Председник Америке, Доналд Џ Трамп

[RYLAH]

 

[cloudking]

пре 42 минута, RYLAH рече

 

Kakva bezocna podmetacina!

80% sam siguran da ovo nije pravi Tramp!

[Paradoksologija]

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/06/many-terrorists-first-victims-are-their-wives-were-not-allowed-talk-about

Many terrorists' first victims are their wives - but we're not allowed to talk about that

Helen Lewis, 7 June 2017 

The links between domestic violence and mass killings are now exhaustively documented. So why the conspiracy of silence?

 

In America, they call it the Day Three Story. After a mass shooting, depending on whether the suspect is young or old, white, Asian or black, Muslim or Christian, the press speculates on his motives (and yes, it is almost always a "he"). And then on Day Three, when attention has wandered elsewhere, when he's been deemed a "lone wolf" (white) or a "dangerous radical who hates our way of life" (Muslim), another piece of the jigsaw emerges. He has a history of domestic violence. 

Who are the most likely victims of an American mass shooter, by the way? Would you care to take a guess? It's overwhelmingly likely to be his family. (Of mass killers between 2009 and 2015, 16 per cent had previously been charged with domestic violence. More than half included a partner or close family member in their death toll.) We also know that the time a woman is most in danger from our violent partner is when she tries to leave - when he feels worried that his control is slipping away. 

These incidents are not often described as terrorism, despite a concerted attempt from women's groups to draw out the parallels with other mass killers. One of the most moving statements I've read this year was by the sons of Lance Hart, who killed his wife Claire, along with their daughter Charlotte, after she finally announced she would leave him. On Facebook, Luke Hart wrote:

"It was the result of decades of abuse and controlling and intimidating behaviour. He was a tyrant who wouldn’t let his family live outside of his domination. Our father was a terrorist living within our own home; he had no cause but to frighten his family and to generate his own esteem from trampling and bullying us. For over a decade we had tried to leave on numerous occasions but he manipulated and threatened on every occasion."

Lance Hart killed himself after shooting his wife and daughter - something which is typical in "family annilihation" cases. 

But if we don't care to talk about the role that maleness and masculinity has in such cases, then we definitely don't want to talk about them in relation to Islamic terrorism. But yesterday - Day Three - here it was, a story about one of the London Bridge killers' history of wife-beating and manipulation.

Rachid Redouane kicked and slapped his wife, tried to make her wear the hijab, prevented her from drinking and smoking. He got her pregnant even though it appears that, for him, the marriage was more about getting residency in the UK than love. His control took the form of trying to make her more devout - whereas someone like Lance Hart, with a different set of cultural values behind him, controlled his wife by withholding money and refusing to let her see her friends. 

Redouane is far from the only Islamist terrorist to have a background like this. Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, who drove a truck into crowds in Nice, had a criminal record for domestic violence. After Omar Mateen killed 49 people in the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, his ex-wife said: "He beat me. He would just come home and start beating me up because the laundry wasn’t finished or something like that." 

Like Mateen, the Westminster Bridge attacker Khalid Masood does not seem to have any formal contact with Islamic State or other terror groups. His attack was "inspired" rather than "directed" by jihadi groups such as IS. Masood was also a convert to Islam (as many Islamic terrorists are), appears to have been radicalised in prison, and - surprise, surprise - he also had a history of domestic violence and coercive control. "He was very violent towards her, controlling in every aspect of her life – what she wore, where she went, everything," a friend told the Mirror.

Clearly, the most extreme interpretations of Islam give succour to an impulse which is also felt by other men who are racked by feelings of rage and inadequacy and who feel they deserve more respect. They can berate and bully their wives for not eating halal food and not wearing the hijab or niqab, and tell themselves it's not their pretty control-freakery they're displaying, but the will of God. It gives them an excuse for how they wanted to behave anyway. 

Over the last few days, I have been left completely dejected by the debate which followed the London Bridge attacks. We've had a big public argument about greater police numbers, when the police response was exemplary. We've had Ukip calling for internment camps for some or all of the 3,000 people the security services believe might be actively contemplating an attack.

