Incel charged with Terrorism

Forum rules
1.) No personal threats.
2.) No doxxing/revealing personal information.
3.) No spam.
4.) No circumventing press restrictions.
5.) No racism, sexism, homophobia, or derogatory posts.

Post a reply

Confirmation code
Enter the code exactly as it appears. All letters are case insensitive.
Smilies
:points: :-D :eyeroll: :neutral: :nmr: :razz: :raging: :-) ;) :( :sick: :o :? 8-) :x :shock: :lol: :cry: :evil: :?: :smirk: :!:
View more smilies
BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is OFF
Smilies are ON
Topic review
   

If you wish to attach one or more files enter the details below.

Expand view Topic review: Incel charged with Terrorism

Re: Incel charged with Terrorism

by Octavious » Fri May 29, 2020 8:41 pm

If it's a credible threat, yes. Although my suspicions have been aroused somewhat by use of the words "are using 4chan to plan..."

Re: Incel charged with Terrorism

by orathaic » Fri May 29, 2020 6:19 pm

Alt-right violence planned: https://twitter.com/scottkernest/status ... 52352?s=19

Would this qualify as terrorism?

Re: Incel charged with Terrorism

by yavuzovic » Sat May 23, 2020 4:56 pm

orathaic wrote: ↑
Sat May 23, 2020 2:07 pm
 Not necessarily, if you assigned a group's activities as terrorism, you may get extra police resources to focus on them. Extra surveillance, infiltration, sti g operations. Etc.

Makes it easier to gain political support for this policing. I think it does matter. And with political support you may also see erosion of the basics rights of targeted groups (like Obama ordering deaths of US citizens, because apparently being abroad makes you exempt from the right to a trial by jury, or innocent until proven guilty...).

Sure it* (the overreach of police powers) usually happens when a marginalised group is being 'uppity', like the civil rights movement, or being Muslim, but Incels seem like an unusually white and male group to be targeted in this way.

*not necessarily the labelling of an organisation as terrorism, my claim is merely that it helps make the case for the state easier. I don't actually know if the FBI infiltration of violent civil rights movement groups used that particular word. I would guess they did, or they would today in the post 'war on terror' World.
Well, I didn't consider the actions to prevent this. I was talking about one single case that the news mention.
The suspect apperently inspired from other attacks in the past which means this can also cause more attacks. I think this case covers all the conditions what make an attack considered terrorism.
Otherwise, I agree with you that the fight against incel terror would be different than the precautions against a terrorist organization like ISIS or something else. Incels aren't organized as a group so I agree with you that it's not necessarily to act same as a nornal group. But incels seem to be a group of potential attackers fed by an idea. I wouldn't call it a terrorist group but I would call them terrorists individually.

Re: Incel charged with Terrorism

by orathaic » Sat May 23, 2020 2:07 pm

yavuzovic wrote: ↑
Sat May 23, 2020 12:09 am
Octavious wrote: ↑
Fri May 22, 2020 9:24 pm
 This particular incel is not a terrorist because, although he is violent, he had no clear political aim. If it was proven he had a political aim he would be a terrorist, but you couldn't apply the label to incels in general as they are not an organisation.
Well terrorist or not, the result is same no? I wouldn't mind them to be charged with terrorism as long as they are as harmful as terrorism, whether there is a political reason behind. You may claim that the politically backed-upp terrorism can lead more cases but I believe this isn't much different. Incels filled with rage will see this as an example attack. It may not be a terrorist attack but it isn't any different except the name.
Not necessarily, if you assigned a group's activities as terrorism, you may get extra police resources to focus on them. Extra surveillance, infiltration, sti g operations. Etc.

Makes it easier to gain political support for this policing. I think it does matter. And with political support you may also see erosion of the basics rights of targeted groups (like Obama ordering deaths of US citizens, because apparently being abroad makes you exempt from the right to a trial by jury, or innocent until proven guilty...).

Sure it* (the overreach of police powers) usually happens when a marginalised group is being 'uppity', like the civil rights movement, or being Muslim, but Incels seem like an unusually white and male group to be targeted in this way.

*not necessarily the labelling of an organisation as terrorism, my claim is merely that it helps make the case for the state easier. I don't actually know if the FBI infiltration of violent civil rights movement groups used that particular word. I would guess they did, or they would today in the post 'war on terror' World.

Re: Incel charged with Terrorism

by yavuzovic » Sat May 23, 2020 12:09 am

Octavious wrote: ↑
Fri May 22, 2020 9:24 pm
 This particular incel is not a terrorist because, although he is violent, he had no clear political aim. If it was proven he had a political aim he would be a terrorist, but you couldn't apply the label to incels in general as they are not an organisation.
Well terrorist or not, the result is same no? I wouldn't mind them to be charged with terrorism as long as they are as harmful as terrorism, whether there is a political reason behind. You may claim that the politically backed-upp terrorism can lead more cases but I believe this isn't much different. Incels filled with rage will see this as an example attack. It may not be a terrorist attack but it isn't any different except the name.

