Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: wrag on February 14, 2007, 03:49:05 AM
-
or the claim is..............
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/02/13/jihad-american-style-18-yr-old-bosnian-muslim-refugee-kills-6-people-on-american-soil/
hmm.............
is the media doing a coverup?
I sure wonder about our media....................
-
When I first heard about this yesterday. I automatically thought of that Clancy novel Teeth of the Tiger. This exact thing happens there muslim pigs shoot up a shopping mall. If this is confirmed, I wonder why the mainstream media does not report it?
-
muslim pigs?
-
pigs that do not eat pork. Stay with the programme Nilsen!
-
Interesting read, wrag. :aok
Thanks.
Regards,
Sun
...oh yeah...IN!
-
ok the guy was a muslim
he wasnt american
does it mean he was a terriost as the report linked calls him.
if he had been hispanic or greek or mexican would they be calling the same thing.
When the kids go in to a school and kill there class mates are they called terroists?even if they have different religious beliefs?
ever act of this kind is called a terrisot act because he was a musilm,not all muslims are terriosts.
-
Anytime an officer uses force they are put on leave. One of the reasons is so they can see a shrink to evaluate how badly the shooting has effected them. Sometimes it is found that the officer is so badly effected that it is questionable if that officer could ever use force again which would endanger the lives of other officers in the future.
-
:noid
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by rogerdee
ok the guy was a muslim
he wasnt american
does it mean he was a terriost as the report linked calls him.
....
ever act of this kind is called a terrisot act because he was a musilm,not all muslims are terriosts.
uh?
I guess some don't know an act of muslim terrorism if it were to jump up and bite them in the arse ... amazing
-
it's just that our english cousins like to snuggle up with the enemy. I don't know why that is though. I wouldn't be in a hurry to label this an act of moslem terrorism just yet. it could simply be a nutjob with issues who happens to be moslem. one has to wonder why the media didn't pick up on it. what if it had been a sunday school teacher from the local mormon church? would they have called it an act of christian barbarism? was the moslem terrorist killed in the attack?
-
But if it where a Mormon I bet the media would have specified that over and over again.
-
If the motive is uncertain the press would only be helping the terrorists if they called this an act of terror. I though you guys would have started catching on after 6 years, but obviously not. That “Rogue Jew” is aiding and abetting the enemy, as you guys like to put it.
-
Chairboy will be along any moment to tell you you're paranoid. So stop being a looney paranoid person.
-
Originally posted in mensnewsdaily.com ~ The Rogue Jew
If not an act of Terrorism committed by a Muslim/Islamic person, then what in the bloody hell do you call it?
-
any shooting like this is an act of terrorism if the gunman is even slightly sane.
I see something very wrong with not mentioning that the guy was a bosnian muslim.
That should have been mentioned. If he was a mormon that should have been mentioned too.. especially if the mormons were fighting U.S. troops in several countries. Especially if several sects of mormons had sworn to kill all unbelievers.
At Waco.. the religion of the people slaughtered there was very much reported... no sentance about them was without some mention of their religion.
If he had been a KKK member do you think that would have got some press?
We were in bosnia... we made a lot of enemies there. It would seem reasonable that someone from bosnia would want some form of vengence for klintons bombing and interferance in their country.
It seems more than a little relevant.
No gun control law would stop a terrorist act like this.... What did stop it was a guy with a concealed firearm... If there would have been more people with concealed firearms there would have been less killing..
If the off duty cop with a concealed firearm had not been there... then there would have been more killing.
The israelis have figured this out already... we will have to learn the hard way it seems.
lazs
-
From the link in the first post
I’m not a bigot and I’m certainly not a racist
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by lazs2
We were in bosnia... we made a lot of enemies there. It would seem reasonable that someone from bosnia would want some form of vengence for klintons bombing and interferance in their country.
We were there to protect Bosnian Muslims from Serbs--something these people sadly forget. I'm pretty sure that is why this family was granted refuge status.
I think we should open our hearts and homes to more Muslim refugees. :rolleyes:
-
I know not all Muslims are terrorists, just as not all Christians are abortion clinic bombers. But...when I watch the news about a clinic blowing up I see a handle of supporters for the bomber. When I see the news in the Middle East after someone blows something up, it looks like the gathering at Mecca. Lets just say not all Muslims are terrorists, but many millions seem to support them.
-
This obviously means the Patriot act needs to be strengthened..it is not working.
shamus
-
"look there's a rock! lets see if there are any islamic terrorists under it!!!"
-
does it mean he was a terriost as the report linked calls him.
Are you serious? Can you possibly be this obtuse?
How do you label someone who goes into a shopping mall and starts shotgunning people anything BUT a terrorist?
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
Are you serious? Can you possibly be this obtuse?
How do you label someone who goes into a shopping mall and starts shotgunning people anything BUT a terrorist?
Seems like you don't know the difference between terrorism and mass murder. Next you'll tell me that the guy robbing the post office is a terrorist.
-
whenever I go to a shopping mall I always have my sidearm with me.
I know how to shoot it and well thanks. No doubt this punk was a terrorist and he got what he deserved. Death.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Seems like you don't know the difference between terrorism and mass murder. Next you'll tell me that the guy robbing the post office is a terrorist.
The guy could have been a born and bred American Christian... he would still have been labeled a terrorist.
Wading thru a shopping mall shooting at people is terrorism. You might not like this fact because you like to argue for arguments sake but i don't much care.
The guy was a terrorist, regardless of his religion. Now, it happens that he was islamic and a teenager, maybe he had black hair. That would make him a teenage,islamic,black haired TERRORIST. Feel free to argue with these self evident facts, it's what you do.
Edit: Mass murder is a form of terroism.
-
Definition of terrorism:
"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. "
Political motivation defines a terrorist act in every definition I've seen. So, if this guy was upset that his woman left him or something, he is NOT officially a terrorist.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Seems like you don't know the difference between terrorism and mass murder. Next you'll tell me that the guy robbing the post office is a terrorist.
The perp showed no intention of robbery. He came to the mall with the intention of killing as many people as possible.
