Quote:
Originally Posted by August
I think the confusion comes from the fact that when folks talk about a terrorist he is almost always a member or associate of some organization who commits his crimes in support of the organizations causes.
Unlike (as we know so far) the SC shooter the Tsarnaev brothers, at least the older one, was suspected of having been recruited and maybe even trained by terrorist organizations when he went back to visit the old country. "Radicalized" I believe is the term they used.
It'll be interesting to find out where this nut got his motivation. I think it's certainly possible that someone put him up to it to some degree. Good, i hate nazis and will be glad to see some light shined on those cockroaches.
|
This is a point well made and I fully agree. The trouble these days is that a lot of these people who radicalise others hide behind their keyboards online, posting their bile out on either public forums or through websites dedicated to their cause. They gather like minded people of all walks of life around them, and somewhere in those people there is a risk that there will be a person like this one, who will soak it all in, believe every word and then actually go out and act on it, rather than continue to post on the forum and complain about the status quo like others do.
I think now that online hate preachers or radicalisers are becoming as big a problem as any offline recruiters, simply because of their wider reach and ease of access. It is, after all, the downside of a non-regulated internet (and no, I'm not calling for internet regulation here, just pointing it out) and something that I think we're only going to see more of.
Would be nice if they could track down, through his internet history, the people who post the sort of stuff that radicalised him and put them away in a supermax prison, but these people could be anywhere.
Still, like you say August, always good to see a Nazi go down, radicalist tendencies of any sort rarely turn out to be good things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by August
Agree 100% although I think shackling the media would not be very popular or successful and ultimately unnecessary since that's what happens over the course of time anyways as they move on to the next ratings getter. Besides as we have discussed elsewhere the media will not be likely where you'll find the discussion of this animal in the future once the story is off the front page of the news.
|
Aye, sadly true, I don't think shackling the media would be a good route to go down really, but encouraging them and perhaps pointing out the damage that their coverage can cause might just get the people to turn against the media and the media to try to tow a line that the people want them to...buuuuuuuuuuut, I doubt that strongly would work either because ratings show that they love a good psychological thriller, or perhaps, more likely, it's a form of evaluation. How did this happen? Why did this person do this? What, as society, could we have done? These are good questions to ask, but equally in doing so they keep the killers name on peoples lips and minds for a lot longer. Catch-22 like so many things in life.