« Marianne under attack | Main | One trained in Yemen? »

07 January 2015


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Babak Makkinejad

The "Shoah" - Destruction - in this cartoon is aimed at Iran.


Yes, but this is clearly making fun of the Shoah victim (striped attire, start of David with a dollar sign) advocating Shoah against Iran.


Dr. Silverman,

You know I respect you, but I disagree on your conclusions here.

I get the odds on a shark attack occurring to me are low, but all the same I avoid swimming with seals at dawn and dusk.

Why does the West need to import more semi-literate 3rd Worlders with a 7th Century mindset who think reciting the Koran from memory is the height of,scholarship?

This IS a clash of civilizations, not only externally but internally as well of the people against their leadership.

Adam L Silverman


You're welcome. While I doubt you'll agree with all of Professor Robin's views, I find he's one of the few out there that are spending significant amounts of energy engaging with the question of how, exactly, did the discussion of liberty wind up being reduced to a discussion of first and foremost, and quite/all too often one of economic liberty only.

As for Intel and the gamasutra stuff and the gamergate stuff - everything I've read on that indicates that Intel got burned regarding pulling its adds from gamasutra. Basically they took the gamergate (and can we please stop putting gate after everything that is or is supposed to be a scandal) position hook, line, and sinker. Since we now know from the reporting that there really isn't much there there in gamergate - the initial charges were fabricated allegations from a spurned ex-boyfriend, followed by some really despicable online and real world behavior involving threats of and in some case actual violence (doxxing, swating, etc), all wrapped around a core group of gamers who's real, and not necessarily illegitimate argument is "why do things have to change, this is what I'm comfortable with, this is why I started gaming". Aside from the issue of whether the market is or should change and how the mechanism of truck, barter, and trade should occur in regards to games, or the rate at which it should, Intel is, like every other corporation, interested in making a profit. If they think that this response to their response will fix whatever damage they perceive to their brand and it will preserve or expand their revenues and profits they are going to pursue that strategy. And I say all of that as someone who, at most, plays backgammon and chess on my iPad when on long flights and I need a break from reading or watching whatever cartoon of movie adapted from a comic book that I've downloaded...

Adam L Silverman


Okay, that's interesting. I had not heard of that and a quick google search doesn't turn anything up. Not sure, exactly of its relevance even if it did happen.

Adam L Silverman

Mr. Cumming et al,

You're welcome. I'll bang this together over the weekend. As for the DC sniper, he's a spree killer. Basically the criminological literature on mass murder break things out into three areas: 1) multiple homicides - this includes two or three victims other than the perpetrator, 2) spree killers - those who kill more than three victims, in either geographically connected or disconnected locations, and (usually) within a confined period of time, and 3) serial killers are those that commit four or more murders over an extended period of time.

The DC sniper, while having some elements of both spree and serial killers, from my reading of the literature, fits better within the spree killer label. There are other confusions though. For instance, is Ted Kaczinski a serial killer or a terrorist. I'm on the serial killer side of the argument. His activities sprang from untreated mental illness, his attacks and murders were spread out over time, and his political objectives, such as they were, were the result of his mental illness. In this respect he has much more in common with David Berkowitz the Son of Sam Killer than most terrorists.

Last year I was asked to work with the Office of the Provost Marshal General of the Army (OPMG) and US Army Corrections Command (ACC) on a report on Soldiers who commit mass shootings. So i spent a lot of time going through this literature. One of the things we did in the report was actually apply the shorthand strategy framework of ends, ways, and means to each of the cases we were looking at - there are only six cases that really are under consideration - actually allowed us to get passed a lot of the conceptual issues from the research literature. For instance, if the end/objective was to kill more than four others, but the perpetrator only was able to wound or harm one to three victims. Had we not done this, we would have had only one case to examine, which wouldn't have been very useful. One final note on this - neither mass shooting nor active shooter/shooting are real conceptual terms, rather they are labels that have been created to describe a situation - as in there's a guy with a gun at location X who is shooting at the following number of people. Other than as an immediate descriptor, they don't really help us understand much. This is also where some of the confusion around MAJ Hassan's actions come from, because we use the imprecise term mass shooting, what he did definitely qualifies as such. However, because of several of his pretrial statements, as well as what we now know of his pretrial planning and state of mind, it also could fit within the terrorism category.


When I last looked Israel is not a European nation.