So your analogy (much like you) is flawed.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by storch
it's just that our english cousins like to snuggle up with the enemy. I don't know why that is though. I wouldn't be in a hurry to label this an act of moslem terrorism just yet. it could simply be a nutjob with issues who happens to be moslem. one has to wonder why the media didn't pick up on it. what if it had been a sunday school teacher from the local mormon church? would they have called it an act of christian barbarism? was the moslem terrorist killed in the attack?
I put the article up for discussion.
I have NO idea if it's accurate!!!!
However if it is I would very much like the media to say so.
-
Thats the problem with having gun nut-jobs mass murdering left and right - how do you tell who are plain nuts and who terrorists? :rolleyes:
-
often for ideological or political reasons
often.. not exclusively. you can argue all you want that he wasn't a terrorist. If he wasn't a muslim, you and Viking wouldn't be bothering.
Wading thru a shopping mall shooting at people is terrorism.
-
To you maybe Steve. Not to the people who actually come up with the definitions. Tell you what, I've just spent a few minutes trying to find a definition of terrorism that does not mention "politics" or acts of violence against the "state".
Find me one and I will happily step down.
IPlease don't try and paint me as a terorist supporter, a musilm symapthist or whatever...I'm not. I just think your definition is wrong.
-
he was a enviro-terrorist, scientists agree the malls contribute to global warming with their acres of black asphalt reflecting the heat back into the atmosphere. Also people driving around and around the lots dumping CO2 looking for a parking place a little closer to the entrance.
He was just trying to save the earth by shutting down the mall.
-
Originally posted by Curval
To you maybe Steve. Not to the people who actually come up with the definitions. Tell you what, I've just spent a few minutes trying to find a definition of terrorism that does not mention "politics" or acts of violence against the "state".
Find me one and I will happily step down.
IPlease don't try and paint me as a terorist supporter, a musilm symapthist or whatever...I'm not. I just think your definition is wrong.
I'd define Columbine as a terrorist attack.
What state were they attacking?
Bronk
Edit: Other than their preconceived "state" of the status quo in school.
-
Originally posted by Curval
To you maybe Steve. Not to the people who actually come up with the definitions. Tell you what, I've just spent a few minutes trying to find a definition of terrorism that does not mention "politics" or acts of violence against the "state".
Find me one and I will happily step down.
IPlease don't try and paint me as a terorist supporter, a musilm symapthist or whatever...I'm not. I just think your definition is wrong.
From Webster Online:
Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
Main Entry: ter·ror
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r, 'te-r&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French terrour, from Latin terror, from terrEre to frighten; akin to Greek trein to be afraid, flee, tremein to tremble -- more at TREMBLE
1 : a state of intense fear
2 a : one that inspires fear : SCOURGE b : a frightening aspect c : a cause of anxiety : WORRY d : an appalling person or thing; especially : BRAT
3 : REIGN OF TERROR
4 : violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands
While the #4 definition terror mentions government, #'s 1, 2, and 3 do not. This means that it can mean any of these things, not all.
So yes, using terror (a state of intense fear) is terrorism. Walking into a mall and randomly shooting people instills intense fear in others. So this IS an act of terrorism.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
I'd define Columbine as a terrorist attack.
You well might, as would Steve...but you would be wrong, according to the dictionary definitions I have seen. Show me one that says otherwise.
-
See the post above yours.
Bronk
-
Websters initial definition prefaces all of its later definaitions with one sentence:
the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
It must be SYSTEMATIC.
The guys who killed the kids at Columbine did so in one act.
The guy in the mall was one guy committing one act.
-
I don't remember ever hearing the religious background of the Columbine shooters either.......
Nice to see that old Dick and Spiro's plan has finally come to fruition all these years later:noid
-
FBI definition (the one that REALLY counts):
Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Websters initial definition prefaces all of its later definaitions with one sentence:
the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
It must be SYSTEMATIC.
The guys who killed the kids at Columbine did so in one act.
The guy in the mall was one guy committing one act.
So using this logic you would say that the World Trade Center bombing in '93 was one act and therefore not terrorism?
-
Short memories.
If you remember after that they was a lot of flap about bullying in schools.
So much so that IIRC there were more than a few no tolerance policies adopted.
So the Columbine incident did in fact effect policies of the schools. (although unintentional)
I have no idea what the mall shooters motivations were.
I'm just saying a terrorist act does not have to be political or against the state.
Bronk
Edit: badly worded and redone
-
Originally posted by Donzo
From Webster Online:
Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
Main Entry: ter·ror
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r, 'te-r&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French terrour, from Latin terror, from terrEre to frighten; akin to Greek trein to be afraid, flee, tremein to tremble -- more at TREMBLE
1 : a state of intense fear
2 a : one that inspires fear : SCOURGE b : a frightening aspect c : a cause of anxiety : WORRY d : an appalling person or thing; especially : BRAT
3 : REIGN OF TERROR
4 : violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands
While the #4 definition terror mentions government, #'s 1, 2, and 3 do not. This means that it can mean any of these things, not all.
So yes, using terror (a state of intense fear) is terrorism. Walking into a mall and randomly shooting people instills intense fear in others. So this IS an act of terrorism.
I don’t know. Just because the root word of terrorism is terror, all definitions of terror do not necessarily imply terrorism. A hawk may impose a state of intense fear upon a rabbit by hunting him, but that does not make hunting “terrorism’. It’s all going to come down to the kid’s motives IMO. If the kid had any kind of anti American/pro Islam political agenda, I’d say he’s a terrorist. If he was just a nut-bag loser who was upset about not fitting in, I’d say he’s just a nut-bag loser.
-
Originally posted by Donzo
So using this logic you would say that the World Trade Center bombing in '93 was one act and therefore not terrorism?
One act from a group that tried again!
-
Originally posted by Curval
FBI definition (the one that REALLY counts):
Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
By this definition, our founding fathers were terrorists :lol
Boston Teaparty = terrorist act :lol
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
One act from a group that tried again!
Yes, of course. But at the time (in '93) would Curval not have considered this an act of terrorism?
