Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Workplace violence

Last response: in News & Leisure
December 8, 2011 11:03:31 PM

That is unbelievable!

I no longer recognize my country any more.
December 10, 2011 1:57:35 AM

The gall of that lawyer, you need to prove your sanity to buy a gun, and here, people have access to them 24/7, this guy needs to go away, as well as the murderer of course
Related resources
December 10, 2011 3:21:29 AM

Wow... Unbelievable that the FBI knew, yet they didn't notify the military. Talk about the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing...
December 10, 2011 1:24:43 PM

The military did know, as well as the FBI, the NSA, the CIA. No one did anything because of the politically correct stigma of accusing a Muslim of being a radical, violent, terrorist. Gasp! We can't do that now can we?

The world is upside down.
December 11, 2011 12:48:55 AM

Well you can assert that an individual is / will be / might be to DHS in the US.

Obviously generalising by saying ALL Muslim subscribe to that behaviour / view is unacceptable and won't be tolerated in this forum.

The behaviour of one does not reflect on the many ... otherwise we would allow anti-Christian sentiment to be broadcast here on the forums on the basis of a few "Cults of personality" ... which we do not.

Just because the Australian opening batsmen are faring poorly in cricket at the moment we have not written off the entire side.

Do these examples help?

By the way ... giving a psychiatrist / psychologist a gun is a bad idea ... I haven't got one.


December 11, 2011 3:43:37 AM

There are only two possibilities.

1) The powers that be intentionally did nothing, knowing that something like this was going to happen sooner or later, or

2) They were afraid to act on the information they had about this individual for whatever reason resulting in the unintended consequences.

If you read my post I said "a" Muslim, as in singular, an individual, a lone person committing an act of violence. And yes, in the current media atmosphere in the United States, there is a fear of calling a spade a spade for some reason. Call it a conspiracy or whatever; but there you go.

This individual was clearly motivated by radicalized Islam. I don't know why it's a crime to point that out knowing that the intelligence community clearly knew it as well yet did nothing to stop him.
December 11, 2011 10:48:26 AM

Deciding to inform the public with no description of a particular person is not only useless, its an affront of our abilities to forgive/understand/empathise and basically discern whats going on, and leaving it to certain individuals to describe such things/people, is not only dangerous, but very insulting.
If one group has alot of trouble makers within their group, you can bet that the FBI/DHS etc etc, is keeping a keen eye upon those within that description.
To either dull this knowledge, deflect it within said groups, such as the FBI, is the danger with which we could find ourselves, if the hesitency is found there.
While clarification is needed, it also shows sometimes that the message isnt being read or heard correctly, and often the messenger recieves attitudes not truly applicable to their intentions.

After saying all this, if I said this every time , for clarification, it would eventually dull the very information the messenger intends.

Now, OT, if the afforementioned government groups foresaw these potentials, it only leads to further contacts.
The problem that these groups are facing is, many of the Majors followers in his particular beliefs are acting out on their own, as their collaborator is believed, within their eyes, to be God Himself, and doesnt need fellow conspirators.
This raises the bar, and diminishes the FBI's et al abilities to find ties within an organization that may or may not exist.
So, it may mean the FBI et al, may find acting sooner rather than later may have a greater effect upon our safety
December 11, 2011 10:52:05 AM

I didn't say it was a crime ... but generalising comments to a larger population is not appropriate.

December 11, 2011 11:34:58 AM

I agree
But denying the obvious is a crime to our sensibilities
Obvious being who people are, their motivations etc.

Denying, or not allowing for this, is not only dangerous, but disengenuous
I believe the lynch mobs seen in history needs attention as well, but not at the cost of the truth

PS If someone includes decriptions of a murderer, whether it be anything attributal to that person, calling in to question the messengers facts is somewhat describing more the messenger than the message, and can lead to the very thing we, you and I, abhor
If some choose to take the lazy way out, and fall to their own failures, as someone once said, you cant fix stupid.
OTH, omitting the truth, whether it be descriptions or other pertitnent fact, with worries towards certain potential lynch mob effect, once again leads us back to step one, not at the cost of the truth.

December 11, 2011 11:58:39 AM

What exactly do you mean?

Gee the guy needs to be dealt with for sure ... and surely people knew something was wrong well before it occired ... and they could have relieved him of his command.

Beyond that what?