Adam L Silverman


The information regarding the odds of an American being killed in a terrorist attack weren't meant to obscure that there isn't a real problem, that at its root that problem is really internal to Islam, but because of 21st century technology for communications and travel, is a problem we all have to recognize and potentially deal with, or that anything should be imported anywhere. Rather it was intended to right up front indicate that are reactions to these types of events, which are all too often overreactions fueled by our elected and appointed officials and our for profit news media sources, are way out of proportion to the actual threat. I think your swimming analogy is apt: you've got a low chance of being dinner for a shark, but with a little practical and rational prudence, you've further reduced those odds. Our responses to terrorism have been anything like your shark attack mitigation strategy. Unfortunately, the terrorists actually want us to freak out and overreact. That's the only way their message to the majority of say France's Muslim population, which is only 7% of the French population, and while relations haven't been always perfect with their non-Muslim fellow citizens, has been largely resilient too the call of the reactionary, violent extremists like AQ and ISIS. If the response to this weeks attacks is to gang up on French Muslims for reprisals, try to push for a corporate responsibility, rather than for laying the blame on those specifically involved - whether in France or in Yemen, then you give the terrorists what they want: an opening into a now besieged and threatened French Muslim population so they can be exploited, coopted, and/or recruited.


Does this also apply to other ultras? Orthodox Judaism? Anti-abortion zealots? African gangster politicos? All followers of Islam? Or only to the "cultures" we - or, rather, you - don't like at the moment?

Those calling for or diagnosing culture wars/clashes of civilizations and whatnot seldom seem to be paragons of the culture/s they are so ambitious to defend in their own comically clumsy, ugly and suicidal ways.

The supply of "native" semi-literates shows little sign of declining.



I see he blogs at CT, which I occaisionally read. I am very coincidentally reading a biography of Edmund Burke.



Please link to mass murders by anti abortion advocates in the last 20 years (you know, RELEVANT history) or leave the convo with your reflexive prog idiocy TIA.

The others are welcome to screw up their countries as much as they want to. I don't give a f-ck. The current strain of Islam wants to come here and kill people for their 7th century mind set, ergo that's what I'm talking about.


Dr. Silverman,

The issues with the Muslims in France seem to be more on their failure to adapt versus the French engaging in a schizophrenic act of demanding more 3rd world immigration and then treating them like crap? No, I think the fault lies more with Muslim refusal to assimilate. The French aren't segregating the foreigners in no go zones - that's all the residents' fault,

Why does Europe insist on cuddling a cobra to its breast in the form of multicultural idiocy? Boggles the mind.

These sort of attacks are part of the price we the people will continue to pay cause our leadership is blind, craven, and terrified of being called waycis.

You're seeing the first moves in a 4GW of cultures, which is just going to escalate. People WILL want their country to do something. Not allowing every swinging Richard into your country seems to be one such thing. However it is too late for that, so now what? Forced repatriation?

I doubt that - the State has no stomach for dealing with this problem until it absolutely positively has to. Watch for when the OTHER armed camp starts counting coup for the State to crack down on its native citizens, reducing its legitimacy in the eyes of the people.

Interesting times ahead.



The staff shouldn't have been massacred but I'm not sympathetic. They constantly offended people and for what? Shock value? Well, they got shocked when they faced the depraved and manipulated men who finished them off.
I can't post it now but you can find the quests on Democracy Now being interviewed about this topic. I share their feelings.



Word of the day: JUDGEMENT!



"... but I'm not sympathetic." No? Amazing. pl

Babak Makkinejad

Situation in France is not so simple.

For decades, French Police routinely abused North Africans; e.g. police shootings of an Algerian were never investigated.

That started to change in 1980s, if my understanding has been correct.

On the other hand, I have read that in the French supermarkets there are shelves of "halal" foods; attesting to a substantial well-to-do Muslim presence in France which is fully "French" - in terms of language, culture, etc.

On the beaches of Marseilles one can see very many young women of North African descent in bikinis, as well as stylish young men of the same descent.

But I am reminded of q quote about these long-haired types in Muncie, Indiana:

"Yeah, we smoke dope all day but we do not let anyone bad-mouth God."

different clue

The comment of yours which I responded to said nothing about the Danish response to jihadists and jihadist re-integration. You covered that subject in other comments which I had no argument with and therfore made no response to.

Your one specific comment which I specifically responded to had precisely nothing to say about the Danish response to Denmark-based jihadists. Any fellow reader can go back and read it and see that. Your one specific comment which I responded to contained a number of accusations about causing various death, destruction, and chaos in several countries. I noted that America was not the primary contributor to the chaos in Libya or Syria, and that America had precisely zero role in instigating the attacks on Libya. That was strictly and purely instigated by your beloved Brother Countries in Europe. You (Europe) conned us (America) into doing your dirty work for you in Libya so you could take pleasure in blaming us for the outcome of events which you (Europe) set int motion.

