Ten X Nightclub Shooting

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Buster

It is an uncomfortable truth that Islamism is the root cause of a tremendous amount of terrorism.

It's not an uncomfortable truth, it's just the truth. But that doesn't justify jumping to any sort of biased assumption in favour of religious terrorism before you have any sort of evidence to do so. In other words, until you have more than the person's name, the colour of their skin and their religion, it's a fool's errand to start presuming what their motivations must have been. You've just got to wait for more facts.

This is the definition of a bigoted response: "because of the ethnicity their names imply I'm going to assume they're muslims and from that, I'll conclude that this was religious terrorism". Not only is that quintessential bigotry, it's illogical. C doesn't follow from B and B doesn't follow from A.

Now, if they'd been shouting "Allahu Akbar", you'd have something to go on.

This activity follows a profile seen in other acts of Islamist terrorism in the US and France. The probability that this is Islamist terror therefor is above zero percent to a degree that is worth considering.

The possibility that they're deranged cult members who believe in aliens is above zero percent. What's the arbitrary line you've set for "possibility" where it's worth considering, and how can you tell when we've reached it?

The current form is this: "should the TSA bother screening airline passengers if they are 70 year old ladies with walkers, from Nebraska." The idea is that the likelihood of this person being a terrorist is so close to zero that it is not a useful exercise to screen them.

This, I'm with you on - this is inverted profiling. Rather than looking for something in particular, you're ruling OUT certain people who are obviously not a threat in order to focus your resources on the remaining large subset. I think this makes good sense.

[Daradon]

The article did say police were fairly sure it had nothing to do with terrorism.

EDIT: Shoot, if it did, I'm not even scared, I'm relieved. Those are some dumbass terrorists.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It's not an uncomfortable truth, it's just the truth. But that doesn't justify jumping to any sort of biased assumption in favour of religious terrorism before you have any sort of evidence to do so. In other words, until you have more than the person's name, the colour of their skin and their religion, it's a fool's errand to start presuming what their motivations must have been. You've just got to wait for more facts.

This is the definition of a bigoted response: "because of the ethnicity their names imply I'm going to assume they're muslims and from that, I'll conclude that this was religious terrorism". Not only is that quintessential bigotry, it's illogical. C doesn't follow from B and B doesn't follow from A.

Now, if they'd been shouting "Allahu Akbar", you'd have something to go on.

The possibility that they're deranged cult members who believe in aliens is above zero percent. What's the arbitrary line you've set for "possibility" where it's worth considering, and how can you tell when we've reached it?


This, I'm with you on - this is inverted profiling. Rather than looking for something in particular, you're ruling OUT certain people who are obviously not a threat in order to focus your resources on the remaining large subset. I think this makes good sense.

I think that is the question worth pondering here. It's a topic worthy of an open discussion among reasonable people.

But it seems disingenuous to me to suggest that someone with the name Mohamed, shooting a gun into a public space, has an equally likely chance of being an Islamic terrorist as someone with the name Anderson doing the same thing.

[ernie]

Plenty of data that suggest that the uncomfortable truth mentioned a few posts above isn't really any sort of truth for the western/industrialized world.

over 90% of terrorists attacks in the US since 1980 have nothing to do with Islam. Europol statistics show that 2% of terror attacks over the past 5 years were perpetrated by Islamic groups or individuals.

It becomes the majority of reasoning in Africa and most of asia.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by ernie

Plenty of data that suggest that the uncomfortable truth mentioned a few posts above isn't really any sort of truth for the western/industrialized world.

over 90% of terrorists attacks in the US since 1980 have nothing to do with Islam. Europol statistics show that 2% of terror attacks over the past 5 years were perpetrated by Islamic groups or individuals.

It becomes the majority of reasoning in Africa and most of asia.

One of the problems with the data is how "terrorism" is defined. This still cause of considerable debate.

But if you look at the relatively significant terrorist acts in t he United States since 2000, you would almost certainly come to a different conclusion than the Europol data would suggest.

[firebug]

Originally Posted by Buster

One of the problems with the data is how "terrorism" is defined. This still cause of considerable debate.

But if you look at the relatively significant terrorist acts in t he United States since 2000, you would almost certainly come to a different conclusion than the Europol data would suggest.

So the lesson is, if you cherry pick your data you can find the conclusion you want?

Why select 2000? Why not start your data pull from 2001... say October? Would that change the story the data tells?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Buster

One of the problems with the data is how "terrorism" is defined. This still cause of considerable debate.