What we haven't talked about, what it feels like we can never talk about, is male violence. And yet that threads through these stories in so many ways. Take our prisons, which the government worries are a source of radicalisation, even to the extent that Liz Truss has called for special units to isolate radical inmates. Prisons are primarily a problem of men: there are 81,000 of them in British jails, compared with just under 4,000 women. Prisons are overcrowded and underfunded, and they end up being the gutter into which men who have been failed by other services wash out. And then they are released, only to wash back in again. Prisons are both boring and frightening places to be: no wonder young inmates are at risk of radicalisation there, no wonder they seek out a sense of belonging. 

Then there are the red flags which are missed because we don't take domestic violence seriously enough. The whole women's sector is underfunded, and refuge provision is patchy. The budget cuts of the last few years have hit black and minority ethnic women's services particularly hard - see the regular protests by Sisters Uncut. The first victim of a terrorist is often his wife. If she doesn't have anywhere to turn, if she doesn't have anyone to tell, then we are missing chances to stop these men in their tracks. If women's services had better contact with minority groups, we could find out earlier which men had already turned to violence - in their own homes.

Despite this, talking about male violence in the context of terrorism is treated like derailing - like you've mounted your feminist hobby horse when the grown-ups were talking. The people who control the discussion of Islamist terrorism don't want to talk about this stuff. They see discussion of foreign policy, religion and "our values" like old-fashioned teachers saw Maths and English: proper, respectable subjects. Talking about male violence is a bit . . . film studies. Sociology. You know. Softer, girly, less rational, all the ways we dismiss anything associated with women. And of course elevating it in our discourse would mean ceding some ground in the conversation to the experts in the field - who are largely women.

Add to that the fact the right doesn't want to talk about male violence because feminism is seen as inherently left-wing. And finally, garnish the dish with the fact that many of us know or have known a man who behaves like these men did to their wives. Admitting that there might be a link between coercive, abusive behaviour in the home and other forms of violence chips away a little at the safe, comforting Othering we apply to terrorists.

Enough is enough, as Theresa May said in a different context. We have to take the links between domestic violence and terror seriously. The next time someone tells you that people are afraid to talk about the Real Reasons for terror, smile sweetly and agree. Then ask them what they think should be done about male violence. 

 

[Avocado]

 

[Аурор]

пре 16 минута, Paradoksologija рече

We have to take the links between domestic violence and terror seriously.

U istom članku piše da je svega 16% ubica prijavljeno zbog nasilja u porodici ranije.

To nije statistički značajno, nije ni link... Bolji indikator bi verovatno bila boja očiju.

[Аурор]

Idem korak dalje: kad bismo ispravno sastavili listu indikacija, to se ne bi našlo ni u prvih 100.

[Avocado]

пре 31 минута, Аурор рече

U istom članku piše da je svega 16% ubica prijavljeno zbog nasilja u porodici ranije.

To nije statistički značajno, nije ni link... Bolji indikator bi verovatno bila boja očiju.

Ključna reč: prijavljeno, tačnije optuženo ("charged").

Kako si propustio da pročitaš rečenicu koja ide odmah posle te???????

" (Of mass killers between 2009 and 2015, 16 per cent had previously been charged with domestic violence. More than half included a partner or close family member in their death toll.) "

P.S. U stvari nisam siguran da li se ovo "more than half" odnosi na ovih 16% ili na ukupan broj...

[Paradoksologija]

пре 1 минут, Avocado рече

Ključna reč: prijavljeno.

Kako si propustio da pročitaš rečenicu koja ide odmah posle te???????

" (Of mass killers between 2009 and 2015, 16 per cent had previously been charged with domestic violence. More than half included a partner or close family member in their death toll.) "

Čak ni 'prijavljeno', već je prijava dovoljno ozbiljno shvaćena da se neko zvanično optuži.

[Аурор]

пре 21 минута, Avocado рече

Ključna reč: prijavljeno, tačnije optuženo ("charged").

Kako si propustio da pročitaš rečenicu koja ide odmah posle te???????

" (Of mass killers between 2009 and 2015, 16 per cent had previously been charged with domestic violence. More than half included a partner or close family member in their death toll.) "

P.S. U stvari nisam siguran da li se ovo "more than half" odnosi na ovih 16% ili na ukupan broj...

Rečenica posle te znači da se, u većini slucajeva, među ljudima koje masovne ubice ubiju nađe partner ili član uže porodice. Nema veze sa ovih 16%, koliko razumem...

