Are your kids confrontational? They might be terrorists

[Jedidiah]

Yeah, but RogueTechJunior made a smouldering pile of ashes out of my box.

That is why my method is a steel drum.

[Just Some Dude]

You know, I have a wild theory: Lisa Monaco is the actual terrorist right here.

I call for her indefinite detention and suspension of her constitutional rights!! Because we apparently do that in this country now.

[seanD]

At least attempt to get the quote complete:

Source: Lisa Monaco Remarks

Local communities are the most powerful asset we have in the struggle against violence and violent extremism. We’ve crunched the data on this. In the more than 80 percent of cases involving homegrown violent extremists, people in the community—whether peers or family members or authority figures or even strangers—had observed warning signs a person was becoming radicalized to violence. But more than half of those community members downplayed or dismissed their observations without intervening. So it’s not that the clues weren’t there, it’s that they weren’t understood well enough to be seen as the indicators of a serious problem.

What kinds of behaviors are we talking about? For the most part, they’re not related directly to plotting attacks. They’re more subtle. For instance, parents might see sudden personality changes in their children at home—becoming confrontational. Religious leaders might notice unexpected clashes over ideological differences. Teachers might hear a student expressing an interest in traveling to a conflict zone overseas. Or friends might notice a new interest in watching or sharing violent material.

The government is rarely in a position to observe these early signals, so we need to do more to help communities understand the warning signs, and then work together to intervene before an incident can occur, while always respecting our core commitment to protecting privacy and civil liberties. During the past several years, that’s what we’ve attempted to do.

© Copyright Original Source

I don't see from what she said even here where it was taken out of context. It seems like you're grasping at straws just to defend what she said, which is weird.

[Cerealman]

Once the kids realize there is no wifi or cellphone service in Taliban country, they will give up this foolish idea.

not yet anyway

[Cerealman]

Once the kids realize there is no wifi or cellphone service in Taliban country, they will give up this foolish idea.

Also I can definitely go without my cellphone.


















































































10 seconds tops.

[Teallaura]

I don't see from what she said even here where it was taken out of context. It seems like you're grasping at straws just to defend what she said, which is weird.

I suppose the comment about them being early warning signs might matter - but it doesn't look like much, if any, difference to me. Only one of the four makes any real sense - the rest are indistinguishable from societal norms: teens become confrontational; all ideological clashes seem to come out of the blue; friends become interested in new things - sometimes violent ones (which would include most video games and movies nowadays). Few people express a sudden desire to live in the Middle East, however, so that one is at least distinguishable, albeit a poor indicator because not everyone interested in the Middle East wants to become a terrorist...

[Carrikature]

I don't see from what she said even here where it was taken out of context. It seems like you're grasping at straws just to defend what she said, which is weird.

The thread title, and the article linked, both make it seem that Lisa Monaco believes aberrant behavior is akin to terrorism. Your OP takes it beyond just that by insinuating her belief is that we should all be spying on each other. It's somewhat understandable, but it's ultimately a misunderstanding of her claim due in part (I think) because the quotes were taken out of context.

In the first place, the difference between violent extremism and terrorism is subtle but real. Hence, 'your children might be a terrorist' is not an accurate representation. Yes, terrorism falls under the umbrella of violent extremism, but they are not identical. Terrorist cells exist, but 'violent extremism' can also entail racial and other motivations. From the same transcript I linked before:

Source: Lisa Monaco

We’ve faced violent expressions of extremism throughout our history, including 19 years ago this week in Oklahoma City. And, sadly, we continue to face it, as we saw just two days ago in Overland Park, Kansas, when a gunman—allegedly a white supremacist with a long history of racist and anti-Semitic behavior—opened fire at a Jewish community center and retirement home, killing three. And, while the American people continue to stand united against hatred and violence, the unfortunate truth is that extremist groups will continue targeting vulnerable populations in an effort to promote their murderous ideology.

© Copyright Original Source

These are the events her speech focuses on, and it is these kinds of events for which they have discovered that people familiar with the perpetrators noticed warning signs, signs that were either ignored or misunderstood. That's the context that is missing. The speech was not about terrorism, it was about those possessing radical beliefs to the point of acting violently upon them.

