Gunfire and moments of fear as a rural Oregon school ...

[isaiah40]

You won't see this in the national media! What was the school thinking???? If I was a teacher there and concealed carried there would be two dead cops.
Gunfire and moments of fear as a rural Oregon school tests its readiness

[strike wolf]

I don't like this drill. Idiotic. Lucky no one was seriously hurt.

Also it's not just the cops you have to worry about. There is a precedent for people thinking they've been fatally shot having heart attacks.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

I find it hilarious that we normally label such activities "terrorism" but if the cops do it then it's fine.

-TG

[BigBallinStalin]

I find it hilarious that we normally label such activities "terrorism" but if the cops do it then it's fine.

-TG

Emotional trauma doesn't count as harming innocent civilians, and without a political goal, it's not terrorism.

(But yeah, I know what you mean, and that kind of drill is unnecessary).

[TA1LGUNN3R]

I find it hilarious that we normally label such activities "terrorism" but if the cops do it then it's fine.

-TG

Emotional trauma doesn't count as harming innocent civilians, and without a political goal, it's not terrorism.

(But yeah, I know what you mean, and that kind of drill is unnecessary).

1) As Strike Wolf pointed out, the risk of heart attack is very real, especially as this is a rural school and many teachers in such schools are older. (I'm not going to sauce that, it's just something you'll have to take on faith.)

2) The political goal is to beef up security and instill fear. (Oh! We were so unprepared, I could've died. Guess I better support a tax levy that adds more sheriffs)

-TG

[BigBallinStalin]

I find it hilarious that we normally label such activities "terrorism" but if the cops do it then it's fine.

-TG

Emotional trauma doesn't count as harming innocent civilians, and without a political goal, it's not terrorism.

(But yeah, I know what you mean, and that kind of drill is unnecessary).

1) As Strike Wolf pointed out, the risk of heart attack is very real, especially as this is a rural school and many teachers in such schools are older. (I'm not going to sauce that, it's just something you'll have to take on faith.)

2) The political goal is to beef up security and instill fear. (Oh! We were so unprepared, I could've died. Guess I better support a tax levy that adds more sheriffs)

-TG

These are good points, and I agree with you.

It reminds me: many within the field of terrorism like to distinguish between "state terrorism" and "terrorism" (i.e. done by substate actors--e.g. Al-Qaeda). The examples of state terrorism usually involve case studies like Zimbabwe and the like, but very few are willing to call US drone strikes (state) terrorism or particular policing activities as (state) terrorism--even though such acts fulfill the criteria of terrorism.*

*this explains why the DoD, State Department, FBI, and government-funded terrorist databases use 'odd' definitions of terrorism. Usually, 'terrorism' for them involves committing a crime (e.g. arson as an act of civil disobedience), or attacking off-duty military personnel and military supply convoys in Afghanistan.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

They do the same to their combat stats. I've known a couple of guys who were getting shelled with artillery on a weekly basis, but they never "saw" combat.

-TG

[BigBallinStalin]

They do the same to their combat stats. I've known a couple of guys who were getting shelled with artillery on a weekly basis, but they never "saw" combat.

-TG

Interesting, but let's get back to this:

I find it hilarious that we normally label such activities "terrorism" but if the cops do it then it's fine.

Why does that happen?

I know for drone strikes, many people lean on their nationalist ideology, fill in some 'facts', support the attacks, and get angry if it's called terrorism (which it is).

It's interesting to see how much people have become conditioned over the decades. (The turning point is 1929-1945).

[kentington]

Didn't the article say that is was some of the schools staff members who actually put on the masks?

-
What would have happened if someone retaliated against the perceived assailants and a death occurred?
-
What did this actually prove? Surprised people are easy targets? Already known.
-
What if the school is really attacked now and these teachers think it is another hoax?
-
Why would someone use dashes to separate questions?


These are all questions that the police/staff/idiots will not answer themselves.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

They do the same to their combat stats. I've known a couple of guys who were getting shelled with artillery on a weekly basis, but they never "saw" combat.

-TG

Interesting, but let's get back to this:

I find it hilarious that we normally label such activities "terrorism" but if the cops do it then it's fine.

Why does that happen?

I know for drone strikes, many people lean on their nationalist ideology, fill in some 'facts', support the attacks, and get angry if it's called terrorism (which it is).

