I believe I heard on the radio that he portrayed himself at various times as a supporter of Hizbollah, which is on the radical side that is totally opposite of ISIL. I’m not clear if he mentioned Hizbollah on the phone call, however.
Saying that you’re a supporter of both ISIL and Hizbollah is as whacky as saying you’re both a Yankees and a Red Sox fan. Sure, the two teams are common in that they both play baseball in the American League, but nobody who has any clue of what either organization is would claim that they are friends or associates, or even working on the same cause.
I think the case that Shodan is making – that there’s some kind of cover-up of his terrorist affiliations – is just going to be the new “Obama won’t say radical Islamist extremist homicide bomber let the free market decide I built that we will be welcomed as liberators” catchphrase to say Obama is the worst President ever.
Gosh, if only there were a way to make that information public – you know, instead of excising it when reporting on the rest of his comments. Just imagine if his words on the subject could be quoted and addressed by a free press, or something!
The public “wants” to know all kinds of stupid shit, and the media is happy to oblige. That’s why so much of “the public” are experts on every single detail about the Kardashians and Kanye West but don’t know who their own Congressional representatives or senators are and can’t name a single Supreme Court justice, let alone have any knowledge of their positions on the issues.
Some have suggested that not even the killer’s name should be released. I think that’s going too far, but publishing their bloody manifesto is ridiculously on the other extreme. There is a balance of public interest to be served. Maybe “we” can better understand things given all available information, but “we” are not the only ones making judgments here; judgments are also being made by attention-seeking sickos and extremists who use these opportunities to calibrate just how much publicity they or their cause will be able to garner with these kinds of actions.
That seems like a strange thing to say after the events in San Bernardino and now Orlando.
There is a bit of a difference between a government agency choosing to redact parts of the transcript of the call and the previous criticism of media outlets for giving wall-to-wall coverage of perpetrators of massacres. It’s not an unreasonable position to hope that the government will be forthcoming with the details it has, and that media outlets will exercise a bit of moderation in how they report on those details, is it?
… due to the usual yapping from the Republican side that anything anyone in the Obama administration does must be wrong. But said Republicans have already made clear that the shooter claimed allegiance to ISIS, and Obama made the same statement himself in his radio address. And now we can read it in the shooter’s own words. I feel ever so much more enlightened now.
As the cited article states,
Justice and FBI officials said they relented because the redactions had "caused unnecessary distraction’’ from the work of law enforcement authorities.
"We also did not want to provide the killer or terrorist organizations with a publicity platform for hateful propaganda,‘’ according to the statement.
But now it’s been un-redacted and we can read his own words to the same effect. So now what? Maybe the next unhinged lunatic will be motivated to another mass shooting and leave behind a longer manifesto, knowing that the public will be demanding to read it. Terrorism feeds on fear and propaganda, and the Republicans are giving it to them just to spite Obama and boost their own anti-Muslim crusade.
It’s unreasonable to expect that media outlets will do anything that counters their prime mandate to market and sensationalize news for maximum profit, and if catering to the public’s morbid curiosities is what sells, then that’s what they will do.
Even if news organizations behave like vultures, I’m generally uncomfortable with government secrets. Transparency in government is a virtue we should be encouraging. I understand there will be exceptions, but I don’t think “ISIS” and “al-Baghdadi” were really necessary redactions, especially since the general content had already been widely reported. It served no purpose but to draw further attention to the transcript and the redaction. Sometimes I think the Obama administration is just trolling Republicans. This censoring the transcripts is one of those times.
But yes, in this case it really was useless since it was already out there and if anything the full transcript would aid in showing if he really was pledging support to a bunch of disparate factions as has been claimed. In the end it’s not their call to prevent the news outlets from being irresponsible with the information. Either it is public or it is not.
It’s being treated as an example of terrorism, which is a federal crime, which means it is now a federal investigation, with federal jurisdiction. The 9-1-1 call is evidence pursuant to a federal investigation of a potential federal crime, which may result in the prosecution of the deceased gunman’s wife.
9-1-1 call recording systems will record calls and/or radio traffic for many weeks or months at a go. Those recording systems are in control of a local/state authority, not the federal government.
While the FBI or other federal agencies may want copies of calls, typically that is a copy and not seizing the original. The local authority still needs access to the original to provide copies of calls for other unrelated cases that may have occurred weeks or months prior.
A Freedom of Information request for a copy of the call is then processed by the local authority which holds the original record. Thus the confusion as to why the federal Department of Justice was making determination about making a partial release.
However, it is a valid point that release of a call might compromise an investigation. And for that reason a call might not be released, but in my experience a partial release would be highly unusual. In those instances where a call will not be released, the decision is typically relayed from the local authority which maintains control of the original record.
Not so. It’s as wacky as saying you support Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. They disagree on a lot and are currently at odds, but they also agree on a lot and many people support both.
In this case too, there’s a lot between Hezbollah and ISIL, but there’s common ground on hating the US, Western culture, gays etc., and being in favor of killing in support of that. The guy could easily have supported both.
If that’s really all there was, then it’s hard to imagine that they were really initially motivated by a desire to suppress the Islamic aspect of the call. Because if you take out the Islamic aspect, there’s pretty much nothing left. And if you left in the Islamic stuff but just took out the references to Baghdadi, it looks even worse for the “religion of peace” narrative.
I think you nailed it. He didn’t have any clue of what either organization is. That doesn’t make his attack any less motivated by ISIS, it just illustrates that at least some ISIS supporters are deeply ignorant, which we already sort of knew.
There is no contradiction there. Hezbollah is not Shia-and-only-Shia like ISIL is Sunni-and-only-Sunni, and he claimed Hezbollah membership a year before ISIL was a thing. So it’s not like he was simultaneously pledging allegiance to a world Shia order (and kill all the Sunnis!) and a world Sunni order (and kill all the Shia!); he considered himself a member of an organisation that would unite all Muslims and then sometime in the subsequent three years switched to one that would unite “all” Muslims (but Shia don’t count).