-
Originally posted by Donzo
Yes, of course. But at the time (in '93) would Curval not have considered this an act of terrorism?
That bombing was planned by a group of conspirators including Ramzi Yousef, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, El Sayyid Nosair, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Ahmad Ajaj, and Abdul Rahman Yasin. They received financing from al-Qaeda member Khaled Shaikh Mohammed, Yousef's uncle.
According to the journalist Steve Coll, Yousef mailed letters to various New York newspapers just before the attack, in which he claimed he belonged to the 'Liberation Army, Fifth Battalion'. These letters made three demands: an end to all US aid to Israel, an end to US diplomatic relations with Israel, and a demand for a pledge by the United States to end interference "with any of the Middle East countries [sic] interior affairs." He stated that the attack on the World Trade Center would be merely the first of such attacks if his demands were not met. In his letters Yousef admitted that the World Trade Center bombing was an act of terrorism, but that this was justified because 'the terrorism that Israel practices (which America supports) must be faced with a similar one.'
-
Originally posted by kamilyun
By this definition, our founding fathers were terrorists :lol
Boston Teaparty = terrorist act :lol
From the Brit's point of view..you betcha!!!
You do realize what a can of worms you just opened dont you? :)
shamus
-
Originally posted by Curval
Websters initial definition prefaces all of its later definaitions with one sentence:
the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
It must be SYSTEMATIC.
The guys who killed the kids at Columbine did so in one act.
The guy in the mall was one guy committing one act.
They systematically shot several people. Sorry Curval, let's just agree to disagree. Columbine was terrorism in my mind as well as the minds of many others.
-
Boston Teaparty was a political protest against the stamp act taxes.
the stamp act taxes were to pay for the costs of the french and indian war that england incurred defending it's colonies.
-
Originally posted by Curval
That bombing was planned by a group of conspirators including Ramzi Yousef, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, El Sayyid Nosair, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Ahmad Ajaj, and Abdul Rahman Yasin. They received financing from al-Qaeda member Khaled Shaikh Mohammed, Yousef's uncle.
According to the journalist Steve Coll, Yousef mailed letters to various New York newspapers just before the attack, in which he claimed he belonged to the 'Liberation Army, Fifth Battalion'. These letters made three demands: an end to all US aid to Israel, an end to US diplomatic relations with Israel, and a demand for a pledge by the United States to end interference "with any of the Middle East countries [sic] interior affairs." He stated that the attack on the World Trade Center would be merely the first of such attacks if his demands were not met. In his letters Yousef admitted that the World Trade Center bombing was an act of terrorism, but that this was justified because 'the terrorism that Israel practices (which America supports) must be faced with a similar one.'
Yes, but at the time was it "systematic"? Just because the guys says it is the first of more does not make it systematic.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
They systematically shot several people. Sorry Curval, let's just agree to disagree. Columbine was terrorism in my mind as well as the minds of many others.
Not systematically in that sense Steve. Systematic would mean a series of related events. You are reaching.
But, okay. We can agree to disagree.
-
Originally posted by Curval
FBI definition (the one that REALLY counts):
Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
Columbine was intended to intimidate a segment of the civilian population.
Side effect was a change of school social policies.
Using FBI definitions anyway.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Donzo
Yes, but at the time was it "systematic"? Just because the guys says it is the first of more does not make it systematic.
Goodness. You still want to argue this point?
The group that did this was financed by Al Qaeda. Their leader admitted to the act as being a terrorist one. You just don't get a more obvious case of terrorism.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Columbine was intended to intimidate a segment of the civilian population.
Side effect was a change of school social policies.
Using FBI definitions anyway.
Bronk
LOL
Grasping.
-
So your saying they didn't target certain children?
Schools didn't change policies on bullying?
Bronk
Edit: There was also great fear of copycat incidents. In other words bullied kids saying yea the hell with that I'll get a gun and shoot em.
One group of kids wanting to get revenge/ change of the status quo.
-
Look...my opinion on this mall shooting is EXACTLY the same as Eskimo's. If this guy yelled "Allah Wackba" or whatever while gunning people down, or was in any way committing the act as part of a political agenda then I will agree with you 100% that he was a terrorist.
If he did so because his girlfriend left him, or some other stupid reason, then he is a wacked out nutjob, but not a terrorist.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
I have no idea what the mall shooters motivations were.
I'm just saying a terrorist act does not have to be political or against the state.
Bronk
You must have missed this part.
I'm not arguing the mall was a terrorist act or not.
What I was trying to address was this.
Not to the people who actually come up with the definitions. Tell you what, I've just spent a few minutes trying to find a definition of terrorism that does not mention "politics" or acts of violence against the "state".
Find me one and I will happily step down.
Bronk
Edit: By your posting the FBI definitions you invalidate your quoted post here.
Because it can be against civilian /social topics. Not just state/political topics.
-
Oh, I see. You are just nit-picking part of a post of mine and using it to validate a point. You aren't involved in the actual topic of this thread.
Gotcha.
-
No need to get snippy curval.
You brought up the definition of terrorism not me.
You asked to find one not state/political orientated.
I'm sorry if you see it as nit picking.
I'll try not to dispute YOUR definitions with YOUR posts.
Or find examples that YOU ask for.
Bronk
Edit: Also don't post off topic things and expect the rest not to follow.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Next you'll tell me that the guy robbing the post office is a terrorist.
what is this guy robbing/stealing in a post office? stamps? envelopes maybe? everyone's mail? or the bills?
curious as to why anyone would think "robbing the post office".
going postal (taking out co-workers needing taking out) in a post office, I can understand, I do not approve of it, but do understand.
but robbing it???? :huh :confused: :huh
-
Originally posted by wrag
or the claim is..............
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/02/13/jihad-american-style-18-yr-old-bosnian-muslim-refugee-kills-6-people-on-american-soil/
hmm.............
is the media doing a coverup?
I sure wonder about our media....................
Originally posted by Vincent J. Dortch
i m teh muslam 2:aok :aok :aok :cool: :cool:
what about meeee
look at meeeeeeeeee....zOMG virjinz KEWL:aok :aok :aok :cool: :cool:
-
My vote is for whacked-out nutcase that happened to be a Muslim.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
No need to get snippy curval.