It's interesting to see how much people have become conditioned over the decades. (The turning point is 1929-1945).

Oh I'm totally in agreement with you there. I find the use of drone strikes or drones in particular repellant. If you have to enforce your will onto a technologically and economically inferior culture by sending advanced robots with killing capacity to them, then perhaps we should inspect what the reasons are.

Funny story, I actually got into a huge argument with my dad a few years back over this very issue. I called the drones repugnant and those who supported them morally bankrupt (I was a bit more fiery then). He did exactly as you said, tried to justify them through the benefit to American soldiers and whatnot, never mind that innocents lost their lives. "The cost of war."

What would have happened if someone retaliated against the perceived assailants and a death occurred?

Here in Oregon, I believe the "killer" would be justified. The law says that a person is justified in responding with deadly force if they believe that a threat existed. So, if one of the assailants was killed by a teacher, and it was proved that he believed himself or others were going to be killed, then the teacher would be clear.

-TG

[KoolBak]

Interesting.....they WERE teachers that did this...perhaps they knew their co-workers weren't packing heat?

THIS is the town that I've been going to once a year for the past 40 for our annual hunting trip - it is WAY out...closest cop is over an hour away at speed. Interesting......

[BigBallinStalin]

Oh I'm totally in agreement with you there. I find the use of drone strikes or drones in particular repellant. If you have to enforce your will onto a technologically and economically inferior culture by sending advanced robots with killing capacity to them, then perhaps we should inspect what the reasons are.

Funny story, I actually got into a huge argument with my dad a few years back over this very issue. I called the drones repugnant and those who supported them morally bankrupt (I was a bit more fiery then). He did exactly as you said, tried to justify them through the benefit to American soldiers and whatnot, never mind that innocents lost their lives. "The cost of war."

One main problem with drone strikes is that they reduce the price for war. There's no dead US soldiers, so there's hardly any chance of a backlash from public opinion. With a decreased cost in war, then the USG will simply engage in more wars on a more frequent basis.

That wouldn't be too bad if the program was effective--in that it would reduce/end terrorism, but given the civilian casualties and the numerous opportunities for media companies to sensationalize the US terrorism to sympathetic audiences, then I highly doubt drone strikes will be ineffective in reducing (contra American/Western) terrorism.

And since the costs of American weapons are externalized (i.e. not felt by US foreign policymakers and politicians, but rather taxpayers), then they'll continue supplying and warring at quantities beyond necessary. Eventually, we'll get another backlash from some terrorist group, which the USG will react to by bombing them (see: Afghanistan 1980s to today). It's an endless cycle of stupid interventionism, and unfortunately since it's profitable for politicians and bureaucrats to maintain this status quo, then the self-serving agenda will continue--until of course people start thinking critically and advocate for more libertarian policies (which may not happen).

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Oh I'm totally in agreement with you there. I find the use of drone strikes or drones in particular repellant. If you have to enforce your will onto a technologically and economically inferior culture by sending advanced robots with killing capacity to them, then perhaps we should inspect what the reasons are.

Funny story, I actually got into a huge argument with my dad a few years back over this very issue. I called the drones repugnant and those who supported them morally bankrupt (I was a bit more fiery then). He did exactly as you said, tried to justify them through the benefit to American soldiers and whatnot, never mind that innocents lost their lives. "The cost of war."

One main problem with drone strikes is that they reduce the price for war. There's no dead US soldiers, so there's hardly any chance of a backlash from public opinion. With a decreased cost in war, then the USG will simply engage in more wars on a more frequent basis.

That wouldn't be too bad if the program was effective--in that it would reduce/end terrorism, but given the civilian casualties and the numerous opportunities for media companies to sensationalize the US terrorism to sympathetic audiences, then I highly doubt drone strikes will be ineffective in reducing (contra American/Western) terrorism.

And since the costs of American weapons are externalized (i.e. not felt by US foreign policymakers and politicians, but rather taxpayers), then they'll continue supplying and warring at quantities beyond necessary. Eventually, we'll get another backlash from some terrorist group, which the USG will react to by bombing them (see: Afghanistan 1980s to today). It's an endless cycle of stupid interventionism, and unfortunately since it's profitable for politicians and bureaucrats to maintain this status quo, then the self-serving agenda will continue--until of course people start thinking critically and advocate for more libertarian policies (which may not happen).