In that context, we can review the portion the article quoted and for which I provided a broader cite. Yes, teenagers are confrontational, but a noticeable trend towards violent solutions is something parents should watch for anyway. Yes, people can and do argue or disagree with their religious leaders, but if those disagreements trend towards "kill the infidel", there is cause for concern. Yes, teachers might hear a student expressing an interest in traveling to a conflict zone overseas, but the reason for that desire is what is really the concern. If it's 'learn about the causes firsthand', that's one thing. If it's 'learn how/why a group decided to violently stand up for themselves', that's quite another. Interest in watching violent material is more of the same. In all of these cases, the issue is as much or more about what is happening to drive these behaviors rather than the behaviors themselves.

In context, we can see that her comments are not in anyway a suggestion that your kids are terrorists, but that recognizing certain behaviors and what they could imply is an important part of prevention. Lisa Monaco did not extend her speech to include things like Aurora or Newtown, but the people responsible for such acts similarly portray certain behaviors that could have been recognized and addressed prior to the fact. This isn't even news.

[Teallaura]

The 'warning signs' are such incredibly poor indicators that they really are more harmful than useful. A good indicator must be distinguishable from the norm - and only one of the four is. It must also be strongly correlated - I'm not sure that the fourth is, and in fact, doubt it seriously. Poor indicators result in a lot of unnecessary false alarms which waste resources and run the risk of inoculating people against responding (we see this when too many tornado warnings fail to result in storms, et al).

The title merely restates Monaco's own indicator - and the problem is far more with the inability of those indicators to distinguish themselves than with Sean D's title choice.

[Carrikature]

The 'warning signs' are such incredibly poor indicators that they really are more harmful than useful. A good indicator must be distinguishable from the norm - and only one of the four is. It must also be strongly correlated - I'm not sure that the fourth is, and in fact, doubt it seriously. Poor indicators result in a lot of unnecessary false alarms which waste resources and run the risk of inoculating people against responding (we see this when too many tornado warnings fail to result in storms, et al).

The title merely restates Monaco's own indicator - and the problem is far more with the inability of those indicators to distinguish themselves than with Sean D's title choice.

Were the speech meant to be anything more than informative about the existence of collaboration and the need to pay attention, I'd be willing to critique her indicators. Barring that, I'm unwilling to believe she considers these indicators sufficient or even expressed in sufficient detail based on this speech alone. The point of the speech is part of the context that was missing, too. We otherwise agree.

For what it's worth, my posts here have certainly critiqued seanD's presentation to some degree, but that is more peripheral than anything intended specifically against him. The article itself portrays pretty much the same thing as what he has presented. I realize that my initial post in this thread was unclear as to its direction. SeanD, nothing I've said in this thread has been intended as an attack against you.

[Teallaura]

Were the speech meant to be anything more than informative about the existence of collaboration and the need to pay attention, I'd be willing to critique her indicators. Barring that, I'm unwilling to believe she considers these indicators sufficient or even expressed in sufficient detail based on this speech alone. The point of the speech is part of the context that was missing, too. We otherwise agree.

For what it's worth, my posts here have certainly critiqued seanD's presentation to some degree, but that is more peripheral than anything intended specifically against him. The article itself portrays pretty much the same thing as what he has presented. I realize that my initial post in this thread was unclear as to its direction. SeanD, nothing I've said in this thread has been intended as an attack against you.

1) Since speeches are meant to inform, I think the indicators are very much fair game, whether or not she has others she didn't present or believes these insufficient (in which case why present them at all).

2) Fair enough.

[Carrikature]

1) Since speeches are meant to inform, I think the indicators are very much fair game, whether or not she has others she didn't present or believes these insufficient (in which case why present them at all).

Sure, speeches are meant to inform. My point was that the speech wasn't about the indicators except in passing. As for the indicators themselves, I certainly wish she would have bothered to present them more clearly. It took very little effort on my part to understand what was intended, but it's so vague as to be virtually meaningless to someone who doesn't already know what those indicators are. I'm not giving her (or her speech writers) any credit for having done it well. My real complaint is with the author of the article who, while liberally sprinkling quotes, apparently failed to understand or portray the thrust of the speech, choosing instead to focus on a very minor portion.

[Darth Executor]

Is your wife turning into a confrontational hag? She might be a terrorist. It does tend to make you ugly:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]490[/ATTACH]
Up-and coming Chechen revolutionaries, sporting sweet 80s hairstyles.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]491[/ATTACH]
Father still has fashion sense, bomb momma full of grimace lines.

