How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

If you have a question for members of the Zombie Squad bring it over here.

If this is a question specifically for an official authorized representative of Zombie Squad, Inc. your best bet will be to e-mail service@zombiehunters.org

Moderator: ZS Global Moderators

LowKey
* * * * *
Posts: 4793
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 9:32 am
Favorite Zombie Movies: Night of the Dead (original and remake)
Dawn of the Dead (original and remake)
Land of the Dead
Diary of the Dead
28 Days
28 Weeks
Resident Evil
Shawn of the Dead
Night of the Comet (cheese squared!)
Dead Alive (cheese cubed!!)
Location: In the Middle East, for my sins.

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by LowKey » Sat May 09, 2015 11:49 am

the_alias wrote:What benefit do you think there is in discussing the religious convictions of terrorists in relation to preparing for a terrorist attack?
So that one may know what incites them to attack?
It doesn't require deep discussion, just enough to understand what is likely to draw their attention and make someone/something a target.

From what I've seen in the overwhelming majority of such threads that have ended up locked, the problem isn't the initial mention/description of whatever particular belief motivates the terrorist; it's that inevitably someone tries to shift part of the blame onto the victims of the terrorist attacks by stating that, "Doing stuff that the bad guys don't like angers them and inspires them to terrorist acts....if you just don't do that you shouldn't have any problems".
Then an argument ensures, as some point out that whatever may be "setting off" the terrorists isn't unlawful and that the victims had every right to be doing what they were doing and then an opposing group takes up the argument that the victims were provoking things.

Don't mistake me on this- I think it's piss poor wisdom for a cute 20 year old female wearing a skimpy mini-dress to get completely drunk and walk down a dark alley at Mardi Gras* as the risks of something horrid happening are huge, but I refuse to accept the argument that she shouldn't be allowed to do that and that the fault lies with her if something happens. It doesn't. She may have made very unwise choices but that wouldn't justify or excuse the actions of any cretin that might accost her.

That's where the problems come up in the discussions. Far too often the individual slammed for bringing up politics or religion isn't trying to make either of those subject the topic of discussion...they're simply pointing out that a group or an individual's religious or political beliefs do not excuse or justify terrorism. Then someone tries to shift blame to the victims and the thread goes into a death spiral.

The rules don't forbid the mention of religion or politics, they forbid the discussion of them or expressing hatred of them.


* no insult intended towards the residents of NOLA. Mardi Gras is just a great example of one giant wild party...
“Political tags – such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth – are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Hollis
* * *
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 5:39 pm
Favorite Zombie Movies: Resident Evil, Fido, 28 days later, Night of the Living Dead,
Location: Pacific Northwet/Ecotopia

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by Hollis » Sat May 09, 2015 4:57 pm

Lowkey, discussion of the ideology will accomplish what? Look back at history, just about every ideology has been used to justify violence. Like guns do not kill people, Books also do not kill people, people do.

A person once said, "Evil does not need a reason to do evil." I tend to a agree to that. I think getting off on a side track to talk about the ideology actually cause more confusion than not. It is violence that needs to be addressed. Maybe some do not want to take a honest look at our fellow human beings, those who commit violent acts on others.

Cruise through the FBI crime stats. Seems crime is a equal opportunity employer.
Zombies don't ski.

User avatar
the_alias
ZS Global Moderator
ZS Global Moderator
Posts: 5968
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:51 pm
Location: Not Here.

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by the_alias » Sun May 10, 2015 3:13 am

LowKey wrote:
the_alias wrote:What benefit do you think there is in discussing the religious convictions of terrorists in relation to preparing for a terrorist attack?
So that one may know what incites them to attack?
It doesn't require deep discussion, just enough to understand what is likely to draw their attention and make someone/something a target.
Most terror attacks follow similar patterns regardless of faith and have similar objectives.

Muslim terrorists target off-duty soldiers, so did the IRA.

Muslim terrorists blow up bombs in London, so did the IRA.

The differences are really suicide attack, and press targets. Both of which don't really broker an in-depth discussion of WHY they feel that way, just that this is the way radicals act. There is not so much discussion required more a statement being given.

Both the IRA and the guys who chopped up the British soldier on the street had exactly the same motives for the attack and their faith is not really alike.

I think it important to understand how these people think from a perspective of why the West is failing to integrate them and so many young men and women born in the West are making a choice to join groups like ISIS but ZS just isn't really the place.