December 11, 2011 12:27:54 PM

Theres been a complete holding back of facts because of political correctness

One example was, recently, there was an armed bank robber afoot in a certain city, the media said to be on the look out for them
No description (which the media had at the time) was given, whether it was a female , male, white black, etc etc, only the height (and that was guesstimated)

Now, being affraid of some who would point their fingers at the media on a complete description, they withheld such info, causing an overall diservice and greater harm to that particular community.
Other groups are also seen to withold certain infos, and are in denial of certain activities, such as being on the lookout for certain groups, and only certain bad groups are readily identified as to what their particular beliefs or potential mindsets are.
If we keep failing in this direction, and turn the other way, in fear of creating a lynch mob attitude towards a few bad people of certain beliefs, we fail ourselves eventually.
The us against them mentality, which you can find in certain areas thruout the world does this, and its not until the us is described as everyone but the bad people, and the truths are no longer withheld, we will continue down this path of disservice and ineptitude towards our fellow man, this time tho, on the reverse side of things, since taking only 1 tact is only half right.

Im sure the reluctance of the FBI et al to admit such things, as well as the military, keeping an eye on some, was there, and openess about such things are heavily clouded each time someone brings to attention the intentions of those who brings such things up
December 11, 2011 12:55:31 PM

I disagree.

There is just us ... humanity.

There is no need to marginalise and negatively label groups of people.

Take the woman with 15 kids in the other thread ... that should have been nuked right from the start ... what was the purpose of it if not to gloat and look down upon some one else less fortunate ... less able?

I think various groups are on the lookout for people behaving radically, and those plotting and scheming. You already have big brother there in the US.

If big brother missed one ... as seems the case here ... then so be it.

It is highly likely he acted alone ... therefore did not rate high enough on any radar and when he went postal it was purely and individual action.

If authorities banned hate speech sites from the net people would have less access to offensive and violence enabling material.

The sad thing about that is where does it stop?

I think removing any site material that promotes violence on religious grounds is a good start.

Banning religious groups that promote violence in your country is another ... Gelnn Beck is probably one who should be locked up ... he is on the opposite end of the spectrum.

We have a couple of radical groups in Australia that are being watched ... our laws now mean that they can be more easily dealt with should they cross the line.

What constitutes crossing the line ... that's something worth exploring.
December 11, 2011 2:02:52 PM

Reynod said:
I didn't say it was a crime ... but generalising comments to a larger population is not appropriate.

I understand and this is exactly what I DID NOT do.
December 11, 2011 3:11:09 PM

Reynod said:
There is no need to marginalise and negatively label groups of people.

Take the woman with 15 kids in the other thread ... that should have been nuked right from the start ... what was the purpose of it if not to gloat and look down upon some one else less fortunate ... less able?

There's nothing wrong with talking about a specific situation/circumstance, and calling it what it is. Calling a poor family poor, or calling a gay person gay, or a white person white, isn't any kind of slight to a larger group. It's simply stating a fact. And if the larger group was then talked about, in a group context, then you would need to look at the context of what was said about the group, to see if it was derogatory or not. Still no harm in simply discussing what exists.
December 11, 2011 3:59:21 PM

"Take the woman with 15 kids in the other thread ... that should have been nuked right from the start ... what was the purpose of it if not to gloat and look down upon some one else less fortunate ... less able?"

I brought that to light to illustrate a point. I used a specific example to show the result of our folly. It was the mindset I wanted people to see and understand.

"someone needs to pay for all my kids. someone needs to be held responsible for my kids!"

^^ that alone speaks volumes of what is wrong. And, I rightly said it makes me want to cry. This has been done deliberately, even if the best of intentions was the original intent. This is the problem. People that make public policy want to be judged on their intentions, not the results of their policies.

"Banning religious groups that promote violence in your country is another ... Gelnn Beck is probably one who should be locked up ... he is on the opposite end of the spectrum."

Last time I checked, people who listen to Glenn Beck are feeding and clothing the hungry and poor, not shooting them. You speak from a position of ignorance on this topic reynod. That is the truth.
December 11, 2011 4:48:13 PM

The whole point here is, as aford said, in specific circumstances, knowing all the facts are helpful.
In certain neighborhoods, you cant find the bad guys, either because people that know them are afraid, and having cops are therefor useless, or, theyre looked at as "the man", making them useless once again.
My intent was to show that people, or all of us, needs to focus on these bad individuals, from whatever creed/color/religion etc etc they crawl from, and not just throw a wide blanket and said weve done enough.
Government has shown a complete failure at using the proper granularity it needs in many ways, but I draw the line at our safety, and seeking the truth.
Having the intent of doing this is within all bounds of common sense, and only serves to help us all, not only in stopping the furthermentation of such things, but also allowing for the understanding it takes to define, in a much more granular way, as to who these people are, and their intentions.
If people choose to be stupid, and hate or be racist, as I said, you cant fix stupid, but those that hear such things can begin to have a wider understanding that most of us are in line with the right thing to do, which is all of us wanting the bad to stop.
By diverting the subject reduces all this, and doesnt allow for a greater understanding of all peoples of all walks of life, and thus my point.
December 12, 2011 2:03:29 PM

Not going to wade into what shouldn't really be an ideological discussion, but-

No one did anything because of the politically correct stigma of accusing a Muslim of being a radical, violent, terrorist.