You brought up the definition of terrorism not me.
You asked to find one not state/political orientated.
I'm sorry if you see it as nit picking.
I'll try not to dispute YOUR definitions with YOUR posts.
Or find examples that YOU ask for.
Bronk
Edit: Also don't post off topic things and expect the rest not to follow.
Bronk, I'm only getting "snippy" because you are being somewhat dishonest. You say "I have no idea what the mall shooters motivations were. I'm just saying a terrorist act does not have to be political or against the state" but yet your first post said this:
"The perp showed no intention of robbery. He came to the mall with the intention of killing as many people as possible.
So your analogy (much like you) is flawed."
in response to Viking when he said: "Seems like you don't know the difference between terrorism and mass murder. Next you'll tell me that the guy robbing the post office is a terrorist."
This seems to imply that you think the guy was a terrorist. It was quite "snippy" also.
You then appeared to be arguing that Columbine was indeed a terrorist act. In fact you said so:
"I'd define Columbine as a terrorist attack.
What state were they attacking?"
Then you basically use Columbine as an example of "social terrorism":
"Columbine was intended to intimidate a segment of the civilian population.
Side effect was a change of school social policies."
...and you are wrong.
What you describe as "intent" was in fact the consequence of the incident. Those kids wanted to kill other kids. They did not "intend" to intimidate anyone other than those who they felt had wronged them in that school. Do you seriously expect me to buy into the illogical conclusion that they wanted bullied kids around America to rise up against their tormentors? They were far too selfish for that.
Let's look at the FBI definition and remove any reference to politics as it proves my point:
Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce the civilian population in furtherance of social objectives.
Exactly what social objectives were the killers at Columbine trying to...umm...further?
The FBI's definition "I" quoted. You were unable or unwilling to find one yourself and you are now trying to turn it on me.
Okay...but what exactly do the FBI mean by "social objectives?" I cannot read minds but I think you will find that they are referring to incidents of terrorism that actually fit their own definition. "Social obectives" are by their very nature political, but perhaps not "purely political" which I assume is why they included it separately. Abortion clinic bombings is more than likely what they had in mind. Social, in many ways, but also highly political.
Anyway...bottom line here is that in my humble opinion you think the mall shooting was terrorist in nature, whether or not the guy was an Islamic extremist. You also think Columbine was terrorist in nature.
I disagree.
-
<
What state were they attacking?">>>
i think they were attacking the united states of america.
-
"I want to know why the brave police officers are on Administrative Leave?"
The officers are on paid administrative leave, which is SOP for shoters. In addition to de-stress time, it gives homicide and/or DA investigators time to make sure things happened the way everyone says they did. If everything looks cool, some depts send guys to the shrink before they can return to work.
Being on administrative Leave really sucks, they take your blood, gun and badge then send you home with instructions to "wait by the phone"... cant even get your paycheck without a supervisor escort in, then out, of the station.
Then one day, if everything is cool, a call comes in "Want to see the shrink?", and "when do you want to come back to work?"
A few factoids re: officer involved shootings...
If a supervisor asks the officer "what happened", like any citizen with Miranda rights the officer can refuse and elect to remain silent and say nothing without a lawyer. However that supervisor can then 'order' the officer to talk, a refusal would then constitute insubordination.. any statement an officer is ordered to make cant be used in court.
Officers who shoot do not write any reports, they give statements to other officers / DA investigators. They can be ordered to write a 'memo', which also cant be used in court.
-
administrative leave=paid vacation, yeah that always sucks:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Viking
Seems like you don't know the difference between terrorism and mass murder. Next you'll tell me that the guy robbing the post office is a terrorist.
I'd like to know the difference other than a hyper-anal insistance on
semantics.
-
Endless quibling about semantics when the real issue is how do we stop the next one or deter it from happening?
-
Originally posted by Halo
Endless quibling about semantics when the real issue is how do we stop the next one or deter it from happening?
BAN ALL ORGANIZED RELIGION!
It's evil I tell you. Take a church. What goes on there? Weddings and funerals.... nothing good ever happens in a church. Organized religion is the work of the devil!
(http://www.thesmilies.com/smilies/evilgrin0025.gif) (http://www.thesmilies.com)
-
Originally posted by Curval
Bronk, I'm only getting "snippy" because you are being somewhat dishonest. You say "I have no idea what the mall shooters motivations were. I'm just saying a terrorist act does not have to be political or against the state" but yet your first post said this:
"The perp showed no intention of robbery. He came to the mall with the intention of killing as many people as possible.
So your analogy (much like you) is flawed."
in response to Viking when he said: "Seems like you don't know the difference between terrorism and mass murder. Next you'll tell me that the guy robbing the post office is a terrorist."
This seems to imply that you think the guy was a terrorist. It was quite "snippy" also.
Yup I was snippy with Viqueen . But I commented on the comparison of robbery to terrorism. It had nothing to do with the mall shooting
You then appeared to be arguing that Columbine was indeed a terrorist act. In fact you said so:
Yup. After you asked for a non state/political example.
"I'd define Columbine as a terrorist attack.
What state were they attacking?"
Then you basically use Columbine as an example of "social terrorism":
"Columbine was intended to intimidate a segment of the civilian population.
Side effect was a change of school social policies."
...and you are wrong.
Not according to your quoted FBI definition.
What you describe as "intent" was in fact the consequence of the incident. Those kids wanted to kill other kids. They did not "intend" to intimidate anyone other than those who they felt had wronged them in that school. Do you seriously expect me to buy into the illogical conclusion that they wanted bullied kids around America to rise up against their tormentors? They were far too selfish for that.
Let's look at the FBI definition and remove any reference to politics as it proves my point:
Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce the civilian population in furtherance of social objectives.
Exactly what social objectives were the killers at Columbine trying to...umm...further?
Already posted what the outcome was. Intended or unintended.
The FBI's definition "I" quoted. You were unable or unwilling to find one yourself and you are now trying to turn it on me.