Re: Incel charged with Terrorism

by Randomizer » Fri May 22, 2020 11:58 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑
Fri May 22, 2020 9:24 pm
 Incels are not a terrorist organisation as they are not organised and have no clear political aims, although some of them are violent shits.

This particular incel is not a terrorist because, although he is violent, he had no clear political aim. If it was proven he had a political aim he would be a terrorist, but you couldn't apply the label to incels in general as they are not an organisation.
While you can't apply the label in general anymore than saying a Muslim is a terrorist because some Muslims are terrorists, some incels are organized through online groups. So in that case there needs to be more information on whether he belongs to an organization. Defining whether it was a political aim also needs more information on why he chose that target.

Re: Incel charged with Terrorism

by Octavious » Fri May 22, 2020 9:24 pm

But in terms of terrorism, I use the generally accepted definition that it's the use of violence and/or intimidation against non combatants (be it civilians or military outside of a declared war) to advance a political aim.

So, suffragists are not terrorists as they were an organisation which had clear political aims but were non violent.

Suffragettes are terrorists as they were an organisation which had clear political aims and use violence to advance them.

Incels are not a terrorist organisation as they are not organised and have no clear political aims, although some of them are violent shits.

This particular incel is not a terrorist because, although he is violent, he had no clear political aim. If it was proven he had a political aim he would be a terrorist, but you couldn't apply the label to incels in general as they are not an organisation.

Re: Incel charged with Terrorism

by Octavious » Fri May 22, 2020 9:10 pm

I'm confused, Ora. You seem to be criticising Obama overusing the word terrorist in order to expand his options regarding killing people, and then at the same time saying that somehow justifies expanding the definition of terrorist even further. If anything Obama's actions should encourage greater restrictions in what should be defined as terrorism?

Re: Incel charged with Terrorism

by orathaic » Fri May 22, 2020 7:56 pm

And just to point to the issue of government overreach: Obama ordered the killing of US citizens via drone strike. Apparently justified because they were 'terrorists', ie Muslims living abroad.

I'm pretty sure that is a rights violation, though morally it is no more wrong than killing no US citizens via drone strike.

Re: Incel charged with Terrorism

by orathaic » Fri May 22, 2020 7:11 pm

https://www.bl.uk/votes-for-women/artic ... -militancy

Article on suffragettes and violence. It does open with claims that we would now call it terrorism. They claimed they were fighting a war; so at least they take the same position the Irish Republicans in 1916 took, ie their violence was justified against an oppressive state (you can of course consider them terrorists aswell).

Re: Incel charged with Terrorism

by orathaic » Fri May 22, 2020 7:01 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑
Fri May 22, 2020 9:36 am
orathaic wrote: ↑
Thu May 21, 2020 7:18 pm
 But yes, if you believe that there is a problem with government over-reach, and that people's rights are being affected by the 'terrorism' label, the have I got a story to tell you about the FBI infiltrating the civil rights movement...

I'm not sure what your issue with labeling incels as terrorists is
I'll wait for Jamie's view on the Suffragettes before giving my proper response, but a quick aside on this point.

Is that what yo think my motivation is? That it's some wider issue on government over-reach and people's rights? I guess I should be flattered. But no, my issue is far more basic than that. I simply do not believe that the definition of terrorism fits the crime, and I don't like words being misused.

Do I think that is your motivation? No, that is why I asked, I think that would be a reason to question the state on it's actions.

I suspect that this sort of thing is a lot more common than you might think. There are plenty of conservatives of a certain generation who had very much a live and let live philosophy, and whose major issue with the gay rights movement was the change in use of the word gay from happy to homosexual. We don't like linguistic mission creep because it feels like someone is trying to con us. It is seen as pretty much inevitable, for example, that at some point in the near future the left will decide to declare that the word BAME is no longer politically correct and conservatives who don't bother keeping track of the latest woke fashions will be accused of racism for using it.

Really? This is seriously it? Just to point out, language is fluid, it keeps changing as new words become fashionable and older ones drop out of us. This isn't some Liberal plot, it is just the nature of culture.

The opposite is actually an issue, this kind of conservatism (of language and meaning) is used to justify the status quo (whatever that was when you were growing up) and while I may take issue with the mission creep you describe when it comes to governments and state institutions expanding their reach, when it comes to oppressed groups demanding their rights, particularly to be treated with respect... Yeah that is the kind of change wmi can get on board with.

And sometimes that will mean not using words which have become used as slurs (whether that is a new use, or the status quo was to use that words to marginalise a particular group).

In terms of this incel chap, he appears to be a cold blooded murderer so lock him up for a long time. If he had a few mates on the net or otherwise egging him on lock them up too for incitement. Whether he's labeled a terrorist or not shouldn't make much difference to what happens to him. But he's not a terrorist because that's not what the word means
You haven't told me yet whether you think incels and/or feminists fit your definition of 'political' and why.

