He travelled to Jordan (conveniently next to Syria) for 7 months and came back recently. I think that there's a case. But I shall indeed wait.

I say its more addressable because this - how do you find lone wolfs? Through the internet. Relgiously motivated ones will have their own terrorist inspiration forums and different websites which are probably under tabs to some extent or another. But how do you find the mentally ill or racist ones? Shit, go anywhere on the internet and you'll see millions of Americans posting racist stuff. How do you find people who are already secluded from society? Its more difficult than the religious ones who have many points of contact with the world.

I agree with Goldfinger. Lots of racist stuff on the internet. Hell, even right here on the forums and in this very thread.

If inferring that a dude named Muhammed is Muslim is racist, then I think this world is a wonderful place - since racism no longer means what it used to.

The decline of the West is on full display in some of these comments. Lol at basic pattern recognition backed up by overwhelming data being racist

"I will bet my salary that more than 90% of them were religiously motivated."

You mean like when they all say they're ticked off at American foreign policy towards countries that are mostly Muslim?

Tolstoy - I would say yes, I'm including that in my category of "religiously motivated". The Fort Hood shooter is an apt example that, personally, I would include as religiously motivated.

""NBC News reported that Abdulazeez was a naturalized American who was born in Kuwait." So, he is a Muslim." I know it's a logical fallacy, but I don't know the name of it. Can someone help me out on this one?

hmm, forgive me. I was going to rebuke TrPrado, but I may be wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country

Only 86% of Kuwaitis are Muslim. But forgive me from assuming it was like most of the other Arabic countries, whose Muslim populations are frequently in excess of 95%.

" forgive me from assuming it was like most of the other Arabic countries, whose Muslim populations are frequently in excess of 95%."

Another really bad assumption. About 10% of all Arabs are Christian.

Come on, goldfinger0303. You know that much of what you've said is racist or prejudiced. I don't know anything about this case, but what you've said goes far beyond this case.

You claim that it's overwhelmingly true that people with Muslim-sounding names who commit murders are acting out of religious fervor. That's like claiming as a Spaniard that anyone with a Basque name who commits a murder is almost certainly a member of ETA. It just doesn't hold water and is incredibly insulting. All you do by normalizing such irrational mass accusations against entire ethnic groups is provoke rage among members of these ethnic groups (and stir up hatred amongst everyone else). Try telling the people of Libya, Syria, Bahrain or Egypt that Gaddafi, Assad, the Al-Khalifa family and the Egyptian military were "overwhelmingly" motivated by their religion when they go kill their own people.

You claim that a terrorist attack committed by a U. S. citizen on U. S. soil is not homegrown domestic terrorism. I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. Any terrorist attack on U. S. soil by a resident of the United States (not necessarily a citizen) counts as domestic terrorism in my book. To say otherwise is absurd

You claim that naturalized U. S. citizens born in Kuwait are exclusively Muslim. Never mind (1) that not all Kuwaitis in Kuwait are Muslim, (2) that Kuwaiti emigres who have acquired citizenship in another country could change their religion and (3) that you can be born in Kuwait without being a Kuwaiti. Nope, anyone born in Kuwait is definitely a Muslim no matter what?

You claim that if a Muslim says he or she submits to God, then Islam is unusually important in their life. Never mind that 'Islam' means submission to God. Why this phrase is seen as extremist by Christians is beyond me. Most Christian sects I know of demand that followers believe in an omnipotent sentience (or else accept eternal damnation). If you believe in something so powerful, doesn't it make sense to submit to its will? I don't see many Christians running about saying 'sorry, Lord, but I don't agree with you on this one'.