[COLOR=dark blue]Why bother when you make my point for me ?[/COLOR]
Okay...but what exactly do the FBI mean by "social objectives?" I cannot read minds but I think you will find that they are referring to incidents of terrorism that actually fit their own definition. "Social obectives" are by their very nature political, but perhaps not "purely political" which I assume is why they included it separately. Abortion clinic bombings is more than likely what they had in mind. Social, in many ways, but also highly political.
Wow keep talking in circles.
Anyway...bottom line here is that in my humble opinion you think the mall shooting was terrorist in nature, whether or not the guy was an Islamic extremist. You also think Columbine was terrorist in nature.
Now you're a mind reader. Mind telling me the next winning Power Ball numbers. Please point out exactly where I said this guy was a terrorist.
I disagree.
Yup mostly with yourself with the definition of terrorism. You just can't find one that defines it as State/ political only. Now your upset I pointed out your posting flaw.
Get over it.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Rino
I'd like to know the difference other than a hyper-anal insistance on
semantics.
Are you a terrorist ?
So you see it's important :p
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
The guy could have been a born and bred American Christian... he would still have been labeled a terrorist.
Wading thru a shopping mall shooting at people is terrorism. You might not like this fact because you like to argue for arguments sake but i don't much care.
The guy was a terrorist, regardless of his religion. Now, it happens that he was islamic and a teenager, maybe he had black hair. That would make him a teenage,islamic,black haired TERRORIST. Feel free to argue with these self evident facts, it's what you do.
Edit: Mass murder is a form of terroism.
No. Mass murder can be a form of terrorism if used to coerce the public by creating fear. If you’re just shooting people at random because you’re angry at the world and commit suicide, you’re not a terrorist… just a murderer. Did this kid make some sort of political or religious statement before killing those people? Going postal is not terrorism.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
The perp showed no intention of robbery. He came to the mall with the intention of killing as many people as possible.
So your analogy (much like you) is flawed.
Bronk
Another one that doesn’t know what terrorism is.
-
Please tell me how robbery is terrorism?
Bronk
Edit: I'm not talking robbery to support terrorism either.
-
Originally posted by Rino
I'd like to know the difference other than a hyper-anal insistance on
semantics.
Of course its semantics, everyone in the PC world must play the word game so that illegal alien criminals / gangs / organized crime from Mexico et al are not referred to as "terrorists"....
Never mind the fact citizens from Mexico / S. America have killed / victimized / terrorized more US citizens than any 'official' mid east terrorist group, or that Mexican troops have made dozens of armed incursions on US soil... these are not terrorist activities, just people looking for work.
A US citizen killed by a "mid east terrorist", or Mexican national is still dead at the end of the day... but to our .gov & media there's a world of difference that must be spelled out in ridiculous semantics... a Muslim who kills a US citizen is a terrorist, an illegal alien commits the same crime, an "undocumented worker".
-
I think this thread sets a new record for hijacks and splitting hairs.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Please tell me how robbery is terrorism?
Bronk
Edit: I'm not talking robbery to support terrorism either.
Robbery isn’t necessarily terrorism and neither is mass murder. That was my point.
Timothy James McVeigh killed 168 people, injured 850 more and destroyed or damaged more than 300 buildings. On August 10, 1995 McVeigh was indicted on 11 counts: Conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction, use of a weapon of mass destruction, destruction by explosives, and eight counts of first-degree murder. You’ll notice none of those indictments were “terrorism”.
-
I'd stick with the definition given by the FBI, if I was you.
(If you make a too broad definition, you'll be forced to admit that Cousin Jozef and Uncle Adolf had been right all along when they claimed the USAF and the RAF were terrorists.)
Wait for the results of the investigation to see if he had political motives or if he was just insane.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Robbery isn’t necessarily terrorism and neither is mass murder. That was my point.
Timothy James McVeigh killed 168 people, injured 850 more and destroyed or damaged more than 300 buildings. . You’ll notice none of those indictments were “terrorism”.
I was hoping you'd bring this up. This was an act of domestic terrorism and was referred to as such by countless people here. Mcveigh is commonly referred to as a terrorist... need links?
Wiki def: Timothy James McVeigh (April 23, 1968 – June 11, 2001) was an American terrorist convicted of eleven federal offenses and ultimately executed as a result of his role in the April 19, 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. The bombing, which claimed 168 lives, is considered the deadliest incident of domestic terrorism in U.S. history.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
I was hoping you'd bring this up. This was an act of domestic terrorism and was referred to as such by countless people here. Mcveigh is commonly referred to as a terrorist... need links?
Commonly referred to … yes. Actually a terrorist … no. The prosecution found that McVeigh was attacking the federal government and was motivated by revenge. That is not an act of terrorism, and thus he was not charged with terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism.
You see, what people commonly refer to as [insert anything] is in most cases wrong. This seems to be more true in America than most other places.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Commonly referred to … yes. Actually a terrorist … no. The prosecution found that McVeigh was attacking the federal government and was motivated by revenge. That is not an act of terrorism, and thus he was not charged with terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism.
whether he was charged w/ jaywalking or terrorism, he was a terrorist
You see, what people commonly refer to as [insert anything] is in most cases wrong. This seems to be more true in America than most other places. [/B]
Eat my arse you anti-American whackjob. Dole out insults, expect them back in return.
-
Interesting read Wrag...thanks
Ahhh the PC world.....so much time to figure out new ways to get around the truth.
-
Note the date.
U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04
Section 2331. Definitions
As used in this chapter -
(1) the term "international terrorism" means activities that -
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that
are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of
any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed
within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended -
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass
destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of
the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of
the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they
appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which
their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;
(2) the term "national of the United States" has the meaning
given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act;
(3) the term "person" means any individual or entity capable of
holding a legal or beneficial interest in property;
(4) the term "act of war" means any act occurring in the course
of -
(A) declared war;
(B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared,
between two or more nations; or
(C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and
(5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that -
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation
of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended -
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass
destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of
the United States.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/113b/sections/section_2331.html
I don't think "terrorism" was an indictable offense prior to this law. (In the US anyway)
Only the acts while committing terrorism.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Viking
Did this kid make some sort of political or religious statement before killing those people? Going postal is not terrorism.
None that have been reported so far.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Note the date.
U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04
Section 2331. Definitions
I don't think "terrorism" was an indictable offense prior to this law. (In the US anyway)
Only the acts while committing terrorism.
Bronk
That may be the case; I’m no expert on US law. However that law, while being the current law on terrorism, is not the first US law on terrorism:
1984 Act to Combat International Terrorism (Public Law 98-533)
International Security and Development Cooperation Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-83)
Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-399)
Anti-Terrorism and Arms Export Amendments Act of 1989 (Public Law 101-222)
Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 (Public Law 101-298)
Aviation Security Improvement Act of 1990 (Public law 101-604)
Anti-Terrorism Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Public law 104-132)
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
Eat my arse you anti-American whackjob.
I’d rather not. I don’t swing that way.
-
Originally posted by Viking
You see, what people commonly refer to as [insert anything] is in most cases wrong. This seems to be more true in America than most other places.
With your opinion being so highly valued, I'll rethink my whole way of life. Thank you for your insight.
-
No need to exaggerate. Display your oversensitive feelings if you must, but while you guys hate to admit it you know I’m right, and that’s enough for me.
-
Originally posted by Viking
No need to exaggerate. Display your oversensitive feelings if you must, but while you guys hate to admit it you know I’m right, and that’s enough for me.
Oversensitive to? Your bull****? Hardly. I do find it odd how much time some of you tards spend hating the U.S. You guys have alot of spare time over there. I suppose I need to accrue some more vacation time or something.
-
INTERNET PURSEFIGHT!!!!!
-
Originally posted by Viking
That may be the case; I’m no expert on US law. However that law, while being the current law on terrorism, is not the first US law on terrorism:
1984 Act to Combat International Terrorism (Public Law 98-533)
Funding for reward plan of information on international terrorism
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d098:HR06311:@@@L&summ2=m&%7CTOM:/bss/d098query.html
International Security and Development Cooperation Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-83)
Relating to funding for the Special Defense Acquisition Fund.
http://rs9.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d099:SN01726:
Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-399)
To provide for the security of United States diplomatic personnel, facilities, and operations
http://rs9.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d099:HR04151:@@@S
Anti-Terrorism and Arms Export Amendments Act of 1989 (Public Law 101-222)
To prohibit exports for military equipment to countries supporting international terrorism, and for other purposes.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d101:91:./list/bss/d101HR.lst:@@@L&summ2=m&
Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 (Public Law 101-298)
Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and Their Destruction, by prohibiting certain conduct relating to biological weapons, and for other purposes.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d101:SN00993:@@@L&summ2=m&
Aviation Security Improvement Act of 1990 (Public law 101-604)
To promote and strengthen aviation security
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d101:8:./temp/~bdnkXi::
Anti-Terrorism Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Public law 104-132)
To prevent and punish acts of terrorism.
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d104:SN00735:@@@X
Finaly some punishmet stuff. But wait.........
this was after the Oklahoma city bombing.
So Timothy James McVeigh could not be charged with a law vilation that did not exist at the time he committed an "act of terrorism".
Keep trying Viqueen.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by VOR
INTERNET PURSEFIGHT!!!!!
It is?
-
Argument Sketch (http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm)
-
Originally posted by Viking
I’d rather not. I don’t swing that way.
Well at least you didn't try to deny you are an Ameri-hater, that would have really been funny.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
...Ameri-hater...
im kind of PO'd that no1 has come up with a better term than that by now...we're supposed to be so ingenuitive & whatnot....:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :noid
-
Originally posted by Bronk
So Timothy James McVeigh could not be charged with a law vilation that did not exist at the time he committed an "act of terrorism".
Like I said, that may be the case; I’m no expert on us law. Though I find it strange that the US didn’t have punitive laws against terrorism before 1996. I guess you really are new to this business.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Like I said, that may be the case; I’m no expert on us law. Though I find it strange that the US didn’t have punitive laws against terrorism before 1996. I guess you really are new to this business.
except that we are like the big easy going guy with a high threshold for BS, but once that threshold is crossed..... as usual the naivity of our people and the openess of our society leaves us vulnerable to these types of attacks. sadly with each incident the real victim is all of our people due to the steady erosion of our civil rights.
what everyone seems to forget is that an attack on the WTC would not have been possible fifty years ago because even if the terrorists had been armed with firearms there would have been several passengers who would have fired upon them with their personal weapons. perhaps everyone on the aircraft would have died but the islamic/arab homicidal maniacs would have accomplished nothing.
I'm glad that my state and several others get it. I'm sorry that the feds do not. the solution to terror is not the patriot act. the solution to terror is a good offense (attacking afghanistan, iraq, iran nkorea, cuba and then china) coupled with good intelligence and sensible right to carry laws for the law abiding here at home.
there are plenty of patriots going about their daily business who would forfeit their lives if need be to prevent such occurances, this has been amply demonstrated in each every event.
-
Good luck with attacking China :)
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
Good luck with attacking China :)
we have a secret weapon. when hillary becomes president she'll teach them to cook and take care of their husbands. they'll be gone in a generation.
-
Storch you have seriously distorted view of things. But as they say 'it's a free country'.
Fifty years ago the 9/11 wouldn't have happened for various reasons not least because the aircraft extant at the time could not have done the damage a large and fast jet airliner could do. As for the passengers shooting it out on the aircraft. I don't think I ever heard of it during a hijacking and there were many over the years. The reason people are no longer allowed to bring guns onto the aircraft is precisely because the hijackers were doing just that.
I'm not anti gun, but the solution to everything is not issuing guns to one and all. If that was true Iraq or Afghanistan would be the safest countries on Earth. Israel issues UZI's to all who want them. If anyone knows how to deal with terrorists, Israel does. They still get hit.
The solution to terror is not attacking all those countries on the current bad guy list. Iraq is an excellent example of why that doesn't work. The solution to terror is not simple as that. Attacking and occupying other countries doesn't remove terror it causes it!
