AURaptor 1,125 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 Terrorism is a crime. Water is wet. And ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooltigger21 0 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 So now we're going to compare terrorists like ordinary street criminals. That will work really well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,125 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 So now we're going to compare terrorists like ordinary street criminals. That will work really well. That's exactly what the Obama administration has been trying to do since day 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,898 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 Yes you have & it's a great discredit to the 1000's murdered & tortured from violent jihad. Link to it or admit you're absolutely insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooltigger21 0 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 So now we're going to compare terrorists like ordinary street criminals. That will work really well. That's exactly what the Obama administration has been trying to do since day 1. That would be an upgrade. Bubba treated it that way. Sudan had OBL captured and offered him to the United States. They wouldn't take him because they couldn't indict him as if he was a criminal in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,898 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 So now we're going to compare terrorists like ordinary street criminals. That will work really well. Depends on intent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUUSN 823 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 So now we're going to compare terrorists like ordinary street criminals. That will work really well. No one has said that. Mass shootings and active shooter events are acts of terrorism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUUSN 823 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 So now we're going to compare terrorists like ordinary street criminals. That will work really well. Depends on intent. They want label Ft. Hood a terrorism event, which I agree, but other mass shootings arent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,125 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 Yes you have & it's a great discredit to the 1000's murdered & tortured from violent jihad. Link to it or admit you're absolutely insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quietfan 233 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 My point is simply mass shootings in the US are on the rise. That's the terrorism threat we face. That's terrorism in America. It's not. There is no unifying , organized force at work here. It's terrifying, but it does not fit the definition of what is " terrorism". Terrorism NOUN the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims As I stated before, there is no connection between all of these incidents. You are correct that there is no connection between all the incidents reported on AUUSN's chart(s), and no organized, unifying force at work among them (unless we count simply hate and/or evil as an organized force). But then neither your posted definition nor AUUSN's (FBI?) definition of terrorism mentions an 'organized unified force' or 'connection to other incidents' as an essential component of 'terrorism'. (Perhaps you'd care to revise your definition to incorporate your other statements that imply a unified organized force or connection to other incidents is an essential component of terrorism? You're certainly free to do so and I won't begrudge you such a clarification or shift in your claim.) Eric Rudolf's bombings were the actions of a lone individual with no organized force or organization behind him. Timothy McVeigh's & Terry Nichols' mass murder in Kansas City was an isolated incident with no organized force or group behind it. But the actions of all three clear satisfy both definitions of terrorism given by you and AUUSN: Violence committed for political reasons. Of course, since we don't yet know the motive (or at least I haven't yet seen any authority or news source confirm a motive) behind yesterday's shooting, it's too early to call it terrorism. It's reasonable to suspect a political motive when premeditated violence erupts at an abortion clinic, but no political agenda has yet been confirmed. Robert Dear may have been driven by personal reasons or demons unrelated to the abortion debate and have had no political agenda. Until we are sure of his motives, we cannot say with any certainty that yesterday's shooting qualifies as 'terrorism' under either of the two definitions y'all provided. You are also correct that Daesh, Al Qaeda, and other such groups are large organized forces with significant power and the ability to initiate multiple incidents. I don't think any of us disagrees with that. For that matter, I wouldn't go so far AUUSN in calling the many mass shootings 'terrorism': Certainly they are terrifying, but most don't incorporate the essential element of political motivation, many were the result of domestic/family conflict, disgruntled employees/students, or individual psychotic episodes. However the statistics reported by AUUSN indicated (at least to me) that such isolated incidents as yesterday's and the others on his list are a greater daily threat to residents of our country, which I think is his point. Certainly I feel more at risk from such isolated acts of violence when I leave my home each morning than from Daesh. (Particularly since I work on a school campus.