ZS is the place to get help on a better plan for what happens when any crazy goes crazy and tries to hurt people.
Man is a beast of prey

LowKey
* * * * *
Posts: 4793
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 9:32 am
Favorite Zombie Movies: Night of the Dead (original and remake)
Dawn of the Dead (original and remake)
Land of the Dead
Diary of the Dead
28 Days
28 Weeks
Resident Evil
Shawn of the Dead
Night of the Comet (cheese squared!)
Dead Alive (cheese cubed!!)
Location: In the Middle East, for my sins.

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by LowKey » Sun May 10, 2015 3:54 am

Hollis wrote:Lowkey, discussion of the ideology will accomplish what? Look back at history, just about every ideology has been used to justify violence. Like guns do not kill people, Books also do not kill people, people do.

A person once said, "Evil does not need a reason to do evil." I tend to a agree to that. I think getting off on a side track to talk about the ideology actually cause more confusion than not. It is violence that needs to be addressed. Maybe some do not want to take a honest look at our fellow human beings, those who commit violent acts on others.

Cruise through the FBI crime stats. Seems crime is a equal opportunity employer.
You missed the point completely.
The debates start, more often than not, as a result of someone blaming the victims of the attack for having provoked the terrorists by disrespecting or refusing to obey the attackers ideology. That's when the ideology starts getting discussed.

If people stopped trying to partially excuse the attackers because they were offended then most of the discussions of ideology would not occur.

We don't (and shouldn't) blame rape victims for being attacked nor do we try to diminish blame on the attacker by saying the victim was asking for it by wearing a skimpy outfit. So why do people think it's okay to cast blame on victims of terrorist attacks by implying that it's their fault because sonething they said or did offends the terrorist?
“Political tags – such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth – are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Confucius
* * * * *
Posts: 3370
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 7:17 pm
Location: The last, best place

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by Confucius » Sun May 10, 2015 7:32 am

LowKey wrote:
Hollis wrote:Lowkey, discussion of the ideology will accomplish what? Look back at history, just about every ideology has been used to justify violence. Like guns do not kill people, Books also do not kill people, people do.

A person once said, "Evil does not need a reason to do evil." I tend to a agree to that. I think getting off on a side track to talk about the ideology actually cause more confusion than not. It is violence that needs to be addressed. Maybe some do not want to take a honest look at our fellow human beings, those who commit violent acts on others.

Cruise through the FBI crime stats. Seems crime is a equal opportunity employer.
You missed the point completely.
The debates start, more often than not, as a result of someone blaming the victims of the attack for having provoked the terrorists by disrespecting or refusing to obey the attackers ideology. That's when the ideology starts getting discussed.

If people stopped trying to partially excuse the attackers because they were offended then most of the discussions of ideology would not occur.

We don't (and shouldn't) blame rape victims for being attacked nor do we try to diminish blame on the attacker by saying the victim was asking for it by wearing a skimpy outfit. So why do people think it's okay to cast blame on victims of terrorist attacks by implying that it's their fault because sonething they said or did offends the terrorist?
Provocative outfits are not an excuse for rape, insulting ones religion is not an excuse for a terrorist attack and someone being an idiot on the Internet is not an excuse for breaking ZS rules.

Don't take the bait. It doesn't need to be discussed, it doesn't add anything of value to the discussion, and it always gets people worked up and leaving in a huff.

LowKey
* * * * *
Posts: 4793
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 9:32 am
Favorite Zombie Movies: Night of the Dead (original and remake)
Dawn of the Dead (original and remake)
Land of the Dead
Diary of the Dead
28 Days
28 Weeks
Resident Evil
Shawn of the Dead
Night of the Comet (cheese squared!)
Dead Alive (cheese cubed!!)
Location: In the Middle East, for my sins.

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by LowKey » Sun May 10, 2015 7:55 am

Confucius wrote:
LowKey wrote:
Hollis wrote:Lowkey, discussion of the ideology will accomplish what? Look back at history, just about every ideology has been used to justify violence. Like guns do not kill people, Books also do not kill people, people do.

A person once said, "Evil does not need a reason to do evil." I tend to a agree to that. I think getting off on a side track to talk about the ideology actually cause more confusion than not. It is violence that needs to be addressed. Maybe some do not want to take a honest look at our fellow human beings, those who commit violent acts on others.