Unfortunately the true solution to terrorism is to remove the reasons for it. Then you can defeat the terrorists either by them quitting the game or eliminating them as their supporters drift away. It's a long game, decades long.
No simple answers. No easy days.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Like I said, that may be the case; I’m no expert on us law. Though I find it strange that the US didn’t have punitive laws against terrorism before 1996. I guess you really are new .
I think you looked at a bunch of these. Then tossed them out in the hopes nobody would look them up.
But just in case someone did you cover your arse with "I’m no expert on us law.".
Nice try bluffing your way through this.
I don't think it's the US is "new to this business". As I'm sure people were charged with whatever crime they committed doing said "terrorism".
Just now "terrorism" is chargeable offense also.
But please don't let that stop you from adding you thinly veiled US insults.
Makes you look more and more pathetic.
Bronk
-
cpxx.. You could not arm everyone in a free country... there would be a majority who would not have the skill or courage to go armed. They would not take the responsibility. you could not force them to nor would it be the right thing to do.
Only about 10% would be armed in a truly free society. That would be enough to make a difference tho. 1 in ten would be plenty to deter mall attacks such as this or to stop them much more quickly.
I would feel much better knowing that one in ten of my fellow citizens, no matter where I went... were armed and willing to risk their lives to protect me and themselves. It is also, as I have said many times... a human right.. it is the choice of the individual not the tyrant.
I also believe that the world is getting smaller and that there is a large segment of islamofacists that will never be happy and always be a problem... how big or how much we contribute to it is debateable but they exist and won't go away unless they are killed or imprisoned. nothing will make them happy but our deaths or their domination over us. They have a form of religion that is not compatible with ever living in harmony with anyone.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Viking
but while you guys hate to admit it you know I’m right, and that’s enough for me.
Better sprinkle some sugar on these Viqueen, as they might taste bitter while you eat them.
As per my previous post.
Bronk
-
CPXXX types:
"Fifty years ago the 9/11 wouldn't have happened for various reasons not least because the aircraft extant at the time could not have done the damage a large and fast jet airliner could do. As for the passengers shooting it out on the aircraft. I don't think I ever heard of it during a hijacking and there were many over the years. The reason people are no longer allowed to bring guns onto the aircraft is precisely because the hijackers were doing just that."
A super connie fully fueled would do the same amount of damage if not more. IIRC 707's were just around the corner. I agree with you, I also have never heard of a shootout on an airplane. however I contend that had a few members of the flight or it's tripulation been armed the outcome would have been far different on 11 sep 2001.
"I'm not anti gun, but the solution to everything is not issuing guns to one and all. If that was true Iraq or Afghanistan would be the safest countries on Earth. Israel issues UZI's to all who want them. If anyone knows how to deal with terrorists, Israel does. They still get hit."
how many EL-AL flights get hijacked today?
-
This has gotten off track. The shooter was Muslim. These days it seem that they all are or support this type of stuff. If there are any that don't, they are quiet. That means that they are afraid to say something to defend their faith because they would be murder. Not killed, but murdered by their radicals.
My long time best bud lives in the Salt Lake valley. His daughter was going to Trolley Square after work to buys some stuff at a couple of card shops there. But her some to be husband(cann't spell the word) called her up and asked her to met him somewhere else. If she had stayed with her plan, who knows what could of happened to her.
The shooter's Mom was screaming that they are Muslim and not terriorists. Well, since the late '60s, that releigon has been the center of more terrior attacts than any other group. They are a threat to the world. Till they can strighten out their leadership and radicals, I wouldn't allow any more into the country. I read the US Government wants to let about 7000 into the country. How do we know that none of these people will turn around and bit us in the butt?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
cpxx.. You could not arm everyone in a free country... there would be a majority who would not have the skill or courage to go armed. They would not take the responsibility. you could not force them to nor would it be the right thing to do.
Only about 10% would be armed in a truly free society. That would be enough to make a difference tho. 1 in ten would be plenty to deter mall attacks such as this or to stop them much more quickly.
I would feel much better knowing that one in ten of my fellow citizens, no matter where I went... were armed and willing to risk their lives to protect me and themselves. It is also, as I have said many times... a human right.. it is the choice of the individual not the tyrant.
I also believe that the world is getting smaller and that there is a large segment of islamofacists that will never be happy and always be a problem... how big or how much we contribute to it is debateable but they exist and won't go away unless they are killed or imprisoned. nothing will make them happy but our deaths or their domination over us. They have a form of religion that is not compatible with ever living in harmony with anyone.
lazs
I knew a Swedish guy a long time ago. He said that all males had to serve two years in the army, and then they took their rifle and uniform home with them. I’m not sure if it’s true or not.
-
Originally posted by Halo
Endless quibling about semantics when the real issue is how do we stop the next one or deter it from happening?
We don't. Because we both cannot and will not.
hap
-
Has there been any official acknowledgement of the shooters motives yet? I want to stress the word "official" as having come from a real investigative source such as the agencies investigating the incident rather than news reporters making guesses.
-
I think that what is telling is how much less press this shooting is getting than other shootings.
Truth is... when a nutjob shoots kids in school it helps the anti gunners cause somewhat...
When a muslim shoots up a mall... people buy more guns.
lazs
-
Here's a video from inside the place stolen from AGW. It has some distant garbled audio... it would be interesting to hear it cleaned up or interpreted by the people who were actually there to give some insight into this scumbag's motives.
video (http://kutv.com/video/?id=23467@kutv.dayport.com)
There are a couple other related videos on the site, too.
-
I think that what is telling is how much less press this shooting is getting than other shootings.
I'm not sure about that. There was a shooting at a business in Philadelphia on Monday night, by a man who thought he'd been cheated on an investment deal. 4 dead. How much press is that getting?
I'm not anti gun, but the solution to everything is not issuing guns to one and all. If that was true Iraq or Afghanistan would be the safest countries on Earth. Israel issues UZI's to all who want them. If anyone knows how to deal with terrorists, Israel does. They still get hit.
