First, let me express solidarity with gays. When people are targeted for murder as gays, it’s time for the rest of us to say We Are All Gay.
But that is not my point. My point can be expressed in terms of multiple choice: The common element between the attacks in Paris and the attacks in Orlando was:
a) Radical Islam
b) Hatred of gays
c) American gun culture
d) No common element. These were idiosyncratic attacks, carried out by different people, each with their own motivations.
Instructions for comments: I do not want to hear from people who, like me, would answer (a). Do not use this post to justify such a belief or to criticize other beliefs or to try to guess what other people are thinking. Instead, I want to hear from people who sincerely would make one of the other choices. I would like to understand your point of view. To put it another way, I would be interested in a comment from President Obama, not from Donald Trump.
[UPDATED INSTRUCTIONS: Note that the question does not ask “which of these were factors in the Orlando attack?” It asks “which of these is a *common element* between Paris and Orlando. Already, the first comments are in response to the question that I did not ask]
Just to be clear: I still plan to vote for Gary Johnson, based on his character and demeanor.
Events like this have multifactorial causes. Mental illness appears to be a factor, American gun culture provided a plausible means, radical Islamism gave ideological cover, and homophobia suggested the target. No single factor suffices, but the combination gave us Orlando. Would removing any one of the factors have spared us?
[This answers the wrong question. See updated instructions]
All of the above. A&B are obvious (hatred of gays is part of the radical Islam package). With respect to C, it did matter that it was easier for the terrorist to obtain the weapons in the U.S. than in Belgium/France, which leads us to D — the big difference being the U.S. attacker was a lone wolf, merely inspired by radical Islamists, while the attackers in Paris were an ISIS-funded and coordinated terror cell.
An Orlando-style attack would be harder to carry out in France than the U.S. because a lone-wolf would have a harder time obtaining weapons, while a Paris-style attack would be harder in the U.S. because there really no Molenbeek neighborhoods here where larger scale plots can be organized.
[This answers the wrong question. See updated instructions]
Fine. If forced to choose, I’d go with D for the reasons I mentioned — the details matter. The differences between lone wolf in Orlando and organized cell in Paris are more salient and potentially actionable than the similarities. The two superficially similar attacks (shootings in nightclubs) require different solutions/responses. I will also be a Gary Johnson voter, BTW.
I would be inclined to answer (d), although I see strong arguments for (a). I don’t see how either (b) or (c) apply to Paris.
My reason for preferring (d) to (a) has to do with the inherent difference between a lone actor and an orchestrate group. In broad terms, I’d say that Orlando is on the same continuum as Dunblane, Norway, Columbine, and similar. Paris is more consistent with the London Subway bombing, or the World Trade Center attacks.
[I appreciate that you understood the question and gave a reasonable answer.]
I saw an Errol Morris film – I think “Mr. Death” and at the end of the DVD there was an interview with a psychiatrist. He was contrasting what he saw in men (American men specifically? can’t remember) between the 1960’s and the current time of the late 90s. He said what defined men that he saw in his office in the 1960s was *inhibition*. Nowadays what he saw that was marked, was *impulse control*, just the flip side. Perhaps people should investigate the psyche for some intuitions.
[I asked about common elements in the Orlando and Paris attacks, and I do not see how this theory applies, particularly for the latter. I have an impulse to say something harsh.]
I’m 50% (d), 50% (a). The Paris attacks (I assume you mean Bataclan) were highly organized by a group, who came from a radicalized enclaves in Paris and Brussels. But obviously (a) was present. Paris was more like something you would see in a season of Homeland.
Which is really to say that they were structurally different, even though (a) fuelled things. Obviously I’m making this comment with still sketchy information about Orlando.
It seems to me that you’re begging the question by your choice of what is the “right” analogy. Why not ask for the common element between Orlando and Sandy Hook? Or between Orlando and the murder of Matthew Sheppard? If you asked those questions, you’d have to be pretty crazy to answer that the “problem” is radical Islam.
[I see your point. If I believed a “lone nut job” theory of Orlando, then I might compare it to those other cases. But ISIS did not claim credit for either of those. So even assuming that he was nothing but a lone nut job, the fact that ISIS is at the very least offering encouragement to future nut jobs should be rather troubling.]
I certainly do fine ISIS to be rather troubling. But I also find American gun culture to be rather troubling, too. Asking the question the way you did sure looks to me like a kind of “push polling” to argue that any response to Orlando should focus on the former rather than the latter. I would argue that preventing nut jobs from getting high power weapons will reduce American deaths more than stopping ISIS from offering nut jobs “encouragement”. Are you really trying to argue otherwise? [I am assuming you’re not arguing for Donald Trump’s “solution” which would only become a final one if he decided to deal with the threat of native-born Muslims in a similar fashion).
[I have a reply scheduled in a few days]
Why did you delete my comment?
This is a standard technique used by sleazy lawyers to give the impression that rape victims had it coming, that in the very similar example I gave, is used by religious fanatics to force interviewees to choose between moral absolutes, in order to imply that they are immoral, etc. etc. etc.
And, contrary to what you imply in your framing of this question, Mr. Obama is not actually a stupid man, and I have no doubt that his response would be to attack the question, because that is the only reasonable response.
Speaking of which, the bit about Gary Johnson at the end seems like a bit of a non-sequitur.
[Your previous comment used foul language and added nothing to the discussion. This one at least gets rid of the foul language.]
[sorry, not the type of comment I wanted on this thread]
Really? Well it’s your blog; and I appreciate it too much to cavil.
[And I appreciate your comments]
[Sorry, not the kind of comment I wanted on this thread. I’ll put you down for (a)]
It’s not (a) though. (a) implies its a religion you can just stop believing in and everything will be fine. What I’m talking about is very different and important to our very survival. If we got every single Muslim immigrant to stop going to the Mosque it would still be a cluster.