Your attempt to pretend that I am ignoring your description of Danish methods in handling Danish jihadists is a cynical bait-and-switch comment considering the fact that the specific comment I specifically limited my response to made no mention of your handling of Jihadists in among the several transparent lies you told about America's sole responsibility for this and that.

I am confident that you will ignore the fact that I precisely and exactly addressed all your particular words in the particular comment that I responded to. You ignored that fact in your response just above and I am confident that you will ignore that fact in your response to this comment as well. Just remember that every other reader here will be able to see the same sequence of comments and replies that I here describe. They can make of it what they will.

And your final paragraph is one extended lie.
The issue you raised in the particular comment which I addressed is exactly the issue of what violent chaos-decay America is and isn't solely responsible for. Your lying accusations were exactly the issue in that particular comment of yours which I particularly answered by pointing out your lies about what particular chaos-zones America is and isn't solely responsible for.

There is a saying: arguing with a liar is like arguing with a child or a mean drunk. It is a pointless endeavor. So I will let you have the last word. If you choose to ignore the focus of my comment just as you chose to ignore my last comment's focus on the particular your-comment which my comment focused on, that is your free choice. And everyone will see you make that choice, if that is the choice you make.

Oh, and . . . if you wish to consider me a right-winger, that is your perfect right. Someone else considered me a liberal or maybe a libertarian. As I noted then, I will note now: if you wish to consider me a right winger, that would be your "theory of different clue". You may be right, you may be wrong. Time will tell.

So go ahead and have the last word, if you wish.

different clue

William R. Cumming,

He certainly did sow some fear and terror around the greater DC area. After all this time, I think I remember reading he was motivated by some kind of family bitterness of some kind and was doing all this killing to impress somebody about something or other. No politics were ever discovered among his motives. He certainly was no anthrax mailer. He didn't need government-personell connections or contact to get any resources of the sort that only government-access-possessors can get.
I guess I would label him a lone nut with a little apprentice.

Babak Makkinejad

The relevance is this:

One is free to express his opinion and his employer is free to fire him for it.



You mean like Meir Kahane and the JDL?



On the very next thread I mention that Christian's did not massacre anyone over the blasphemous 'artwork' titled "Piss Christ" and you said you were not offended by that piece of 'art'. In Paris many individuals were murdered by two men over art and you are not sympathetic because they had "constantly offended people"? When did being offended become a reason for murder? Is this a common view in Baltimore?



You're still reaching back what, 40 years? I see that line of engagement all the time in the US when the left wishes to handwave away Blacks Behaving Badly.

Because of Jim Crow we cannot expect blacks to follow the social contract/Because of the OAS we cannot expect French Muslims to integrate.

Forever with the excuses on why we must accomodate their savagery no matter where it leads.


In reply to different clue 09 January 2015 at 07:31 PM

My first word concluded with this:
"The American way wasn't followed in Denmark in response to the attacks resulting from the Jyllands-Posten cartoons about Mohammed. I'm optimistic it won't be followed in France."

Having dealt with the diversionary attempts I also wrote this:

"The issue I raised is not how other governments (including the then Danish one led by Anders Fogh Rasmussen) connived with your one in the American "War on Terror". The issue at hand is whether the French in response to a terrorist act on their soil should behave like Americans or whether they'd be better to behave like a country that does actually value liberty and free speech and go down the route of treating this as what it is - a major crime committed by criminals. Perhaps you'd now care to address that issue as jonst apparently lacks the equipment to do so."

Apparently neither of you feel able to respond and throw tantrums and accusations of mala fides respectively.

Nice to know what I'm dealing with.




I think we are not talking about sympathizing with the murderers, but not sympathizing with Charlie Hebdo. There is a huge difference.

Some people who are victims of terrible crime are still obnoxious jerks. That they were victims of that crime does not change that. Even as we condemn the crime, we can't make holy martyrs of the jerk victims the way too many people seem eager to turn Charlie Hebdo into.

For the record, I think looneytunes who offend just for shock value, whether Charlie Hebdo, Pussy Riot, Sinead O'Connor, or "Piss Christ" deserve condemnation for being pricks that they are. We may not want to see them "persecuted," but they are still pricks.



I wasn't offended that they lost funding.My apology for lack of clarity.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad