Octopus Overlords

President Obama: Look, the point is this: my first job is to protect the American people. It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you've got a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris

http://www.haaretz.com/video/1.641846

The administration then doubled down:

State Department Official:

“They were not all victims of one background or one nationality.”

(They were all Jewish and they were all French)

White House:

"The adverb that the president chose was used to indicate that the individuals who were killed in that terrible tragic incident were killed not because of who they were, but because of where they randomly happened to be."

They weren't killed because they were in a Jewish deli, a kosher deli?

"These individuals were not targeted by name. This is the point."

Not by name but by religion?

"Well, Jon, there were people other than just Jews who were in that deli."

That deli was attacked because it was a kosher deli. This was not any random deli, this was a kosher deli.

"No. I answered the question once."

Yes, I'm sure most people that go to a kosher deli do so randomly.

I have been known to frequent a kosher Jewish deli, but I work with many nice Jewish lawyers and live in Chicago where a good meal is cherished.

I was in a Kosher Deli yesterday. The best chicken soup I've ever had rests in those silver pots of deliciousness.

Thing is the guy didn't just go to the first deli he found he sought out that deli and did so for a reason. Ignoring that reason is silly and accomplishes nothing.

According to a French journalist, the murderer himself called a French TV station and explained in no uncertain terms his motives for targeting the Kosher deli:

Amedy Coulibaly, the Islamist gunman who allegedly killed four people and held others hostage before he was killed by French security forces at a kosher store in Paris on Friday, reportedly told a French journalist at the height of the siege that he had deliberately chosen to target Jews.

“He explained his target, why this kosher store: because he was targeting Jews,” French BFM-TV journalist Sarah-Lou Cohen said.

She said Coulibaly called the TV station soon after 3p.m. Paris time. “We got a phone call” from Coulibaly, Cohen said. “He called us because in fact he was looking to contact the police.”

“He claimed to be part of the Islamic State very clearly,” Cohen said, according to a report on Vox.com. “He said he had instructions from the caliphate. And then another very important element, evidently, as we were saying in the afternoon, he established a link with the Kouachi brothers” — the gunmen who killed 12 people at the Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine on Wednesday.

Coulibaly spoke to BFM journalist Alexis Delahousse, she said, and told him that he and the Kouachi brothers had planned their attacks together.

“He explained also why he did this: to defend oppressed Muslims, he said, notably in Palestine,” Cohen continued. “And finally he explained his target, why this kosher store: because he was targeting Jews.”

I want to know why the administration thinks it's so important that it be a random target that they would continue to say it was despite evidence (and easily found) to the contrary.

What are they seeking to accomplish with "random deli" versus "jewish deli"? Like, what's the administration's motive here?

It's also worth noting that Josh Earnest later tweeted the following:

PressSec wrote:Our view has not changed. Terror attack at Paris Kosher market was motivated by anti-Semitism. POTUS didn't intend to suggest otherwise.
— Josh Earnest (@PressSec)

Not that that really explains all the initial ludicrous spokeshole gobshite.

But, I'm sure the fact that Zarathud and hepcat visited a Kosher deli makes all the difference in the world.

I don't have a problem with trying not to escalate into "Fear teh Terrorists everywhere!" and do in fact prefer to err on the side of not trying to brand everything terrorists - as compared to the media, which knows that "Terrorism!!!" sells papers and TV shows just like anything else that they can make you afraid of.

GreenGoo wrote:I want to know why the administration thinks it's so important that it be a random target that they would continue to say it was despite evidence (and easily found) to the contrary.

What are they seeking to accomplish with "random deli" versus "jewish deli"? Like, what's the administration's motive here?

Some possibilities that come to mind:

1) Hes trying to downplay the terrorism angle (in the same way Fort Hood was called "workplace violence" and there was reluctance at first to call Benghazi a preplanned act of terrorism) - this fits in with his statement that the threat of terrorism is overstated.

2) He's trying to downplay the religious aspect, to downplay the implication of "Us vs. the Muslim world".