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,898 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 So now we're going to compare terrorists like ordinary street criminals. That will work really well. Depends on intent. They want label Ft. Hood a terrorism event, which I agree, but other mass shootings arent. I consider the Ft. Hood shooter a terrorist. For this guy, it will ultimately come down to intent, which they don't appear to know yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,898 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 Yes you have & it's a great discredit to the 1000's murdered & tortured from violent jihad. Link to it or admit you're absolutely insane. :laugh:/> I accept your admission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,125 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 Yes you have & it's a great discredit to the 1000's murdered & tortured from violent jihad. Link to it or admit you're absolutely insane. :laugh:/> I accept your admission. Admission of WHAT ??? Even YOU have no freaking idea of what you're asking !!! Link to what ? That there HASN'T been a jihadist fueled genocide of non believers and other Muslims going on in the Middle East and N. Africa ?? Or to ME stating my OPINION that playing the equivocation game , as USN is trying to do is in fact not respecting the lives of those killed by militant Islam ??? You really have turned the nutty corner, TT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,125 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 Hey Texas Tiger ! Here's you link !! Bonjour !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUUSN 823 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 My point is simply mass shootings in the US are on the rise. That's the terrorism threat we face. That's terrorism in America. It's not. There is no unifying , organized force at work here. It's terrifying, but it does not fit the definition of what is " terrorism". Terrorism NOUN the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims As I stated before, there is no connection between all of these incidents. You are correct that there is no connection between all the incidents reported on AUUSN's chart(s), and no organized, unified force at work among them (unless we count simply hate and/or evil as an organized force). But then neither your posted definition nor AUUSN's (FBI's?) definition of terrorism mentions an 'organized unified force' or 'connection to other incidents' as an essential component of 'terrorism'. (Perhaps you'd care to revise your definition to incorporate your other statements that imply a unified organized force or connection to other incidents is an essential component of terrorism? You're certainly free to do so and I won't begrudge you such a clarification or shift in your claim.) Eric Rudolf's bombings were the actions of a lone individual with no organized force or organization behind him. Timothy McVeigh's & Terry Nichols' mass murder in Kansas City was an isolated incident with no organized force or group behind it. But the actions of all three clear satisfy both definitions of terrorism given by you and AUUSN: Violence committed for political reasons. Of course, since we don't yet know the motive (or at least I haven't yet seen any authority or news source confirm a motive) behind yesterday's shooting, it's too early to call it terrorism. It's reasonable to suspect a political motive when premeditated violence erupts at an abortion clinic, but no political agenda has yet been confirmed. Robert Dear may have been driven by personal reasons or demons unrelated to the abortion debate and have had no political agenda. Until we are sure of his motives, we cannot say with any certainty that yesterday's shooting qualifies as 'terrorism' under either of the two definitions y'all provided. You are also correct that Daesh, Al Qaeda, and other such groups are large organized forces with significant power and the ability to initiate multiple incidents. I don't think any of us disagrees with that. But the statistics reported by AUUSN indicated (at least to me) that such isolated incidents as yesterday's and the others on his list are a greater daily threat to residents of our country. Absolutely and well stated! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,125 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 The ( planned ) confusion of grouping EVERYTHING under one massive umbrella of " terrorism ", which is what the Left want to do, is part of the PC nonsense which runs from the use of ISLAM when talking about such attacks as 9-11 , Paris, and what is going on w/ the JV team. This is on purpose, coordinated, and intent on making everyone see " mass killings " as one big problem. S.Carolina shootings, Colorado Springs, Columbine, are not to be distinguished from Paris , 9/11, Russian airliner bomb... it's all nothing but " man caused disaster ". It's all about the politics of language, which to some is more important than ACTUALLY ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUUSN 823 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 The ( planned ) confusion of grouping EVERYTHING under one massive umbrella of " terrorism ", which is what the Left want to do, is part of the PC nonsense which runs from the use of ISLAM when talking about such attacks as 9-11 , Paris, and what is going on w/ the JV team. This is on purpose, coordinated, and intent on making everyone see " mass killings " as one big problem. S.Carolina shootings, Colorado Springs, Columbine, are not to be distinguished from Paris , 9/11, Russian airliner bomb... it's all nothing but " man caused disaster ". It's all about the politics of language, which to some is more important than ACTUALLY ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM. No one is grouping everything under one umbrella. Mass shootings and active shooter events are acts of terrorism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,125 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 No one is grouping everything under one umbrella. Mass shootings and active shooter events are acts of terrorism. But when a jet liner blows up, or the streets of Paris run red w/ the blood of innocents, because some MILITANT ISLAMISTS go on a rampage, Obama the PC police will simply call that " terrorism " as well, and thus the planned obscuring of deflect and distract rules the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUUSN 823 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 No one is grouping everything under one umbrella. Mass shootings and active shooter events are acts of terrorism. But when a jet liner blows up, or the streets of Paris run red w/ the blood of innocents, because some MILITANT ISLAMISTS go on a rampage, Obama the PC police will simply call that " terrorism " as well, and thus the planned obscuring of deflect and distract rules the day. You'll have to take that up with Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,898 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 No one is grouping everything under one umbrella. Mass shootings and active shooter events are acts of terrorism. But when a jet liner blows up, or the streets of Paris run red w/ the blood of innocents, because some MILITANT ISLAMISTS go on a rampage, Obama the PC police will simply call that " terrorism " as well, and thus the planned obscuring of deflect and distract rules the day. I don't think any sane reasonable person mistook the Paris attacks for what they were because other politically motivated attacks have been referred to as terrorism. The media has hardly equated the two, and placing two events in the same broad category doesn't equate them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quietfan 233 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 My point is simply mass shootings in the US are on the rise. That's the terrorism threat we face. That's terrorism in America. It's not. There is no unifying , organized force at work here. It's terrifying, but it does not fit the definition of what is " terrorism". Terrorism NOUN the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims As I stated before, there is no connection between all of these incidents. You are correct that there is no connection between all the incidents reported on AUUSN's chart(s), and no organized, unified force at work among them (unless we count simply hate and/or evil as an organized force). But then neither your posted definition nor AUUSN's (FBI's?) definition of terrorism mentions an 'organized unified force' or 'connection to other incidents' as an essential component of 'terrorism'. (Perhaps you'd care to revise your definition to incorporate your other statements that imply a unified organized force or connection to other incidents is an essential component of terrorism? You're certainly free to do so and I won't begrudge you such a clarification or shift in your claim.) Eric Rudolf's bombings were the actions of a lone individual with no organized force or organization behind him. Timothy McVeigh's & Terry Nichols' mass murder in Kansas City was an isolated incident with no organized force or group behind it. But the actions of all three clear satisfy both definitions of terrorism given by you and AUUSN: Violence committed for political reasons. Of course, since we don't yet know the motive (or at least I haven't yet seen any authority or news source confirm a motive) behind yesterday's shooting, it's too early to call it terrorism. It's reasonable to suspect a political motive when premeditated violence erupts at an abortion clinic, but no political agenda has yet been confirmed. Robert Dear may have been driven by personal reasons or demons unrelated to the abortion debate and have had no political agenda. Until we are sure of his motives, we cannot say with any certainty that yesterday's shooting qualifies as 'terrorism' under either of the two definitions y'all provided. You are also correct that Daesh, Al Qaeda, and other such groups are large organized forces with significant power and the ability to initiate multiple incidents. I don't think any of us disagrees with that. For that matter, I wouldn't go so far AUUSN in calling the many mass shootings 'terrorism': Certainly they are terrifying, but most don't incorporate the essential element of political motivation, many were the result of domestic/family conflict, disgruntled employees/students, or individual psychotic episodes. However the statistics reported by AUUSN indicated (at least to me) that such isolated incidents as yesterday's and the others on his list are a greater daily threat to residents of our country, which I think is his point. Certainly I feel more at risk from such isolated acts of violence when I leave my home each morning than from Daesh. (Particularly since