Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Servant Corps]

*Scott Roeder has been alleged to have killed obstetrician George Tiller on 31 May 2009.
*On 1 June 2009 Abdulhakim Mujahaid Muhammad, an American who had converted to Islam opened fire on a United States military recruiting office in Little Rock, Arkansas, known as the 2009 Little Rock recruiting office shooting. Abdulhakim has been indicted on one count of capital murder in the death of Private William Long and 15 counts of terrorism. Private Quinton Ezeagwula was also wounded in the attack.[11][12] Preliminary investigation (as of 12 June 2009) indicated that Muhammad acted alone.[13]

The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting was a shooting at that nation's memorial to The Holocaust in Washington, D.C. on June 10, 2009, at 12:50 p.m.[1][4][5] Shooting suspect James Wenneker von Brunn was charged in federal court on June 11, 2009, with first-degree murder and firearms violations.[6] On July 29, 2009, von Brunn was indicted on seven counts, including four which make him eligible for the death penalty.[7] In September of 2009, a judge ordered von Brunn to undergo a competency evaluation to determine whether or not he can stand trial.[8]

According to the six-page indictment, von Brunn entered the building and shot security guard Stephen Tyrone Johns, who died from his injuries.[9] Von Brunn is a white supremacist and Holocaust denier who had previously been arrested and convicted for entering a federal building with various weapons in 1981.[10]

Three lone wolf terrorist attacks has occured in the United States in 2009. Terrorist attacks for different reasons, protesting the Iraq War, protesing abortion, protesting...um...Jews? The US failed to stop Scott Roeder, Abdulhakim Mujahaid Muhammad, and Mr. von Brunn, but we see nobody calling for an intelligence commitee to determine why.

That's because lone wolves are harder to find, so the public gives the government some slack. Lone wolves operate independently, so they cannot be infilitrated. They are not interested in grabbing bombs and biological weapons...guns and cars (why waste bullets when you can run people over?) would do just fine. They are interested in not causing the most bloodshed, but rather just causing bloodshed, believing that the shock of an attack would do the deed well. And I'm not even caring right now about eco-terrorists and other organizations who don't even want to kill anyone, they just want to destroy property.

Lone wolves don't seem to really have that much of an effect, and in the case of Scott Roeder, was, at teh time, seen to even be counterproductive (abortion terrorism might alienate Pro-Lifers, doing more damage to the cause rather than just removing a single abortion doctor). But at the same time, the fact that all three of these events are off the news cycles suggest that nobody really cares about these issues, dismissing them as just some lone insane gunmen with mental problems (...which may very well be true, it would be very lame if we view every random attack by an insane gunman as a Terrorist Attack, for example, seeing a school shooting as a protest against higher taxes). Support for the Iraq War really isn't going to increase when news got around about Abdulhakim Mujahaid Muhammad, so prehaps LCS' Alienation Theory may prove to be inadequate.

My question is this: Is there any real strategic benieft for a terrorist to engage in to Lone Wolf Terrorism, considering it is less spectular and more likely to be reported on page 8A? I don't really know. I suppose that it does act to rally support for a political cause, in the hopes that someone will launch a better terrorist attack, but in all three circumstances (pro-life, anti-Iraq War, anti-Semitism), there is already a groundswell of political support, and you are likely not going to gain any new political support for these issues. No need for vanguardism there. Does it make terrorists feel good that "something" is being done? Possibly, but "feeling good" seems rather pointless considering the costs to the individual concerned and the fears of "backfires". Time could be better spent arguing for your position, by operating your own Guardian. Create a "climate of fear"? Possible, but it's going to be hard to measure, and it could even backfire: People might actually be more willing to risk their lives.

[Cthulhu]

I imagine a lot of these people probably had more things planned that didn't pan out.  The Columbine kids were planning on a huge killing spree, but never got past the school.

[Sensei]

I think sometimes violent acts against violence are supposed to be poetic justice, or what not (which would cut it for anyone who's going to declare war on their own country alone with the firearms they can carry on their back). Of course it just looks hypocritical.

Maybe more shocking would be if you managed to trick people into friendly fire or whatever, that might earn headlines- but if you're clever enough to do that, then you're probably clever enough to think of a non-terrorist approach. Evil geniuses are frankly pretty rare. Although it occurs to me now, I do think the above is basically the plot to a horror movie I saw a trailer for once.