Re: Incel charged with Terrorism

by Jamiet99uk » Fri May 22, 2020 5:47 pm

Well then since "terrorist" is a very emotive word, then desirable, no. But correct? Borderline. I'd err on the side of "incorrect" as well. It depends what your precise definition is. I would say that terrorism involves killing or maiming people, or threatening to do so to the extent that people seriously fear you are going to do so (i.e. they are "terrorised" by you), in pursuit of some sort of political or politicised aim.

The suffragettes certainly had a clear aim - the extension of the franchise to women. Did they kill people or threaten to do so? I associate them more with civil disobedience and property damage. Without going away and researching, I don't recall the suffragettes going around killing people? Did they do that?

By comparison the news story that started this thread involved an incel killing one person - and he was trying to kill multiple people. He left another person badly wounded.

Re: Incel charged with Terrorism

by Octavious » Fri May 22, 2020 4:11 pm

You. If you want further guidance, let's say desirable to you in the sense that it better resembles a world working as you believe it should.

Re: Incel charged with Terrorism

by Jamiet99uk » Fri May 22, 2020 3:53 pm

Desirable to whom?

Re: Incel charged with Terrorism

by Octavious » Fri May 22, 2020 3:50 pm

I'm less interested in the Octavious of 100 years ago, fine fellow though he no doubt is/was, than I am in your view. Do you believe it is desirable and correct to describe the Suffragettes as terrorists?

It is not a trick question, nor do I believe it to be particularly difficult to answer.

Re: Incel charged with Terrorism

by Jamiet99uk » Fri May 22, 2020 3:46 pm

I did not describe the Suffragettes, so Octavious's question is somewhat disingenuous.

For what it is worth, the Suffragettes were widely described as terrorists by the establishment of the day. The Octavious of 100 years ago may well have defined them as such.

This is descending into a nit-picking debate about semantics.

Re: Incel charged with Terrorism

by Octavious » Fri May 22, 2020 9:36 am

orathaic wrote: ↑
Thu May 21, 2020 7:18 pm
 But yes, if you believe that there is a problem with government over-reach, and that people's rights are being affected by the 'terrorism' label, the have I got a story to tell you about the FBI infiltrating the civil rights movement...

I'm not sure what your issue with labeling incels as terrorists is
I'll wait for Jamie's view on the Suffragettes before giving my proper response, but a quick aside on this point.

Is that what yo think my motivation is? That it's some wider issue on government over-reach and people's rights? I guess I should be flattered. But no, my issue is far more basic than that. I simply do not believe that the definition of terrorism fits the crime, and I don't like words being misused.

I suspect that this sort of thing is a lot more common than you might think. There are plenty of conservatives of a certain generation who had very much a live and let live philosophy, and whose major issue with the gay rights movement was the change in use of the word gay from happy to homosexual. We don't like linguistic mission creep because it feels like someone is trying to con us. It is seen as pretty much inevitable, for example, that at some point in the near future the left will decide to declare that the word BAME is no longer politically correct and conservatives who don't bother keeping track of the latest woke fashions will be accused of racism for using it.

In terms of this incel chap, he appears to be a cold blooded murderer so lock him up for a long time. If he had a few mates on the net or otherwise egging him on lock them up too for incitement. Whether he's labeled a terrorist or not shouldn't make much difference to what happens to him. But he's not a terrorist because that's not what the word means

Re: Incel charged with Terrorism

by orathaic » Thu May 21, 2020 7:18 pm

I know I was being entirely tongue in cheek calling them freedom fighters. But yes, if you believe that there is a problem with government over-reach, and that people's rights are being affected by the 'terrorism' label, the have I got a story to tell you about the FBI infiltrating the civil rights movement...

I'm not sure what your issue with labeling incels as terrorists is; do you think the suffragettes were fighting oppression and took what they demanded rather than waiting politely for it to be handed to them? I'm not sure that is a bad thing. Universal franchise was a worthy goal. It didn't end the need for feminism, but it did facilitate the use of words instead of violence. When every woman (including the black women and poor women who are often left out of political discussions) gets to have a voice, then you can claim political violence is no longer acceptable. Until they it is much easier to justify.

And I am usually very clear that violence can only be justified on grounds of self defence (and defence of others). So I guess to be consistent I have to put repression of women's right to vote into a category of 'gender based political violence' - against which they were defending. Is that a fair way of reasoning? (just thinking through, happy for constructive feedback).

Re: Incel charged with Terrorism

by Octavious » Thu May 21, 2020 10:12 am

Not ignoring, just trying to ensure that I understand you and Jamie's thinking before I answer. You believe it is desirable and correct to label the Suffragettes as a terrorist organisation?

Re: Incel charged with Terrorism

by orathaic » Thu May 21, 2020 7:33 am

Glad to see you continue to ignore my question.

And no, the suffragettes won. That makes them freedom fighters!

Top