I work on a school campus.) Absolutely and well stated! Thanks, but I also won't begrudge you the right to modify your compliment after reading my edit (in red) that I added while you were posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,125 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 The media has hardly equated the two, and placing two events in the same broad category doesn't equate them. It absolutely does. Unequivocally. By not naming the culprits, or what their motive is, you white wash their actions. Pearl Harbor wasn't attacked by " terrorists ". " Terrorists " didn't plan to exterminate millions of unfit humans, in concentration camps with furnaces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,125 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 No one is grouping everything under one umbrella. Mass shootings and active shooter events are acts of terrorism. But when a jet liner blows up, or the streets of Paris run red w/ the blood of innocents, because some MILITANT ISLAMISTS go on a rampage, Obama the PC police will simply call that " terrorism " as well, and thus the planned obscuring of deflect and distract rules the day. You'll have to take that up with Obama. It's not just him. Clinton(s) saw the threat of Islamic terrorism as a " criminal " problem as well. As do most of those on the Left. Though not all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUUSN 823 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 My point is simply mass shootings in the US are on the rise. That's the terrorism threat we face. That's terrorism in America. It's not. There is no unifying , organized force at work here. It's terrifying, but it does not fit the definition of what is " terrorism". Terrorism NOUN the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims As I stated before, there is no connection between all of these incidents. You are correct that there is no connection between all the incidents reported on AUUSN's chart(s), and no organized, unified force at work among them (unless we count simply hate and/or evil as an organized force). But then neither your posted definition nor AUUSN's (FBI's?) definition of terrorism mentions an 'organized unified force' or 'connection to other incidents' as an essential component of 'terrorism'. (Perhaps you'd care to revise your definition to incorporate your other statements that imply a unified organized force or connection to other incidents is an essential component of terrorism? You're certainly free to do so and I won't begrudge you such a clarification or shift in your claim.) Eric Rudolf's bombings were the actions of a lone individual with no organized force or organization behind him. Timothy McVeigh's & Terry Nichols' mass murder in Kansas City was an isolated incident with no organized force or group behind it. But the actions of all three clear satisfy both definitions of terrorism given by you and AUUSN: Violence committed for political reasons. Of course, since we don't yet know the motive (or at least I haven't yet seen any authority or news source confirm a motive) behind yesterday's shooting, it's too early to call it terrorism. It's reasonable to suspect a political motive when premeditated violence erupts at an abortion clinic, but no political agenda has yet been confirmed. Robert Dear may have been driven by personal reasons or demons unrelated to the abortion debate and have had no political agenda. Until we are sure of his motives, we cannot say with any certainty that yesterday's shooting qualifies as 'terrorism' under either of the two definitions y'all provided. You are also correct that Daesh, Al Qaeda, and other such groups are large organized forces with significant power and the ability to initiate multiple incidents. I don't think any of us disagrees with that. For that matter, I wouldn't go so far AUUSN in calling the many mass shootings 'terrorism': Certainly they are terrifying, but most don't incorporate the essential element of political motivation, many were the result of domestic/family conflict, disgruntled employees/students, or individual psychotic episodes. However the statistics reported by AUUSN indicated (at least to me) that such isolated incidents as yesterday's and the others on his list are a greater daily threat to residents of our country, which I think is his point. Certainly I feel more at risk from such isolated acts of violence when I leave my home each morning than from Daesh. (Particularly since I work on a school campus.) Absolutely and well stated! Thanks, but I also won't begrudge you the right to modify your compliment after reading my edit (in red) that I added while you were posting. ;)/> Still well stated. We'll disagree on that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,379 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 The media has hardly equated the two, and placing two events in the same broad category doesn't equate them. It absolutely does. Unequivocally. By not naming the culprits, or what their motive is, you white wash their actions. Pearl Harbor wasn't attacked by " terrorists ". " Terrorists " didn't plan to exterminate millions of unfit humans, in concentration camps with furnaces. First, no one has equated Pearl Harbor or the holocaust with terrorism except for you. Secondly, equating a mass shooting attack at a PP facility and a mass shooting attack by Islamic radicals is not a stretch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.