3) He misspoke. And his administration was too stubborn to admit he misspoke.

Anonymous Bosch wrote:But, I'm sure the fact that Zarathud and hepcat visited a Kosher deli makes all the difference in the world.

We're both random. What can we say? We like a little nosh.

I think the President just used randomly to mean unpredictable, rather than unbiased.
Standard CYA. He's not on the hook for a kook.

I don't think he was being antisemitic, but I do believe he is being targeted by antisemantics.

RuperT wrote:I think the President just used randomly to mean unpredictable, rather than unbiased.
Standard CYA. He's not on the hook for a kook.

Exactly. Now, the State Department folks then proceeded to muck this up horribly, by trying to say that the President spoke very precisely about this. Their remarks (trying to say that the guy wasn't targeting any specific group) are stupid.

Randomgate is why politicians are so boring:

This is the problem with gaffe-coverage: it's sound and fury, signifying nothing and leaving nothing behind. Worse, it distracts from more consequential, but complicated, debates.

In Vox's interview, Obama contended that terrorism is "absolutely" over-hyped compared to a threat like climate change or epidemic disease. This is something Obama said, as far as I can tell, because he thinks it's true...

...These are all incredibly controversial opinions. The question of who is right and who is wrong on them has huge stakes for national policy. They would be good things to debate! But instead we got Randomgate.

Pyperkub wrote:Randomgate is why politicians are so boring:

This is the problem with gaffe-coverage: it's sound and fury, signifying nothing and leaving nothing behind. Worse, it distracts from more consequential, but complicated, debates.

In Vox's interview, Obama contended that terrorism is "absolutely" over-hyped compared to a threat like climate change or epidemic disease. This is something Obama said, as far as I can tell, because he thinks it's true...

...These are all incredibly controversial opinions. The question of who is right and who is wrong on them has huge stakes for national policy. They would be good things to debate! But instead we got Randomgate.

Except the problem is that those who have an issue with the gaffe see this as a sign that the administration is downplaying terrorism (something it arguably has a track record of doing) - which is just as valid a debate as that the media is over-blowing terrorism.

(But really, the problem was less that the candidate was not boring by misspeaking, but that the administration was so stubborn that they consciously pushed his statement to the absurd conclusion it lead to and refused to admit that he misspoke. A simple "he misspoke" would have cleared it up right away.)

Except that the administration had already characterized the attacks as anti-Semitic, per the link in the article.

Pyperkub wrote:Except that the administration had already characterized the attacks as anti-Semitic, per the link in the article.

It would be nice if they remembered that.

It would be nice if he remembered that.

I can't be " vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris" and "Anti-Semitic attacks like the recent terrorist attack on a kosher supermarket in Paris" at the same time. An attack on a religious group is nearly the opposite of random.

If they blew up a synagogue would it be random if they didn't know the names of anyone inside?

Defiant wrote:

Pyperkub wrote:Except that the administration had already characterized the attacks as anti-Semitic, per the link in the article.

It would be nice if they remembered that.

*shrug*

What if they randomly choose the deli or synagogue?

RunningMn9 wrote:What if they randomly choose the deli or synagogue?

And if pigs had wings they could fly.

They didn't and they don't.

Defiant wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote:What if they randomly choose the deli or synagogue?

And if pigs had wings they could fly.

They didn't and they don't.

It's funnier if you say "If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle."

msduncan wrote:

Defiant wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote:What if they randomly choose the deli or synagogue?

And if pigs had wings they could fly.

They didn't and they don't.

It's funnier if you say "If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle."

Not when talking about kosher delis.

Defiant wrote:And if pigs had wings they could fly.

My question wasn't whether a Kosher deli or a synagogue was selected as a random target over say, a McDonald's. My question was whether or not a target selected randomly within a non-random set would still qualify as random?

Rip wrote:It would be nice if he remembered that.

I can't be " vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris" and "Anti-Semitic attacks like the recent terrorist attack on a kosher supermarket in Paris" at the same time. An attack on a religious group is nearly the opposite of random.

If they blew up a synagogue would it be random if they didn't know the names of anyone inside?

How many Jewish owned/frequented establishments are there in Paris? The fact that he picked that particular one is essentially random chance. I think that was the point. Not random chance for the shooter but random chance for the victims. He didn't know them personally, he didn't target them individually, and didn't care exactly who they were. That's a random shooting. He had a driving motivation but the specific target doesn't appear to be carefully chosen. Remember, he shot people, not the deli.

That's what I was getting at (slowly ).

RunningMn9 wrote:

Defiant wrote:And if pigs had wings they could fly.

My question wasn't whether a Kosher deli or a synagogue was selected as a random target over say, a McDonald's. My question was whether or not a target selected randomly within a non-random set would still qualify as random?

Not perfectly random, no, because there's a method to this "randomness" (the selection of the set of potential targets), and if there's a method, then it's not random.

LawBeefaroni wrote:

Rip wrote:It would be nice if he remembered that.

I can't be " vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris" and "Anti-Semitic attacks like the recent terrorist attack on a kosher supermarket in Paris" at the same time. An attack on a religious group is nearly the opposite of random.

If they blew up a synagogue would it be random if they didn't know the names of anyone inside?

How many Jewish owned/frequented establishments are there in Paris? The fact that he picked that particular one is essentially random chance. I think that was the point. Not random chance for the shooter but random chance for the victims. He didn't know them personally, he didn't target them individually, and didn't care exactly who they were. That's a random shooting. He had a driving motivation but the specific target doesn't appear to be carefully chosen. Remember, he shot people, not the deli.

It wasn't a random chance for the victims - they didn't randomly decide to go into the kosher deli.

If you're saying that he wanted to shoot any and all Jews he could, but didn't care which specifically which ones he killed, sure.

But he definitely killed them for who they were. And it wasn't a random shooting. It was directed at a specific community.

RunningMn9 wrote:

Defiant wrote:And if pigs had wings they could fly.

My question wasn't whether a Kosher deli or a synagogue was selected as a random target over say, a McDonald's. My question was whether or not a target selected randomly within a non-random set would still qualify as random?

Let me answer your question with one as I am prone to do.

If a sniper targeted the next G8G7 summit and killed one of the leaders at random would that qualify as random?

Rip wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote:

Defiant wrote:And if pigs had wings they could fly.

My question wasn't whether a Kosher deli or a synagogue was selected as a random target over say, a McDonald's. My question was whether or not a target selected randomly within a non-random set would still qualify as random?

Let me answer your question with one as I am prone to do.

If a sniper targeted the next G8G7 summit and killed one of the leaders at random would that qualify as random?

How many G7 summits does he have to choose from?

GreenGoo wrote:

Rip wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote:

Defiant wrote:And if pigs had wings they could fly.

My question wasn't whether a Kosher deli or a synagogue was selected as a random target over say, a McDonald's. My question was whether or not a target selected randomly within a non-random set would still qualify as random?

Let me answer your question with one as I am prone to do.

If a sniper targeted the next G8G7 summit and killed one of the leaders at random would that qualify as random?

How many G7 summits does he have to choose from?

Forty some so far I think.

Defiant wrote:

LawBeefaroni wrote:

Rip wrote:It would be nice if he remembered that.

I can't be " vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris" and "Anti-Semitic attacks like the recent terrorist attack on a kosher supermarket in Paris" at the same time. An attack on a religious group is nearly the opposite of random.

If they blew up a synagogue would it be random if they didn't know the names of anyone inside?

How many Jewish owned/frequented establishments are there in Paris? The fact that he picked that particular one is essentially random chance. I think that was the point. Not random chance for the shooter but random chance for the victims. He didn't know them personally, he didn't target them individually, and didn't care exactly who they were. That's a random shooting. He had a driving motivation but the specific target doesn't appear to be carefully chosen. Remember, he shot people, not the deli.

It wasn't a random chance for the victims - they didn't randomly decide to go into the kosher deli.