Ugh, when will people learn. Attachments are not visible to most people. Upload pics to imgur then hotlink them.

[seanD]

The thread title, and the article linked, both make it seem that Lisa Monaco believes aberrant behavior is akin to terrorism. Your OP takes it beyond just that by insinuating her belief is that we should all be spying on each other. It's somewhat understandable, but it's ultimately a misunderstanding of her claim due in part (I think) because the quotes were taken out of context.

In the first place, the difference between violent extremism and terrorism is subtle but real. Hence, 'your children might be a terrorist' is not an accurate representation. Yes, terrorism falls under the umbrella of violent extremism, but they are not identical. Terrorist cells exist, but 'violent extremism' can also entail racial and other motivations. From the same transcript I linked before:

Source: Lisa Monaco

We’ve faced violent expressions of extremism throughout our history, including 19 years ago this week in Oklahoma City. And, sadly, we continue to face it, as we saw just two days ago in Overland Park, Kansas, when a gunman—allegedly a white supremacist with a long history of racist and anti-Semitic behavior—opened fire at a Jewish community center and retirement home, killing three. And, while the American people continue to stand united against hatred and violence, the unfortunate truth is that extremist groups will continue targeting vulnerable populations in an effort to promote their murderous ideology.

© Copyright Original Source

These are the events her speech focuses on, and it is these kinds of events for which they have discovered that people familiar with the perpetrators noticed warning signs, signs that were either ignored or misunderstood. That's the context that is missing. The speech was not about terrorism, it was about those possessing radical beliefs to the point of acting violently upon them.

In that context, we can review the portion the article quoted and for which I provided a broader cite. Yes, teenagers are confrontational, but a noticeable trend towards violent solutions is something parents should watch for anyway. Yes, people can and do argue or disagree with their religious leaders, but if those disagreements trend towards "kill the infidel", there is cause for concern. Yes, teachers might hear a student expressing an interest in traveling to a conflict zone overseas, but the reason for that desire is what is really the concern. If it's 'learn about the causes firsthand', that's one thing. If it's 'learn how/why a group decided to violently stand up for themselves', that's quite another. Interest in watching violent material is more of the same. In all of these cases, the issue is as much or more about what is happening to drive these behaviors rather than the behaviors themselves.

In context, we can see that her comments are not in anyway a suggestion that your kids are terrorists, but that recognizing certain behaviors and what they could imply is an important part of prevention. Lisa Monaco did not extend her speech to include things like Aurora or Newtown, but the people responsible for such acts similarly portray certain behaviors that could have been recognized and addressed prior to the fact. This isn't even news.

What Teallaura said. And if I may briefly add: Lisa is an official counterterrorism “expert” giving a speech about terrorism on the Boston bombing day memorial and who directly used that event as the catalyst of the speech in the beginning of the speech, so don’t tell me it wasn’t based on terrorism. She didn’t mention Aurora or Newtown because of the very fact it WAS based on what is officially classified as terrorism. You’re merely projecting a context she didn’t intend. However, in spite of the sensationalism of terrorism, data shows that it’s a miniscule problem in the US. The statements she made, that hinge on paranoia, are not justified by the actual problem of terrorism in the US, particularly her charge for us to watch for certain behaviors in children that are normal adolescent behavior. Her statements correlate with the sensationalism of terrorism portrayed in the MSM (and the continuity of that I believe is the intent), not the reality of the problem of terrorism in the US, and deserve the ridicule and scorn that I’m hopefully achieving with this thread.

[Teallaura]

Sure, speeches are meant to inform. My point was that the speech wasn't about the indicators except in passing. As for the indicators themselves, I certainly wish she would have bothered to present them more clearly. It took very little effort on my part to understand what was intended, but it's so vague as to be virtually meaningless to someone who doesn't already know what those indicators are. I'm not giving her (or her speech writers) any credit for having done it well. My real complaint is with the author of the article who, while liberally sprinkling quotes, apparently failed to understand or portray the thrust of the speech, choosing instead to focus on a very minor portion.

Okay.

[Sparko]

I think we should have a specific youth corps trained to spot terrorists and signs of terrorism. They should have their own logo, a broken "t" to signify breaking terrorism and protecting our country.