You claim that if someone with a Muslim sounding name was ever investigated for ties to terrorism in the United States, that this is perfect evidence for this person's offspring being radical Muslims. Never mind that you're skipping a generation. I assure that totally irrational accusations such as these have done more to radicalize young Muslims in the West than anything they might find in extremist on-line communities. I'm sorry, but do you have any idea how many thousands of people with Muslim-sounding names have been wrongfully detained by U. S. agencies, let alone the thousands more that have been investigated? Innocent people were rounded up in droves by U. S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. Innocent people were kidnapped in airports around the world and sent to be tortured by U. S. military forces or third world dictatorships. Innocent people form a large portion of the inmates who are still today detained in Guantanamo, an illegal heavily guarded military installation half way around the world from most of the inmates' homelands. Innocent people in the United States are still today on the no-fly list just because they have a similar Muslim-sounding name to a wanted terrorist. Hell, university students of Arabic without Muslim-sounding names have been detained by the TSA and Philadelphia police for carrying flashcards with Arabic script on them. If I had to worry about people who have been investigated for terrorism in the United States over the past 15 years, I would be far less worried about those with a Muslim-sounding name than those without a Muslim-sounding name.

The basis of international and cross-cultural understanding rests on not making undue assumptions. You bombarded this thread with uncalled for assumptions.

That fact doesn't actually rebut goldfinger's claim.... Arab countries can be mostly, or even entirely, >95% Muslim while Arabs as a whole are 90% Muslim. The remainder can be expats, a notion that seems pretty easily defended given the status of Christiana in several Arab states right now

Gold, you don't address domestic terrorism by weeding out mentally unstable racists. Like you said, there are a ton of them. You do it by enacting laws that prevent them from carrying out their massacres. A good start would probably be a detailed screening of people like the Charleston guy before giving them a gun.

For god's sake, they flag you at Target for buying even a few of the ingredients it takes to make meth within a few days, but they can't flag an openly racist, mentally unstable person, white or black, from getting a gun? It doesn't take billions of CIA and NSA dollars scouring every existing website to find terrorists to do that.

He was born in Kuwait. He lived in Jordan for much longer, according to the press. He lived in the US long enough to become a naturalized citizen. To become a naturalized citizen (I know for a fact because my wife works for USCIS), you go through an extensive background check.

There is no EVIDENCE (only conjecture) that he was Islamic. There is no EVIDENCE (only conjecture) that his motives were religious. Automatically assuming these conjectures are true is unfair to all the people who are religious and Islamic and have no intention of doing what he did.

In time, all the conjecture might be proven to be true. Or it might not.

In a country where there's a foundation built on the notion that people are considered innocent until found guilty, we should give the people of Islam the benefit of the doubt that this person was not one of them. That this person was not representing them. And that they are not this person.

More info from my wife: As a naturalized citizen, he went through multiple extensive background checks. Once to get his initial entry visa, then his change in status (green card), then as part of naturalization. There may have been more if any of these things happened during a busy period at USCIS, because if the last background check was more than 180 days, they'll do it again. Then there was the check involving his father that the press is reporting.

Apologies in advance for the series of long posts I'm about to make.

So, Tolstoy, here is my source
http://www.pewforum.org/2011/01/27/table-muslim-population-by-country/
Afghanistan - 99.8% Muslim
Djibouti - 97% Muslim
Egypt - 94.7% Muslim
Iran - 99.7% Muslim
Iraq - 98.9% Muslim
Jordan - 98.8% Muslim
Kuwait - 86.4% Muslim
Libya - 96.6% Muslim
Oman - 87.7% Muslim
Pakistan - 96.4% Muslim
Palestine - 97.5% Muslim
Qatar - 77.5% Muslim
Saudi Arabia - 97.1% Muslim
Syria, 92.8, Turkey 98.6, Tunisia 99.8, UAE 76, Yemen 99.

If you have something that disproves this poll by an respected institution, I would love to see it. If not, I believe this is evidence enough that my point stands.

bo - you're absolutely correct. But I think the screening you mention is only part of the solution. I think you both have to identify who the people are that you should be watching (because there are illegal ways of getting weapons) as well as implementing more stringent screening. Its not like one way is the answer and the other isn't - you need both. I was mainly referring to the identification part, so I don't think that what you and I are saying conflicts at all.