re: NYT's ISIS expert: ISIS likely behind LV attack.

Troll on little feller.

quote:

---

She did her job of keeping the fear alive without completely hemming herself in. Her premise was bullshite, as you pointed out, but she knows that popular sentiment and general fear will get her a bump and publishers everywhere love shite like this.

---

Your posts have made me think about it a little more.

And while I don't have a major issue what what she said, or her general conclusion, but I’m growing more critical of what she didn't say, even disregarding bus demographic profile. Specifically, she should have provided:

1. How many of the 47 that were not false, were verified as true?
2. How many attacks were by recent converts, unknown to anybody, including any evidence of Islamic faith whatsoever?

Unless there is an example, the second one doesn't pass any logical test. If one is committing an act based on a religious belief, one would expect at least some evidence of that religious belief.

But I'm also wondering if it's possible that he decided he wanted to commit this act, and decided to research in preparation. Well if he wanted to commit an act that is usually committed by Islamic terrorists, then it seems logical to reseach the methods of those terrorists.

But without the belief system, and/or doing it for that cause, then even if used ISIS for his research, it still wouldn't be Islamic Terrorism.

quote:

---

And while I don't have a major issue what what she said

---

My major beef is really simple. Saying that ISIL is responsible for something that a person does when ISIL had no operational involvement i.e. Planning, funding, mentoring, logistics etc is at best erroneous and at worst dishonest. It's like saying that the Braves are responsible for the fish I caught last weekend because I sympathize with them. We wouldn't apply this logic universally. Most everyone rejects this logic when it appears in civil cases concerning video game violence.

Using her logic, virtually any Muslim terrorist who had viewed an ISIS video can be claimed as an agent of ISIS. This makes them seem far more operationally capable than they are. Seeming more effective than they are is a critical recruiting tool of terrorist organizations and insurgencies. It a doctrinal principle of insurgent and terrorist strategy. She is carrying water for ISIS by using this criteria. Good for clicks tho.

ISIL has made thousands of claims for attacks and actions that are complete or partially fabrications. Even their execution videos contain deliberately misleading content,though they are responsible for the killings. Lying is what they do. They are very good at propaganda and their entire goal is to motivate others to join them. Which means they need to appear effective and terrifying. It's ridiculous that a journalist who thinks herself so knowledgeable of them hasn't stumbled upon the hundreds of obvious examples of exaggeration and deliberately misleading ISIS claims. She's confirming her bias and writing attention grabbing stories in doing so.

quote:

---

But I'm also wondering if it's possible that he decided he wanted to commit this act, and decided to research in preparation. Well if he wanted to commit an act that is usually committed by Islamic terrorists, then it seems logical to reseach the methods of those terrorists.

But without the belief system, and/or doing it for that cause, then even if used ISIS for his research, it still wouldn't be Islamic Terrorism.

---

The issue for me is that ISIS claimed him as a "soldier of the Islamic state",not just that he was Muslim.

If he converted and committed the act, that doesn't mean he is an ISIS agent. If they had no direct link with him, then their claim is only partially true: he converted to Islam.

Allowing them to claim him as an agent without proof is directly beneficial to them. There is no honest reason to do this.

quote:

---

But I find it odd how she noted her "50 examples." I have no idea how she made any determinations about it. It's more scientific than a lot of the junk, but still not very scientific.

---

She included "sympathetic to ISIS" as a criteria. Considering that ISIS is the hot shite for Sunni terrorists, this is going to rope in a huge number of attacks, and attributes them to an organization that may not have had any actual involvement. It's dumb.

If she is a hot shite journo, then she should publish the actual links between the terrorst and the actual ISIS organization for all to see.

We will likely never see that, because the numbers wouldn't be impressive.

quote:

---

If 1-3, could they claim credit for individual C doing X?

---

They cannot claim his actions as a capability in any way. Given an inability to control his operation, then they cannot reasonably claim credit.

If a man murders brother with a cudgel after reading the story of Cain and Abel, can Cain claim credit for the murder? Does that mean Cain is responsible? Would the writer of the story be convicted?

The logic used to tie some of these terrorists to the ISIL organization would not be accepted universally. Almost everyone would reject that the writer of the Bible is culpable, or that he could claim the murderer as an agent of his operation.

Practically, this matters because allowing ISIL to claim credit without objection is to allow them to appear more effective and capable than they are. It benefits them greatly.

Note that I am not claiming that ISIL propaganda doesn't have any impact on the decisions that people make, I am merely claiming it doesn't make them responsible when they had no direct link to the operation.

quote:

---

They cannot claim his actions as a capability in any way.

---

I haven't followed too close.. is that their claim?

Originally they were saying "it was us" and that he converted to Islam 6 months ago.

I am almost sure that if they are even tangentially involved, they would way over-state their involvement. But if (and I stress "if") he converted and talked to some ISIS guy and said "hey, I'm Muslim now. Death to America, brothers. You were my models", them claiming some responsibility isn't that far-fetched.

But to your point of them claiming any operational or logistical involvement with zero supporting evidence, that's irresponsible of us to augment that propaganda with any legitimacy.

quote:

---

I haven't followed too close.. is that their claim?

Originally they were saying "it was us" and that he converted to Islam 6 months ago.

---

They stated that he converted and that he was a "soldier of the Islamic state" who was acting on the order to attack westerners domestically.

That claim in and if itself is weak AF. They didn't make a string claim of responsibility. The western press is making a stronger claim than they did, actually. They almost always do.

The issue here is that ISIS operational capabilities are being overstated. That matters a lot.

quote:

---

But if (and I stress "if") he converted and talked to some ISIS guy and said "hey, I'm Muslim now. Death to America, brothers. You were my models", them claiming some responsibility isn't that far-fetched

---

I disagree here. If I called the fight club film crew and said "message received, I'm gonna burn a smiley face in a skyscraper" it wouldn't reflect any responsibility or culpability on their part. Even If they secretly wanted me to do that.

But the biggest issue here is that it's being portrayed that ISIL makes legit claims about their involvement in attacks. Usually, they have no involvement at all. These are mostly spontaneous actors with no links to the established ISIL organization.