And I bet a lot these actions were aided by mental problems, drugs, serious overlooked psychological disorders, flawed ideas of how society works on a basic level, and whatnot.

[Uber dwarf2.0]

The only good thing would be that you don't have to worry about anyone else

[sneakey pete]

When there's only 3 there's hardly an effect. If 300 people did that a year, most people would fear going out of their homes and gathering in large places. etc.

Err, don't kill me for giving them ideas.

[Mr Tk]

Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols

A couple of guys who caused the deaths of 168 people. (seeOklahoma City Bombing.)

Just shows that Lone Wolves can be effective, they just need to be able to plan big.

[Strife26]

When there's only 3 there's hardly an effect. If 300 people did that a year, most people would fear going out of their homes and gathering in large places. etc.

Err, don't kill me for giving them ideas.

I'd argue that the opposite would happen, everyone would start going armed. For all the violence that a crazed chap with a 74 can do, when every third person is trying to shoot him in the back, it's going to be a lot harder (of course I'm the type who approves concealed carry just about everywhere).


As for why, it's a cheap way to martyr yourself. It's not that hard to pull off, and you have the gaurantee of some sort of glorious death.

[Rooster]

I bet they've seen Jesus and Mo comic and went nuts.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Jesus and Mo is a webcomic mocking religion. Yes they share a bed together. Yes Mo is muhammed. Yes they're reading there

[Aqizzar]

I'd argue that the opposite would happen, everyone would start going armed. For all the violence that a crazed chap with a 74 can do, when every third person is trying to shoot him in the back, it's going to be a lot harder (of course I'm the type who approves concealed carry just about everywhere).

Yes, the best solution to fears of being killed by a random maniac at a moment's notice is making sure you can anyone at a moment's notice.  I'm sensing a pattern here.

Just shows that Lone Wolves can be effective, they just need to be able to plan big.

"Effective"?  Effective how?  They're remembered as deranged murderers who achieved nothing of their agenda by way of indiscriminate violence.  Bodycount is not effectiveness.


I feel like I should contribute something more substantive here, but there's not a whole lot to say about Lone Wolf style terrorism, because there's not a whole lot to it.  Some guy, usually but not always with a history of personal problems or passive-aggressive behavior, takes it upon himself to right everything that's wrong with the world one murder or pipebomb at a time, and gets to maybe three before being caught in his own crossfire.

There's no "strategic benefit" to it, because there is no strategy.  In order to think that shooting up a Holocaust museum or planting a truck bomb outside a paper-pushing office is going to make set your life right again, you've got to be out of your rational mind anyway.  That's exactly why Lone Wolves are so hard to stop.  How do you predict, let alone intercept, a guy with no accomplices, no support, no significant history of crime, and a brain that doesn't connect dots the same way a functional person ever would?

[Puck]

It's not about setting _their_ life right - terrorism usually implies some sort of "freedom fight", so it's about setting everbody elses life right.

Where I live there was a guy who set a FALSE pipe bomb up at night, in front of the parliament. It was a year full of corruption and especially disgusting acts of the "leading class"... Well actually, you might call that business as usual.

The "bomber" didnt want to hurt anybody, he wanted to show how discussions arent used to solve problems but rather to cover up the dirt of our leaders adn the rich (which, quelle surprise, are usually the same people and if not, they are very close friends...) and hence time for discussion is over. He wanted to show how the ... inability of the leading class to actually listen and change is FORCING people to take extreme measures.

Fun fact: it accomplished NOTHING. Not a single person started to think, business and life went on as usual.

But seriously, when NOTHING will get the leaders to change, what are you supposed to do? I thought setting up a wrong bomb was actually a nice thing to do. Sending a message like "if I were a bit more ruthless I'd blow your asses to smithereens but I'm actually a nice guy that doesnt want to hurt anybody" might just be the last thing left to do after you exploited all other means...

[Aqizzar]

I think that's moronic to say the least.  Not just because it's such an easy and spurious argument to say that all the problems in the world stem from some small enclave of nobility, and that because you can't think of any other answer, surely idle threats are the best way to make your points.  "oh the people in the government are all evil greedy bastards! surely if i show them how mortally vulnerable they are then whatever my nebulous disagreement with some policy i dont like will be resolved!"