Cruise through the FBI crime stats. Seems crime is a equal opportunity employer.
You missed the point completely.
The debates start, more often than not, as a result of someone blaming the victims of the attack for having provoked the terrorists by disrespecting or refusing to obey the attackers ideology. That's when the ideology starts getting discussed.

If people stopped trying to partially excuse the attackers because they were offended then most of the discussions of ideology would not occur.

We don't (and shouldn't) blame rape victims for being attacked nor do we try to diminish blame on the attacker by saying the victim was asking for it by wearing a skimpy outfit. So why do people think it's okay to cast blame on victims of terrorist attacks by implying that it's their fault because something they said or did offends the terrorist?
Provocative outfits are not an excuse for rape, insulting ones religion is not an excuse for a terrorist attack and someone being an idiot on the Internet is not an excuse for breaking ZS rules.

Don't take the bait. It doesn't need to be discussed, it doesn't add anything of value to the discussion, and it always gets people worked up and leaving in a huff.
Fair enough. Use the ban hammer on the shithead who wants to blame (or imply that the victim s to blame), not on those who point out that the victims had every right to be doing or saying whatever drew the fire of the terrorists.

I swear, if you want to wear a thong or mini-kini while drinking heavily at spring break and subsequently get assaulted; I may point out that doing so raises your risks of being assaulted, but I will 100% back your right to have done so and assert that the blame falls squarely on the dirt bag-who assaulted you. Wrapping he assailant in "religion" or "politics" to excuse the assault would be Bullshit, so let's clamp down on that BS. :awesome:
“Political tags – such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth – are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” Robert A. Heinlein

Doctorr Fabulous
ZS Lifetime Member
ZS Lifetime Member
Posts: 12257
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:06 pm
Favorite Zombie Movies: Evil Dead, Zombieland, 28 Days/Weeks Later

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by Doctorr Fabulous » Sun May 10, 2015 8:16 am

Or, when more than one mod tells you to knock off the discussion of freedom of speech, knock it off. Debate.org would be a fantastic place to have such a discussion, ZS is not, regardless of whether the mods are modding up to your standards or not.
Opinions subject to change in light of new information.
Image
http://i.imgur.com/wG6ZMjE.jpg

LowKey
* * * * *
Posts: 4793
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 9:32 am
Favorite Zombie Movies: Night of the Dead (original and remake)
Dawn of the Dead (original and remake)
Land of the Dead
Diary of the Dead
28 Days
28 Weeks
Resident Evil
Shawn of the Dead
Night of the Comet (cheese squared!)
Dead Alive (cheese cubed!!)
Location: In the Middle East, for my sins.

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by LowKey » Sun May 10, 2015 8:37 am

Doctorr Fabulous wrote:Or, when more than one mod tells you to knock off the discussion of freedom of speech, knock it off. Debate.org would be a fantastic place to have such a discussion, ZS is not, regardless of whether the mods are modding up to your standards or not.
Or, when someone is saying "Screw freedom of speech, you shouldn't be annoying the nice terrorists and inciting them by your flagrant behavior in contradiction to their ideological beliefs"(whether religious or political), that person should be told by the mods to STFU.
It's not whether or not mods are "modding" up to my standards or not.
It's if the mods are enforcing the rules of ZS vs them backing their (or anyone's) cause du jour.

I'd be very happy if politics or religion never reared their heads on ZS. The problem seems to be that in practice the forbiddence seems to apply to only one polarity of the spectrum. The only ways of rectifying that, to my knowledge, are to point out the bias or to file a formal legal request to review the non-religious and non-political status of ZS as a 401(c) organization. I certainly don't want to go there*, as anyone can make an honest "whoopsie" from time to time, and I don't think the organization needs the hassle and expense of defending itself from those sorts of accusations in court.
No one really wants that.