The report doesn't indicate anywhere or at any point that one of the causes for not acting was political correctness based on the perpetrator's religion. It was a failure of communication and cross-agency buy-in. The report didn't focus on motivation, for which I think everyone understands is radical fundamentalism, simply put - but rather the report focused on effect, operations and what went wrong.

Let's take a step back here, friends, and cool off a bit.
December 12, 2011 2:19:04 PM

That fact this act is classified as "workplace violence" and not an act of terror motivated by radicalized Islam speaks volumes jpishgar. Even if it is not clearly stated that way in the article.
December 12, 2011 2:38:02 PM

You remember in The Princess Bride when Vizzini kept using the word "inconceivable" and Inigo Montoya's second most famous line was "I do not think that word...means what you think it means."

Well, as far as terrorism goes... I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Terrorism is the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. There's a fine line between actual terrorism and the just plain outright cracking mind of an insane person. But we don't need to go back and forth on this - all we have to do is check into some other incidents and what they've been called. Post office shootings. Terrorism or not? Not, it would seem. Jared Loughner's attempted assassination of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords that left 6 people dead and 14 wounded? Not so much either, though I'm not sure how much more of a blatantly political statement you can make by killing a judge and trying to kill a Congresswoman.

As an aside, you are linking to a story on a site called Is it really beyond the pale to expect that is going to talk about the workplace violence news?
December 12, 2011 2:59:13 PM

To answer you I would ask you to research the history and root of the word assassin or hashassin. Try to use more than just wikipedia.

Also, I didn't link to anything. jsc started this thread.

However, the MSM is also going out of their way to not call this man a terrorist or this incident an act of terror motivated by radicalized Islam. After reading up on the orgins of hashassins, and how they've been used throughout history to affect poitical change, this will make much more sense.
December 12, 2011 3:06:50 PM

I know the history and the root of the word "assassin". The guy who flew his plane into the IRS building a short while back was not an "assassin". Again, I do not think the word means what you think it means.
December 12, 2011 3:23:53 PM

Wow!! You're a very fast researcher. I studied it for weeks before forming my conclusions. Hats off to you!
December 12, 2011 3:53:47 PM

Thanks oldmangamer. Though truth be told, I didn't actually need to research it in-depth. I know what an assassin is, and already knew of their background in history.
December 12, 2011 4:03:38 PM

Well, I believe it is deliberate terror. Here is an excerpt of why I think so:

The Assassins were also a fighting organization with an army. Grand Master Sabbah chose a fortress located high in the northern mountains of Iran for the headquarters of his new group. This Assassin fortress was known as “Alamut,” which means “Eagle’s Teaching” or “Eagle’s Nest.” The Assassins became a formidable military and political power in the region and eventually controlled other fortresses in Persia and Syria. The Assassins feuded with other Moslem organizations and fought against the Knights Templar and other Christian armies during the Crusades. To help win its feuds and wars, the Assassins developed the deadly tool for which they became famous and feared: the tool of the “lone assassin.”

Most people today are painfully aware of the phenomenon of the so-called “lone assassin.” This is usually a young man in his twenties or thirties who is driven by crazed delusions and who displays little or no concern for his own safety as he murders an important leader in broad daylight, in public, and in front of witnesses. The killing has tremendous shock value and it can greatly affect the political direction of a nation.

Many people believe that so-called “lone assassins” are products of our modern age. It is quite amusing to read ponderous psychiatric tomes to that effect. In truth, the “lone assassin” has been a political institution for over seven hundred years, if not longer. Seven hundred years ago, however, no pretense was made that the “lone assassins” acted alone, as is done today. Back then, the “lone assassin” was known to be an effective and terrifying tool of political and social control. It was a technique used by the Assassin organization to win its wars, increase its political influence, destroy its enemies, and enlarge its coffers by extortion.

How did the Assassin sect get young men to commit the murders? It is not easy to make people kill others, especially when the murderer is likely to be caught and slain himself. The Assassin organization had an effective method for overcoming this natural resistance and programming young men to kill. One of the earliest people to describe the Assassin programming technique was Marco Polo, the famous European traveler of the 13th century who wrote a bestselling book about his journeys. Although Mr. Polo was accused by a few people in his own time of fabricating stories, subsequent investigation has verified nearly everything he described in his famous book.

-From The Gods of Eden chapter 7, sourced from Peter Lamborn-Wilson's Scandal: Essays in Islamic Heresy

"Fascinating material on the Ismaili sect and on Hassan i Sabbah... the only spiritual leader who has anything significant to say in the Space Age."
- William S. Burroughs
in a review of Peter Lamborn-Wilson's Scandal: Essays in Islamic Heresy