It was random chance that they were taken hostage. They were not targeted as individuals. They were in the wrong place at the wrong time. And that's what I think Obama was getting at when he said he could understand people being concerned about safety, that it could happen to anyone. But then, I'm not going out of my way to misunderstand a fairly straightforward statement in order to make a mountain out of a molehill.

LawBeefaroni wrote:

Defiant wrote:

LawBeefaroni wrote:

Rip wrote:It would be nice if he remembered that.

I can't be " vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris" and "Anti-Semitic attacks like the recent terrorist attack on a kosher supermarket in Paris" at the same time. An attack on a religious group is nearly the opposite of random.

If they blew up a synagogue would it be random if they didn't know the names of anyone inside?

How many Jewish owned/frequented establishments are there in Paris? The fact that he picked that particular one is essentially random chance. I think that was the point. Not random chance for the shooter but random chance for the victims. He didn't know them personally, he didn't target them individually, and didn't care exactly who they were. That's a random shooting. He had a driving motivation but the specific target doesn't appear to be carefully chosen. Remember, he shot people, not the deli.

It wasn't a random chance for the victims - they didn't randomly decide to go into the kosher deli.

It was random chance that they were taken hostage. They were not targeted as individuals. They were in the wrong place at the wrong time. And that's what I think Obama was getting at when he said he could understand people being concerned about safety, that it could happen to anyone. But then, I'm not going out of my way to misunderstand a fairly straightforward statement in order to make a mountain out of a molehill.

You mean it could happen to anyone who happened to be in the vicinity of Jews or their businesses. It wasn't all that random. There was zero chance that anyone in an Italian deli would have been taken hostage. There was zero chance that anyone not within 1000 yards of a Jewish business would be taken hostage. It was Jews and those who associate with them. Hand it off to the Criminal Minds unit and they would refer to it as anything but a random attack.

A specific minority group was targeted. Not to mention if some right wing Jewish zealot goes off and starts mowing people down in one of Paris's "no go zones" random isn't a word you will see anywhere near the statements or news stories.

Rip wrote:You mean it could happen to anyone who happened to be in the vicinity of Jews or their businesses. It wasn't all that random. There was zero chance that anyone in an Italian deli would have been taken hostage. There was zero chance that anyone not within 1000 yards of a Jewish business would be taken hostage. It was Jews and those who associate with them. Hand it off to the
Criminal Minds unit and they would refer to it as anything but a random attack.

Oh, right, we live in the world of fictional police procedurals now. Maybe CSI could come in and find a speck of pollen that would lead us to the mastermind of the whole thing.


I'm not saying it wasn't targeted. It was. But the victims were random. Unless you think every Jew is exactly the same. Two were form Tunisia, one was from Algiers...students, businessmen... Why didn't he start with Israelis or Jews who supported the French actions in Mali (something he monologued about to the other hostages)? Why? Because he grabbed a random group of hostages. A random element is a key factor in who was killed.

I'm not debating the meaning of the word random. I'm saying that the quote that started this whole "randomgate" nonsense off isn't deserving of even a second glance. There is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the statement. If people take the tinfoil hat off and cool their brain for 5 minutes maybe they can see that.

Rip wrote: Not to mention if some right wing Jewish zealot goes off and starts mowing people down in one of Paris's "no go zones" random isn't a word you will see anywhere near the statements or news stories.

Why does it always come down to this? "Yeah, but if side B did it, it would be a totally different story!"

LawBeefaroni wrote: I'm not debating the meaning of the word random.

No, you apparently are.

This was a targeted attack that was consciously chosen for a specific reason, because he wanted to kill Jews - hell he said he was targeting Jews. Hence, it was not random.

It was not random any more than the attack on Charlie Hedbo was random because some employees died and some employees lived and whether you happened to be one or the other was in part dependent on chance.

Neither of them were random attacks under any reasonable use of that term in this context. They were targeted attacks.

Defiant wrote:Not perfectly random

Right. For some reason, you think that "random" must mean "perfectly random" in order to be "random". If I decide to kill firefighters, and randomly choose a firehouse to attack, that's still a random attack.