* Just mentioning a hazard, not suggesting anything.
“Political tags – such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth – are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Ad'lan
ZS Global Moderator
ZS Global Moderator
Posts: 5731
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 7:45 am
Favorite Zombie Movies: Shawn of the Dead
Rabid (1977)
Location: Hampshire

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by Ad'lan » Sun May 10, 2015 11:00 am

LowKey wrote:
Doctorr Fabulous wrote:Or, when more than one mod tells you to knock off the discussion of freedom of speech, knock it off. Debate.org would be a fantastic place to have such a discussion, ZS is not, regardless of whether the mods are modding up to your standards or not.
Or, when someone is saying "Screw freedom of speech, you shouldn't be annoying the nice terrorists and inciting them by your flagrant behavior in contradiction to their ideological beliefs"(whether religious or political), that person should be told by the mods to STFU.
It's not whether or not mods are "modding" up to my standards or not.
It's if the mods are enforcing the rules of ZS vs them backing their (or anyone's) cause du jour.

I'd be very happy if politics or religion never reared their heads on ZS. The problem seems to be that in practice the forbiddence seems to apply to only one polarity of the spectrum. The only ways of rectifying that, to my knowledge, are to point out the bias or to file a formal legal request to review the non-religious and non-political status of ZS as a 401(c) organization. I certainly don't want to go there*, as anyone can make an honest "whoopsie" from time to time, and I don't think the organization needs the hassle and expense of defending itself from those sorts of accusations in court.
No one really wants that.

* Just mentioning a hazard, not suggesting anything.
We rely on our members reporting these issues to allow us to respond. Occasionally we catch things ourselves, but theres no way we can catch every infraction.

But we do get regularly told we only apply the no politics rules to one polarity of the spectrum. That's not good, bias is not what we're after here (and given the different political make up of the mods, very surprising). If only I could work out which way we are biased, as some posters say one way, others say another.
My Guide to making your own Bowstring
My Guide to making your own Flint Arrowheads
My Guide to Fletching
My Guide to Primitive Fletching
Cymro wrote:Seriously, I'm not sure I'd fuck with Ad'lan if he had his bow with him. I just don't see that ending well.
Please Check out my PAW Story, Fagin

LowKey
* * * * *
Posts: 4793
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 9:32 am
Favorite Zombie Movies: Night of the Dead (original and remake)
Dawn of the Dead (original and remake)
Land of the Dead
Diary of the Dead
28 Days
28 Weeks
Resident Evil
Shawn of the Dead
Night of the Comet (cheese squared!)
Dead Alive (cheese cubed!!)
Location: In the Middle East, for my sins.

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by LowKey » Sun May 10, 2015 11:14 am

Ad'lan wrote:
But we do get regularly told we only apply the no politics rules to one polarity of the spectrum. That's not good, bias is not what we're after here (and given the different political make up of the mods, very surprising). If only I could work out which way we are biased, as some posters say one way, others say another.
I'm sure most of the mods desire things to be handled evenly, without bias or any sort, but it just doesn't seem to work out that way.

Perhaps mods should be rotated out from time to time in order to avoid stagnation or a perception of bias.
That, or just as many LE agencies have a civilian review board, posters should be able to review and rate mods on fairness and adherence to enforcing the forum's rules.


BTW, your okay in my book. :lol:
“Political tags – such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth – are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
cv66er
ZS Donor
ZS Donor
Posts: 381
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 9:10 am
Favorite Zombie Movies: Being originally from Butler County in Pennsylvania...
Location: CRE

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by cv66er » Sun May 10, 2015 12:17 pm

Ad'lan wrote:If only I could work out which way we are biased, as some posters say one way, others say another.
Mods are always biased the same way, against MY group. Anything you say against THEM is obviously justified. Anyone with a brain would know that!

When someone decides one side is the victim, and the other side is the attacker, that means they've taken sides in the incident. Once it turns into an us-vs-them thing, the arguments seem to start, and the mods seem to get involved.

In this particular incident, both sides instigated, one went too far, and the situation was dealt with. Neither side can be the victim, as both sides were attacking the other in some way. ZS is supposed to exist to help us figure out how to get through a situation like this without becoming a victim ourselves, not which one is justified.

How do you discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7? You talk about how to recognize a stiuation like this is starting to form, how to remove yourself from the situation, or if that's not an option, how to maximize your chances of not being drawn into the attack.