But if you look at the relatively significant terrorist acts in t he United States since 2000, you would almost certainly come to a different conclusion than the Europol data would suggest.

Another issue is that the data doesn't provide any information about casualties.

Here is the Europol data, which attributes the vast majority of attacks to separatist groups:

http://www.counterfire.org/news/1759...acks-in-europe

How many people have actually been killed by Basque or Corsican separatists since 2006? The Basque groups were very brutal through the 70s and 80s, but since then most of their "terrorist attacks" would be acts of vandalism. A far cry from opening fire in a supermarket.

The problem with the CIA data, is firstly it's outdated, and ends in 2005. Secondly, as you say, there is nothing about the quality of the data:

https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/p...5#terror_05sum

It equates targeted assassinations, vandalism, and attacks on empty properties with September 11. If you actually look at deaths, the only non-islamic terrorist attack with more than 2 deaths were the McVeigh bombing and the anthrax mailings (no one knows who was responsible for the Anthrax and those were targeted attacks).

[Buster]

Originally Posted by firebug

So the lesson is, if you cherry pick your data you can find the conclusion you want?

Why select 2000? Why not start your data pull from 2001... say October? Would that change the story the data tells?

- Data is often lumped and reported by decade, for whatever reason
- More recent data is more interesting than data from further past
- Defining a time isn't cherry picking. It's just defining a time. Cherry pickign would be if I selected for certain events within that time period. Or picked only certain years within that time period.

[JonDuke]

According to their Facebook page, the club where this happened has closed it's doors:
https://www.facebook.com/nightclubten/?fref=ts

[afc wimbledon]

One of the things you need to factor in is that the police get huge funding increases when they wave the magic terrorism wand, that armoured car you've been lusting after but the department of homeland security won't authorize as you are in but**** nowhere, find a way to call the black kids hanging out by the pigglywiggly terrorists and bobs your uncle.

This applies here and in Europe, call it terrorism and the funding opens up for extra officers, flash kit all kinds of goodies.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by JonDuke

According to their Facebook page, the club where this happened has closed it's doors:
https://www.facebook.com/nightclubten/?fref=ts

Possible motive? Maybe the owners owed some debts they couldn't pay and the owners of that debt just wanted to drive down business in retaliation. Would explain why the shooting was so haphazard and random seeming.

[Temporary_User]

Originally Posted by blankall

Possible motive? Maybe the owners owed some debts they couldn't pay and the owners of that debt just wanted to drive down business in retaliation. Would explain why the shooting was so haphazard and random seeming.

More than likely the number of people coming in dropped quite a bit since the shooting. The owners are going to take a quick break to rebrand and will open the doors under a new name.

Nothing significant will change, just hoping in time people won't associate the place with the shooting under a different name.

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by blankall

Possible motive? Maybe the owners owed some debts they couldn't pay and the owners of that debt just wanted to drive down business in retaliation. Would explain why the shooting was so haphazard and random seeming.

Pretty common practice to close the doors then reopen under a new name when #### happens.

3 places here got busted for allowing underage girls in then they just closed and reopened under a new name. Same owners and same locations.

[Hack&Lube]

They probably will rebrand but I doubt they could break their lease so they'll likely re-open in the same place?

[Otto-matic]

Yeah most places just re-brand so you don't google the name and find the history in that bar/club.

IIRC where the roosevelt is on 17th, a police event happened and they shut down and re branded into the Roosevelt.

[Swift]

Mohamed Salad says he doesn't remember why he shot into the crowded Ten X nightclub, injuring one of the patrons, because he was drunk and high on ecstasy at the time.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...plea-1.3789238

So, no real motive at all then.

[CaptainCrunch]

Hopefully the judge ignores that and just focuses on the fact that this dirtbag fired a gun into a crowded nightclub.

I'm tired of people using excuses like they were drunk or high, or someone was mean to them. To me, that's a prime indicator that these people can't be trusted to behave like a normal human being when the chips are down.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Cameron Swift

So, no real motive at all then.

Pfft. Every time I get drunk and high on ecstasy, I look for a bar to shoot up. Only problem is the lack of guns, and the urge to piss in a garbage can.

[polak]

Potentially Killing people seems like the exact opposite of what Ecstasy would make you do.

[rayne008]

Man, not that I've seen a lot of drive by shootings in my life, but...

That whole situation was comically (except for the dude that got shot) ill prepared.

Was the story these 3 dudes were driving around high on something and had a gun and happened to drive by TenX and buddy in the back seats says pull over here, I need to do something?

So weird.