Yes, there is an element that is non-random. Maybe more than one element. Maybe I only do my firefighter killin' on Tuesdays, which makes the timing non-random as well.

But if I am open to attacking any firehouse, then there is OBVIOUSLY (to anyone that isn't a firefighter that is committed to becoming outraged over any apparent slight to firefighters) an element of random chance for the victims in terms of them becoming victims.

Because I could have just as easily randomly chosen a different firehouse, and then by random chance they would not have been victims, despite them being firefighters.

For *reasonable* people the attack could be both random and targeted, with no requirement for "random" to be syntactically equal to "perfectly random" to avoid being outraged. You aren't being reasonable because Jews.

Obviously Obama works for ISIS. It 's the only thing that can be said that will end this ridiculous discussion.

RunningMn9 wrote:

Defiant wrote:Not perfectly random

Right. For some reason, you think that "random" must mean "perfectly random" in order to be "random". If I decide to kill firefighters, and randomly choose a firehouse to attack, that's still a random attack.

Yes, there is an element that is non-random. Maybe more than one element. Maybe I only do my firefighter killin' on Tuesdays, which makes the timing non-random as well.

But if I am open to attacking any firehouse, then there is OBVIOUSLY (to anyone that isn't a firefighter that is committed to becoming outraged over any apparent slight to firefighters) an element of random chance for the victims in terms of them becoming victims.

Because I could have just as easily randomly chosen a different firehouse, and then by random chance they would not have been victims, despite them being firefighters.

For *reasonable* people the attack could be both random and targeted, with no requirement for "random" to be syntactically equal to "perfectly random" to avoid being outraged. You aren't being reasonable because Jews.

OMFG.

It was a directed targeted attack at a specific community - that was the primary motivation and defining quality for the attack. It was not random by any reasonable usage of the term. If a random element determines whether the attack was random or not than the attack on Charlie Hedbo was also random. And someone targeting and shooting you would also be random because it would be random whether the bullet hit you in the heart or the lungs or the head or grazed you or missed you.

The administration has admitted that they misspoke, and yet you guys are going to absurd levels in an attempt to defend that misstatement. You want to know whats random? Your argument.

The analogy does not hold up. Targeting a particular newspaper Charlie Hedbo for their actions is different. While the people shot there were not all artists or editorial directors, they worked for someone.

Targeting a location catering to a community of Jews may kill more Jews, but it may also kill non-Jews. Your assumption is that the deli was segregated. There was also no particular reason for that deli compared to a synagogue or other place owned by Jews. It's still a hate crime, but it's unpredictable.

By Defiant's thinking, a University shooting must also be targeted.

Defiant wrote:OMFG.

At least we agree on something.

I didn't realize that your purpose in starting this thread was to just have people post supportive thoughts justifying your questionable semantic outrage. So this will be my last post on the topic.

Defiant wrote:It was not random by any reasonable usage of the term.

I literally just explained to you how to reasonable interpret the word "random" in the context of something that has both random and non-random elements. Like one post ago. The problem is that YOU aren't reasonable. This topic is of a particular nature to you that you are not objective about it. If it was a community of lumbering giants that was attacked, I might be in your position. But I'm not, and so I can remain reasonable without manufacturing outrage.

The fact that *a* Jewish establishment was attacked was not random. The fact that *that* Jewish establishment was attacked may have been *completely* random (in terms of selecting it among the presumably large set of Jewish establishments). And thus, that is how reasonable people like myself (or LawBeef if you prefer a more commonly accepted example of "reasonable" ) can say, "Yeah, I get what is meant by using random that way".

Defiant wrote:If a random element determines whether the attack was random or not than the attack on Charlie Hedbo was also random.

See? This is how the rest of us know that you are incapable of being reasonable about this.

Defiant wrote:The administration has admitted that they misspoke

Wait...the public relations folks that work for a politician caved to public pressure from special interest groups? You're right, that is noteworthy.

Peace.