User avatar
DarkAxel
* * * * *
Posts: 3803
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 2:25 am
Favorite Zombie Movies: The Evil Dead Series, Dawn of the Dead, Shawn of the Dead, NOTLD, Resident Evil Series
Location: Jackson, KY
Contact:

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by DarkAxel » Sun May 10, 2015 1:27 pm

LowKey wrote:....
The debates start, more often than not, as a result of someone blaming the victims of the attack for having provoked the terrorists by disrespecting or refusing to obey the attackers ideology...
In a perfect world we could say or do lawful things and not have anyone try to shoot us or rape us. We don't live in a perfect world. Until we do, we can look at incidents like the Charlie Hebdo shooting and the Texas attack, or even college rape statistics to identify ways to minimize the risk that something bad may happen. That's not victim blaming. That's an integral part of prepping. The problems come from people confusing that with victim blaming (posters and responders alike).

I want to be clear. I believe that no one has the right to use violence to further a religious or political agenda. In those cases where they do, they are responsible for what they do. However, when one group toes the line of what is legal and makes statements that they KNOW will cause offense to another group, their claim on the moral high ground is shaky at best. Just keep in mind that legal does not equal moral.
vyadmirer wrote:Call me the paranoid type, but remember I'm on a post apocalyptic website prepared for zombies.
Fleet #: ZS 0180

Browncoat

Imma Fudd, and proud of it.

ZS Wiki

User avatar
Stercutus
* * * * *
Posts: 11934
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:16 pm
Location: Bouncing in to Graceland

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by Stercutus » Mon May 11, 2015 3:02 am

DarkAxel wrote:
LowKey wrote:....
The debates start, more often than not, as a result of someone blaming the victims of the attack for having provoked the terrorists by disrespecting or refusing to obey the attackers ideology...
In a perfect world we could say or do lawful things and not have anyone try to shoot us or rape us. We don't live in a perfect world. Until we do, we can look at incidents like the Charlie Hebdo shooting and the Texas attack, or even college rape statistics to identify ways to minimize the risk that something bad may happen. That's not victim blaming. That's an integral part of prepping. The problems come from people confusing that with victim blaming (posters and responders alike).

I want to be clear. I believe that no one has the right to use violence to further a religious or political agenda. In those cases where they do, they are responsible for what they do. However, when one group toes the line of what is legal and makes statements that they KNOW will cause offense to another group, their claim on the moral high ground is shaky at best. Just keep in mind that legal does not equal moral.
Image

Like anybody is going to pay attention to that.
"Big Thanks - I promise to advance your agenda within the secret and omnipotent councils of the Trilateral Commission"

“No-one likes us, we don’t care.”

User avatar
buck85
* * *
Posts: 705
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 11:17 am
Favorite Zombie Movies: Apocalypse Now
Location: west of Tallahassee and East of Eden

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by buck85 » Mon May 11, 2015 3:17 am

Conversation last week at work(i work in a level 8 program for juvenile offenders)
..... but Mister R. did not god give me a mouth to speak?
Me; yes but he also gave you a brain so you could us it correctly.
You lose your right to talk when respect and common sense go by the way side. It is so simple that for some it is a hard concept.
If you know who you are, you can, then know other people.

If you have faith, chaos will turn into order.

Let them hate...So long as they fear!

In the absence of light darkness will prevail

LowKey
* * * * *
Posts: 4793
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 9:32 am
Favorite Zombie Movies: Night of the Dead (original and remake)
Dawn of the Dead (original and remake)
Land of the Dead
Diary of the Dead
28 Days
28 Weeks
Resident Evil
Shawn of the Dead
Night of the Comet (cheese squared!)
Dead Alive (cheese cubed!!)
Location: In the Middle East, for my sins.

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by LowKey » Mon May 11, 2015 3:54 am

[quote Buck85"]
You lose your right to talk when respect and common sense go by the way side. It is so simple that for some it is a hard concept[/quote]
Completely untrue.
It may be unwise to exercise that particular right under those circumstances but it most assuredly does not cause you to loose the right to exercise it if you so choose.

Just because you or I may believe somone should not be saying something does not mean that they don't have the right to keep saying it. This isn't just my opinion on the matter, there is ample case law illustrating this.
“Political tags – such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth – are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
TDW586
* * * * *
Posts: 8844
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 8:03 pm
Location: Here, unless I'm not, in which case, somewhere else

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by TDW586 » Mon May 11, 2015 9:29 am

the_alias wrote: Most terror attacks follow similar patterns regardless of faith and have similar objectives.

Muslim terrorists target off-duty soldiers, so did the IRA.

Muslim terrorists blow up bombs in London, so did the IRA.