It's entirely about setting their own life right.  It's sublimation of their own problems, blaming them on the most visible aspects of authority in life.  I'm not saying everyone is responsible for their own difficulties - I know as well as anyone what it's like to be fucked over by a system.  Likewise, I know how much more complicated the process of politic is, and all too well how few direct avenues to voice your opinions are.  But nine times out of ten the people terrorists blame for the issues they raise, especially small fries like this guy you're talking about, don't even really know what their argument is, much less where the problem really stems from.

I don't pretend to know how your society handles politics, but I can try offering actual suggestions.   You want reform?  Start a lobby.  Organize people.  Bombard the government's phone banks.  Gather signatures and send letters to your representatives.  And if that sounds like a monumental challenge, then now you know why there are professional politicians and advocates.  It's not easy.  But don't just tell yourself it's impossible.

Obviously, there are plenty of governments, even represented here, where there really is no recourse against government predation save organized violence.  But I'm saying the line is a lot further out than anything encountered west of Albania.

And if you really are so resolute that only threatening the lives of "leading class" will achieve whatever reform you care to name, then show the strength of your convictions and really do it.  I promise you'll accomplish nothing, but at least you'll feel better about yourself.

[Puck]

I think that's moronic to say the least.  Not just because it's such an easy and spurious argument to say that all the problems in the world stem from some small enclave of nobility, and that because you can't think of any other answer, surely idle threats are the best way to make your points.  "oh the people in the government are all evil greedy bastards! surely if i show them how mortally vulnerable they are then whatever my nebulous disagreement with some policy i dont like will be resolved!"

You're assuming a lot of things that werent true in that particular situation. Also, I kind of expected pretty much what you were posting right now 

I don't pretend to know how your society handles politics, but I can try offering actual suggestions.   You want reform?  Start a lobby.  Organize people.  Bombard the government's phone banks.  Gather signatures and send letters to your representatives.  And if that sounds like a monumental challenge, then now you know why there are professional politicians and advocates.  It's not easy.  But don't just tell yourself it's impossible.

That's what people did. And I tell ye, it accomplished nothing.

I thought stuff like this was a given when I said stuff like "it was a year full of corruption and acts of the 'leading class'" and "after you exploited all other means..."

I kid you not, a lot of really WTF stuff surfaced that year. I'm from a "1st world country" and it felt like tropico, if you catch my drift.

And if you really are so resolute that only threatening the lives of "leading class" will achieve whatever reform you care to name, then show the strength of your convictions and really do it.  I promise you'll accomplish nothing, but at least you'll feel better about yourself.

Remember, nobody threatened any life here. That guy was just expressing "we went through the proper channels, and you guys are STILL shamelessly stealing, if this was ANY other place on the earth, you guys would be ass-less now."

[Aqizzar]

Then waylay my assumptions and describe it.  What was this fake pipebomb supposed to accomplish?  Did he leave a policy proposal?  A petition?  A list of figures?  A damning condemnation?  So much as a note to even say what he was angry about?

Of course I'm assuming, I don't know the situation you're talking about.  But I'm basing my assumption on the overwhelming preponderance of pseudo-violent protests being carried out not by literate opponents of specific law, but by conspiracy theorist knuckleheads who think whatever politician they see in the paper a lot is personally responsible for their taxes.

[Puck]

Then waylay my assumptions and describe it.  What was this fake pipebomb supposed to accomplish?  Did he leave a policy proposal?  A petition?  A list of figures?  A damning condemnation?  So much as a note to even say what he was angry about

I cant remember the exact letter, but there was one included. It left a bit room for interpretation, but not a lot. Of course, all the politicians were responding with condemnation of the act. But people on the street... well, even those who agreed with the condemnation, knew what it was about.

[Aqizzar]

...I really don't want to be rude, but can you please stop speaking in these populist generalities?  At least say what country this was in.  I'd love to comment on it more.  Hell, I'd love to have my assumptions proven wrong, and find out you really do live a first-world dictatorship besieged by erudite pipebombers.  Nothing would make me happier than to see justified political activism.  But I can't, if you won't give some specifics to go on.

EDIT: Ah, figures, I need to leave for class.  In case the discussion moves onward, I'm putting in a caveat against necromancy when I bring this up again in five hours.  Cheers Puck.