SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
An Army veteran, a recent college graduate and a student who once won a poetry contest by condemning prejudice stirred up by the Sept. 11 attacks intervened as a man screamed anti-Muslim insults at two women in Portland, Ore., on Friday.
[...] Two of the men — Taliesin Myrddin Namkai Meche, 23, and Rick Best, 53 — died in the attack, which occurred on a commuter train. The third, Micah David-Cole Fletcher, 21, was treated on Saturday for injuries that the police said were serious but not life-threatening.
Jeremy Christian, 35, of North Portland, Ore., was charged with two counts of aggravated murder in the attack and could face additional charges when he is arraigned on Tuesday. Mr. Christian, who the authorities said had a history of making extremist statements on social media, was ranting at, and talking disparagingly about, the two women, one of whom was wearing a hijab.
Source: The New York Times
President Donald Trump has released his first official statement on the attack in Portland, Oregon, more than 48 hours after the two victims died.
"The violent attacks in Portland on Friday are unacceptable," Mr Trump tweeted. "The victims were standing up to hate and intolerance. Our prayers are w/ them."
Source: The Independent
Portland law enforcement leaders were tightlipped Saturday about the investigation into Friday's attacks that killed two men on a light rail train but a federal official did say it was too early to label the incident a hate crime.
[...] Loren Cannon, special agent in charge of the Portland FBI office, [...]
"It's too early to say whether last night's violence was an act of domestic terrorism or a federal hate crime," he said. "However, in the coming days, the FBI, PPB and the prosecutors will work together to share information, leverage resources and make determinations about future criminal charges."
[...] Leaders of the Muslim community said they were thankful for the men who gave their lives to save the girls from harm. They have raised $50,000 toward a goal of $60,000 to help support the victims and their families.
Source: The Oregonian
(Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday May 30 2017, @04:59AM (9 children)
Terrorism is the use of violence against a civilian population for a political end. This was a solitary asshole who wound up killing a couple of good samaritans that tried to intervene. It happens more often than you might realize. This guy can probably thank Portland's victim disarmament law for the fact he's going to get a fair trial instead of a pine box.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Whoever on Tuesday May 30 2017, @05:46AM (8 children)
Check.
Check.
Check.
So, yes, it is. Furthermore, when a muslim makes [theguardian.com] a random attack on an individual using a knife [express.co.uk], that is typically categorized as terrorism.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday May 30 2017, @08:27AM (2 children)
"random individual" you say?
"It is thought multiple police officers were injured as the knifeman fought to get close to Parliament and inside the fence. "
I'm doing some thinking about the use of the word "terrorist" - and maybe you should do the same. That person didn't just go off, and hurt some random person, at all. He was on a mission, and those "random individual" you cite stood in his way.
(Score: 3, Funny) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday May 30 2017, @02:56PM (1 child)
I'm with Runaway on this one. This wasn't planned. Once you start muddying the definition of terrorism it starts getting applied to things that aren't terrorism. That's when you get tyranny.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 31 2017, @06:07PM
You poor, sad, sad, man.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Arik on Tuesday May 30 2017, @03:48PM (3 children)
No, that's not a check at all. He attacked a handful of people in his immediate vicinity, do you even speak English?
"for a political end. - Check."
Nonsense! Again, I'm left wondering if you even speak English.
"Furthermore, when a muslim makes [theguardian.com] a random attack on an individual using a knife [express.co.uk], that is typically categorized as terrorism. "
And that's why I said normally I'd be the first to agree with you. The term is misused badly by the propaganda complex we call the media. There is a huge and glaring... I want to call it a bias but that's too soft. In fact, it might not be going too far to suggest that the handbag media, and their masters, are hip deep in terrorism themselves. No, I'm not saying they take any direct part in the initial violence, but they sure do try to amplify and shape and control the terror that results and use it for their own political ends.
So there is this pathetic display where any lone nutcase going off is immediately terrorism (as long as it's an Arab, or a muslim) but they resist using the word to describe the actions of the US state or those that are viewed favorably today in DC, even when they clearly and explicitly fit the definition of terrorism.
I said at the time and I stand by it - the elevation of 'terrorism' as a category somehow far more scary and requiring an entirely different response from simple 'crime' was a mistake. Terrorists are a subset of criminals. They should not be made any more glamorous or any more feared than any other subset of criminals. This whole meme that terrorism is a new threat and we have to break our own laws and quit being who we were in response to them is effectively surrendering to them, it's giving them an incredible amount of power, power they shouldn't be given, power NO ONE should be given.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday May 30 2017, @07:05PM
Absolutely agree. I should have read your post before writing my own reply.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Whoever on Tuesday May 30 2017, @10:47PM (1 child)
You seem to have missed my ultimate point, which is the hypocrisy in whether an act is labeled as "terrorism" or not. In the minds of many people, Muslims commit acts of terror, while Christians commit mere acts of violence.
All I really suggested is equal treatment. If the solution is to downgrade lone wolf attacks that are currently branded as terrorism to ordinary criminal acts, then, yes, I can get behind that. But let's see it happen first.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday May 31 2017, @12:49AM
Anytime you see the word 'terrorist' used you should challenge that classification, you should demand justification. You were doing the opposite, misapplying the word then justifying it by the misapplication of others. Two wrongs do not make a right.
(Three lefts sometimes do make a right, but that's a different subject.)
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday May 30 2017, @07:02PM
Yeah, see, I think your argument is backwards here. The problem is NOT that this should be called a "terrorist" attack. The problem is that attacks perpetrated by Muslims are often categorically branded as "terrorism," even when ties to larger political organizations or proof that those were the primary motives are lacking.
To my mind, the entire point of using the term terrorism is, well, to cause terror. That necessarily requires EITHER a series of ongoing attacks from someone still at large OR direct affiliation with an organization that can pose an ongoing threat. Otherwise, such events aren't effective "terrorism." There's no reason to feel unsafe if an isolated lone attacker is behind bars or killed (and thus the threat is removed). Just because a violent act is associated with a political viewpoint shouldn't mean it's "terrorism."
(And yes, I know my viewpoint doesn't necessarily accord with official FBI definitions or whatever. But this seems to accord with the root of where the word comes from.)
This is becoming an increasing problem these days with the rise of more and more "lone wolf" attacks. Many such attacks have tenuous ties to larger political movements (if any at all). Nevertheless, if the attacker is Muslim, ISIS will claim responsibility, the media and politicians will portray any vague ties with any suspicious people around the person as proof of "terrorist links." The implication of such connections is that the larger organization is the one who threatens MORE such attacks. But if the larger organization had no direct control, how can it reliably threaten such attacks? In which case, it seems odd to term it "terrorism," other than terror trumped up by the media and politicians as part of a reaction.