To nam znači da kada vidimo da se desilo neko masovno ubistvo, možemo da pretpostavimo da je stradao i član ubicine porodice.

пре 19 минута, Paradoksologija рече

Čak ni 'prijavljeno', već je prijava dovoljno ozbiljno shvaćena da se neko zvanično optuži.

Kad bismo gledali po prijavama, verovatno je i manje od ovih 16%...

(Ne kažem da nasilje u porodici nije važan problem, samo da nije indikator za ovo koliko se sugeriše, to je poenta članka)

[Paradoksologija]

пре 39 минута, Аурор рече

U istom članku piše da je svega 16% ubica prijavljeno zbog nasilja u porodici ranije.

To nije statistički značajno, nije ni link... Bolji indikator bi verovatno bila boja očiju.

Statistički je najbolji indikator pol...

Ovde su neke statistike za masovne pucačine u SAD, poimence za sve. Puno ima Adama, Dilana, Patrika, Majkla, Tomasa... retko neki Sulejman (ima jedan na -ić).

Koji je procenat muškaraca protiv kojih je podignuta optužnica za nasilje u porodici u opštoj populaciji? Sigurno nije 16% pa da bude statistički nebitno...

Управо сада, Аурор рече

Kad bismo gledali po prijavama, verovatno je i manje od ovih 16%...

(Ne kažem da nasilje u porodici nije važan problem, samo da nije indikator za ovo koliko se sugeriše, to je poenta članka)

Pa prvo ide prijava a onda se podigne optužnica na osnovu prijave za koju se smatra da je osnovana, odnosno dokaziva, nije povučena, itd. Uvek će biti najviše nasilja, pa će deo nasilja biti prijavljen, a deo prijava pretočen u optužnicu. @Avocado ?

[Аурор]

пре 41 минута, Paradoksologija рече

Statistički je najbolji indikator pol...

Pa jeste, i to >99%. To je moćan indikator.

Problem je što "sužava izbor" na 50% populacije.

пре 42 минута, Paradoksologija рече

Ovde su neke statistike za masovne pucačine u SAD, poimence za sve. Puno ima Adama, Dilana, Patrika, Majkla, Tomasa... retko neki Sulejman (ima jedan na -ić).

Sve u ključu "zabranimo oružje", problem je u njemu... Znaš da je onaj lik koji je ubio ljude na premijeri Betmena u Aurori namerno išao u bioskop u koji je strogo zabranjeno da se unosi oružje, znajući da mu niko neće uzvratiti?

A najveći mass shooting u SAD je izvršio onaj musliman u gej klubu na Floridi prošle godine.

пре 45 минута, Paradoksologija рече

Pa prvo ide prijava a onda se podigne optužnica na osnovu prijave za koju se smatra da je osnovana, odnosno dokaziva, nije povučena, itd. Uvek će biti najviše nasilja, pa će deo nasilja biti prijavljen, a deo prijava pretočen u optužnicu.

Problem je što isto tako i pada stepen korelacije. Otprilike je ~15% optužnica, ~3% prijava i <1% nasilja.

[Аурор]

пре 1 минут, Аурор рече

u Aurori

*svaka sličnost je potpuno slučajna

[Grizzly Adams]

Статистички је најбољи индикатор "gun free zone". Сва масовна убиства десила су се тамо где ношење оружја није било дозвољено. Па су поштени људи били разоружани и немоћни да се бране.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Аурор]

пре 14 часа, Juanito рече

Понаша се потпуно исто као ти на овој и сродним темама. 

Ovo je inače pomalo tačno.

[RYLAH]

пре 7 часа, Grizzly Adams рече

Статистички је најбољи индикатор "gun free zone". Сва масовна убиства десила су се тамо где ношење оружја није било дозвољено. Па су поштени људи били разоружани и немоћни да се бране.

 

Ово ме интересује да ли постоје неки статистички подаци, али проверљиви, о томе да је стопа криминала мања у оним областима где је слободно или слободније ношење скривеног оружја. Притом не мислим на неке мање и затвореније приградске области, јер су оне и иначе безбедније, него на урбане области.

Колко сам ја нешто површно упознат, стопе криминала са елемнтима насиља су у суштини исте тамо где постоји контрола набавке и ношења и оних где то не постоји.