Look, you can do what you want with your blog. I get it. Let’s not pretend what kind of world that’s being created through. This is not going to end well. They are not like you and do not play by your rules. When they are the majority they will not care about what you think you did or think you stood for.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP0XTvuRycY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSPvnFDDQHk
I agree with position that d) and a) are common elements, but the more details I learn about the Orlando suspect, the more idiosyncratic the Orlando attach appears to be.
At this point, I think it is D; the toxic combination of self-radicalization and homophobia is utterly distinct from what we saw in Paris. It is also distinct from what happened in San Bernardino. Orlando seemingly has more in common with some of the ISIS-inspired attacks on Jews in France (substitute anti-semitism for homophobia).
That being said, I would be unsurprised to see A come to the forefront as the investigation proceeds . . .
I’d say a) and b) with an explanation of why I think “b) Hatred of gays” might big the more critical factor. I’m not looking through the lens of oppression, instead I’m critical of it. The common thread between conservatives and progressives, in my opinion, is that they believe it’s ok to break The Golden Rule (do unto others…) in cases they believe serve the greater good. So to include b) I have to argue for its more general case, that the key factor is the belief that killing/hurting/punishing any one person or group serves the greater good. The people in the bar in Orlando were following the Golden Rule as were the people going about their business on the streets of Paris. They were murdered/terrorized by people who think they have the right/duty to punish gays or infidels. Radical Islam is the latest incarnation of this pathology but the same theme underlies the beliefs of Hitler, Stalin, and countless other historical monsters.
I grasp your point, but even taking the task at face value, I think your multiple choice list might be a bit limited. I can easily pass an Ideological Turing Test for some progressive answers to “e. Other common elements” that don’t single out Islam.
I don’t really understand the question.
The “hatred of gays answer” is “we are all gay.” Paris just didn’t have a gay rally handy. So I think our better response is “we don’t blow up gays or punk rockers, we tolerate them.’
Another common denominator is groupings of people. Not to give them ideas, but why don’t they attack a megachurch on Sunday? So, echoing another commenter, it seems their preferred targets are symbols of decadence, economic dominance, and airplanes.
a)
But if you chose a looser construction for b) (e.g., ‘hatred of moral dissolution’–if you read Islamic State’s statement regarding the Paris attacks it very clearly invoked this as a reason for the choice of targets), that would be a choice as well.
What is the common element between the Orlando attack and the Sandy Hook shooting?
[The common element is that the killer seems deranged. The uncommon element is that the Orlando shooter pledged allegiance to an organization, and that organization praised his horrendous act, thereby encouraging other deranged individuals to do the same.]
“The uncommon element is that the Orlando shooter pledged allegiance to an organization, and that organization praised his horrendous act, thereby encouraging other deranged individuals to do the same.”
Well, yes, and yet, the good news is that the number of deranged individuals in the U.S. susceptible to ISIS encouragement remains very small, and ISIS encouragement doesn’t seem more effective than the general encouragement our 24×7 saturation coverage provides to garden-variety lunatics who are inspired to make a big splash and try for their own place in the top 10 of the ‘Greatest Mass Shooters in US History’.
I guess one way to look at this is — where should we focus our resources? More heavily on things that might be effective against all potential mass-murders (regardless of motivation)? Or more strictly on efforts against radical Islamic lone-wolves in particular?
A) could be true, but do we really understand enough about Islam to say that for sure? Suppose someone looked at a political bombing sponsored by the IRA and a local abortion clinic bombing and said the big connection was “Radical Catholisicm”. That sounds like a pretty tenuous and unimformative link, but I can only say that due to familiarity with Catholics
[I would say that if a radical Catholic group had called for bombings previously and praised the bombing afterward, then, yeah, blame radical Catholicism. Let me know when that turns out to be the case.]
E) young insecure men exploited by radicals to combine hatred with easy access to weapons with predictable results. Me, I would like to work on the easy access to military-grade weapons part.
“military-grade”?
All firearms are listed in the U.S. Munitions List and controlled as military items, although some as dual-use items, i.e., having military and civilian uses, except for shotguns of the hunting sort. As such, they are controlled for export by the US State Department, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls and not the US Commerce Department, Bureau of Industry and Security via the Export Administration Regulations.
So when you say “military-grade” you are implying all firearms in your euphemism.
The commonalities are a and d. I don’t think it is is really known yet if the latest shooting was really a “lone wolf”, but I would assert it doesn’t matter. If you are taking weapons to a nightclub or a concert, you are deranged and I don’t care that you actually had co-conspirators in doing so- they are deranged, too.
I too like E, growing up in a foreign culture and being unable to find ones place. That is a problem of immigration. The counter to A would be these are both open western countries which is closer than who is against them.
I realize that my answer here does not comply with the instructions and I don’t care if it appears on the blog or not but I submit it anyway in hopes Arnold will read it and consider it.
You have constructed the question so that Radical Islam is the only correct answer but:
The surest way to get the wrong answer for a problem is to ask the wrong question.
It would be easy enough to cite a few examples of violence against abortion clinics where what could easily be called “radical Christianity” was the common feature. That wouldn’t make railing against radical Christianity the right way to attack the problem.
In both cases sociopathic criminals are seeking the legitimacy conferred by major religions whose followers are overwhelmingly not terrorists. We should not help them by talking about that association as if it is a legitimate one. This is a question of tactics, not a failure to realize that terrorists often spout Islamic rhetoric even when they are late comers to the religion but long time sociopaths.
We do not know, he may have picked the bar because he was familiar with it. He may of may not have really been a jihadist, he may have just said it to hurt others. Gun culture was probably a factor. D is fairly likely.