The differences are really suicide attack, and press targets. Both of which don't really broker an in-depth discussion of WHY they feel that way, just that this is the way radicals act.

Ignoring this entire thread, I wanted to touch on your comment about suicide attacks. Interestingly, suicide attacks are not unique to religious terrorists, and in fact the all-time leaders in sheer number of suicide attacks are the secular/Marxist Tamil Tigers. Just an interesting fact. Robert Pape of the University of Chicago has done some interesting research on suicide attacks:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =104391493
Image

User avatar
Stercutus
* * * * *
Posts: 11934
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:16 pm
Location: Bouncing in to Graceland

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by Stercutus » Mon May 11, 2015 2:27 pm

TDW586 wrote:
the_alias wrote: Most terror attacks follow similar patterns regardless of faith and have similar objectives.

Muslim terrorists target off-duty soldiers, so did the IRA.

Muslim terrorists blow up bombs in London, so did the IRA.

The differences are really suicide attack, and press targets. Both of which don't really broker an in-depth discussion of WHY they feel that way, just that this is the way radicals act.

Ignoring this entire thread, I wanted to touch on your comment about suicide attacks. Interestingly, suicide attacks are not unique to religious terrorists, and in fact the all-time leaders in sheer number of suicide attacks are the secular/Marxist Tamil Tigers. Just an interesting fact. Robert Pape of the University of Chicago has done some interesting research on suicide attacks:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =104391493
They actually invented the SVEST. They are way more dangerous than just about every other group in the world. But... they don't attack Americanns sooo no one in the US media cares.
"Big Thanks - I promise to advance your agenda within the secret and omnipotent councils of the Trilateral Commission"

“No-one likes us, we don’t care.”

User avatar
TDW586
* * * * *
Posts: 8844
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 8:03 pm
Location: Here, unless I'm not, in which case, somewhere else

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by TDW586 » Mon May 11, 2015 2:51 pm

Stercutus wrote:
TDW586 wrote:
the_alias wrote: Most terror attacks follow similar patterns regardless of faith and have similar objectives.

Muslim terrorists target off-duty soldiers, so did the IRA.

Muslim terrorists blow up bombs in London, so did the IRA.

The differences are really suicide attack, and press targets. Both of which don't really broker an in-depth discussion of WHY they feel that way, just that this is the way radicals act.

Ignoring this entire thread, I wanted to touch on your comment about suicide attacks. Interestingly, suicide attacks are not unique to religious terrorists, and in fact the all-time leaders in sheer number of suicide attacks are the secular/Marxist Tamil Tigers. Just an interesting fact. Robert Pape of the University of Chicago has done some interesting research on suicide attacks:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =104391493
They actually invented the SVEST. They are way more dangerous than just about every other group in the world. But... they don't attack Americanns sooo no one in the US media cares.

Well, they're localized and limited in terms of goals, in contrast to groups like AQ that have sweeping global aspirations. Tactically speaking they're definitely up there, and you're right, they pioneered suicide tactics. It's interesting that suicide attacks have become so closely associated with religiously motivated groups, probably because the Tamil Tigers developed those tactics around the same time that Fourth Wave religious terrorist groups were rising to prominence on the global scene.

Pape's argument is that suicide attacks are almost exclusively limited to groups who are (at least from their perspective) fighting to preserve their "homeland" against a foreign invader. This isn't 100% true in my opinion, but it's worth consideration.
Image

User avatar
dogbane
* * * * *
Posts: 14913
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 10:44 pm
Favorite Zombie Movies: the usual ones
Location: Dogbane Patch, Carolina Piedmont

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by dogbane » Mon May 11, 2015 2:56 pm

Perhaps I am speaking too soon, but my understanding is that the LTTE should be spoken of in the past tense.
I am the undisputed creator of the zombie tornado. (High Ground series now available)

User avatar
Stercutus
* * * * *
Posts: 11934
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:16 pm
Location: Bouncing in to Graceland

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by Stercutus » Mon May 11, 2015 3:08 pm

dogbane wrote:Perhaps I am speaking too soon, but my understanding is that the LTTE should be spoken of in the past tense.
They have gone underground but they are still out there. They have taken some serious hits in the last few years.
"Big Thanks - I promise to advance your agenda within the secret and omnipotent councils of the Trilateral Commission"

“No-one likes us, we don’t care.”

User avatar
Hollis
* * *
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 5:39 pm
Favorite Zombie Movies: Resident Evil, Fido, 28 days later, Night of the Living Dead,
Location: Pacific Northwet/Ecotopia

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by Hollis » Mon May 11, 2015 3:34 pm

TDW586 wrote: Well, they're localized and limited in terms of goals, in contrast to groups like AQ that have sweeping global aspirations. Tactically speaking they're definitely up there, and you're right, they pioneered suicide tactics. It's interesting that suicide attacks have become so closely associated with religiously motivated groups, probably because the Tamil Tigers developed those tactics around the same time that Fourth Wave religious terrorist groups were rising to prominence on the global scene.

Pape's argument is that suicide attacks are almost exclusively limited to groups who are (at least from their perspective) fighting to preserve their "homeland" against a foreign invader. This isn't 100% true in my opinion, but it's worth consideration.

Kamikaze is a example.
Zombies don't ski.

User avatar
procyon
* * * * *
Posts: 1101
Joined: Sat May 18, 2013 5:56 am
Location: Iowa, USA

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by procyon » Wed May 13, 2015 6:41 am

As for 'how to discuss', that should be simple enough.
Stick to what has happened, is happening, or may become an issue.

As soon as you begin discussing the 'why', it will be almost impossible to violate rule #7 as nearly all of these incidents are motivated by something that covered by that rule.

I agree with LowKey, but that is only half of it. Even if you ignore the 'victim' and only discuss the 'attacker' - as soon as you talk about 'why' the 'attacker' did what happened - you are going to end up discussing something that will be a problem.
So just don't.

If someone is curious about the 'why', there are going to be plenty of venues that will address that.
To me, this isn't that venue.
... I will show you fear in a handful of dust...

User avatar
buck85
* * *
Posts: 705
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 11:17 am
Favorite Zombie Movies: Apocalypse Now
Location: west of Tallahassee and East of Eden

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by buck85 » Fri May 22, 2015 6:53 am

It it is not what is said but how it is said.
If you know who you are, you can, then know other people.

If you have faith, chaos will turn into order.

Let them hate...So long as they fear!

In the absence of light darkness will prevail

User avatar
NamelessStain
* * * * *
Posts: 2655
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 10:08 am
Location: Coastal SC

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by NamelessStain » Fri May 22, 2015 2:35 pm

the_alias wrote: I think it important to understand how these people think from a perspective of why the West is failing to integrate them and so many young men and women born in the West are making a choice to join groups like ISIS but ZS just isn't really the place.
So of course it's society's fault. This supports "honor killings" of which the West is so fond. I think you need to do more research on the cultural differences before blaming the West. Also blaming the West is against the rules just like it is to blame any other group.
Ad'lan wrote: But we do get regularly told we only apply the no politics rules to one polarity of the spectrum. That's not good, bias is not what we're after here (and given the different political make up of the mods, very surprising). If only I could work out which way we are biased, as some posters say one way, others say another.
First Ad'lan the mods aren't one person. Some mods are in my opinion (notice i said MY OPINION) modding on their own ideological morals. It doesn't mean all mods have the same ideology. I've had some very good discussions with mods about my posts. Others, as I have said in some PMs, throw out warnings like their are throwing beads from a Mardi Gras float.
crypto wrote: Suggestion two: Have you considered making a new website called Terror Squad? You can have blackjack and hookers there and talk about whatever you want. Or alternately, literally anywhere on the internet except here.
Honestly, this comment in my opinion violates rule #3. 5 mods have since posted to this thread.
jnathan wrote:
buck85 wrote:This is a place for exchanging facts not opinions If you want to express opinions there are plenty of other place to go
Opinions are great, we just don't want discussions on political, religious or hate opinions on the ZS forums.
-Jeff
Is just typing the word "religion" against the rules or does someone have to name a specific religion? Just asking for clarification.
Also, go remove remove Gunny's post about "Religious Tolerance by Michelle" in viewtopic.php?f=44&t=19895 since it no longer applies or is up to one person's interpretation.

I would also like to suggest all mods cannot mod for more than 6 months in a row then 6 months off. We know they are all stressed with their current mod activities. I think they need a break too.
jnathan wrote:Since we lost some posts due to some database work I'll just put this here for posterity.
Q wrote:Buckle up

Locked

Return to “Ask ZS”