Not only that, they are actually reducing the number of guns issued. The reason is that the rate of murder of women by close relatives/partners has doubled in the last 5 years. Half of all women murdered by relatives/partners are killed by security guards, policemen or soldiers who have a firearm at home.
how many EL-AL flights get hijacked today?
How many El Al flights let armed citizens on them?
El Al has an excellent record on hijacks because they operate very strict security measures on the ground. Think US airport security is invasive? Go to Israel.
When the security scanning machines at Kiryat Shmona airport couldn't be used due to a dispute over who paid for running them, they simply banned all Arabs from the flights.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
When the security scanning machines at Kiryat Shmona airport couldn't be used due to a dispute over who paid for running them, they simply banned all Arabs from the flights.
But...but...BUT... BUT!
That's PROFILING!
We can't have that, now can we?
-
Originally posted by Toad
But...but...BUT... BUT!
That's PROFILING!
We can't have that, now can we?
Nope, to cheap and effective.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Bronk
I think you looked at a bunch of these. Then tossed them out in the hopes nobody would look them up.
But just in case someone did you cover your arse with "I’m no expert on us law.".
Nice try bluffing your way through this.
I don't think it's the US is "new to this business". As I'm sure people were charged with whatever crime they committed doing said "terrorism".
Just now "terrorism" is chargeable offense also.
But please don't let that stop you from adding you thinly veiled US insults.
Makes you look more and more pathetic.
Bronk
Nice dodge and ad hominem. It’s all you have left … I understand.
-
Originally posted by Hap
We don't. Because we both cannot and will not.
hap
It could never be done because everyone would have to objectively take a look at the problem and deal with it at a human level. We're too in love with our conveniences and social progresses to change anything.
This sort of incident advanced from unheard of to rare freak event to commonplace in about 50 years' time. Until we address the changes that have taken place in our society over that time and start connecting some dots with relation to social behavior, it's going to keep on happening.
-
Please Gblowz point out what I'm dodging.
You on the other hand Spin more than a Jet engine on take off.
You post how McVeigh wasn't charged as a terrorist.
We finally find out why he wasn't. No punitive law for being one.
Even through your smokescreen law post.
But guess what even though there was no "Terrorism" punishment law he was still put to death. Hows that for "being new to the biusness".
As far as "ad hominem" goes keep insulting my country .
Rather than insult your's I'll just insult you.
Because there is no way in hell everyone over there can be as ignorant or have such a pompous attitude as you.
Hows that for ad hominem.
Have a nice day Tard.
Bronk
-
But...but...BUT... BUT!
That's PROFILING!
We can't have that, now can we?
Nope, to cheap and effective.
It's certainly effective in stopping terrorism on aircraft. On the other hand, would you say Israel has been effective in stopping terrorism? I'd say most definitely no. In a country of about 6 million, they've lost something over 1,000 citizens in the last few years, and killed about 5,500 people fighting terrorism. Yet they never seem on the verge of winning a battle they've been fighting for 60 years.
I'd say those are statistics of failure, not success.
Racial profiling might stop terrorists getting on airliners, but it also stops a much larger number of innocent people getting on aircraft. How many of those denied basic rights by their colour/religion will go on to become terrorists?
I'd say you can't buy yourself peace and security by removing the rights of whole segments of society. You'll create the very thing you seek to prevent.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
I'd say you can't buy yourself peace and security by removing the rights of whole segments of society. You'll create the very thing you seek to prevent.
:aok
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Columbine was intended to intimidate a segment of the civilian population.
Side effect was a change of school social policies.
Using FBI definitions anyway.
Bronk
Columbine was an act of revenge. Where do you get your info from?
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
I was hoping you'd bring this up. This was an act of domestic terrorism and was referred to as such by countless people here. Mcveigh is commonly referred to as a terrorist... need links?
Wiki def: Timothy James McVeigh (April 23, 1968 – June 11, 2001) was an American terrorist convicted of eleven federal offenses and ultimately executed as a result of his role in the April 19, 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. The bombing, which claimed 168 lives, is considered the deadliest incident of domestic terrorism in U.S. history.
Read some more and you will also conclude that McVeigh bombed the federal building as an act of revenge for the percieved slaughter of innocent men, women and children at Waco. Revenge. It would fit more of a definition of war than terrorism since he apparently tried to get away with it and made no effort to further his political views when he was in the spotlight.
-
So far, the only thing different from this than the ordinary mass murderer is that he was muslim. Now if hezbollah takes claim for this and aonnounces a never ending wave of such attacks on the american people, affecting the economy and TERRORIZING the people of america, AND making political demands, it would be classified as an act of terror. Until then... derranged teenager with some ambitions to make the headlines, and he succeeded.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Racial profiling might stop terrorists getting on airliners,
Which might stop thousands of people from getting killed; one example stands out.
but it also stops a much larger number of innocent people getting on aircraft.
Not necessarily; it can just single them out for a more focused security screening.
How many of those denied basic rights by their colour/religion will go on to become terrorists?
Is being singled out and delayed a bit longer before being allowed to board enough of a denial of rights to justify suicide bombing or such?
As somebody here once pointed out, it's not the white-haired Norwegian Buddhist grandmothers that are strapping on the dynamite belts is it?
-
Certainly some racial profiling of who to target investigations at seems worthwhile.
There are two major problems with racial profiling, though. The first is that it causes resentment amongst the targeted group, the vast majority of whom are likely to be innocent. And if you've got a group from whom radicals draw terrorists, pissing off those in the group who do not (yet) support terrorism doesn't seem like a good idea.
The second is that if you are focusing on those who fit the profile, you tend to ignore those who do not fit the profile.
The classic example is the Lod airport massacre in Israel. Security were looking for Arabs, so the Japanese musicians getting off a plane from Paris didn't attract much attention. Until they opened the violin cases and took out guns and grenades... 26 people died.
Profiling also has added difficulties in the US. Muslims can come from quite a few races, and the number of white converts is growing. Who are you going to profile? The most obviously Muslim are less likely to be used by terrorist groups in the future, simply because they are most likely to attract attention.
-
So no one has any real info based on the idiots actual motivation yet we have over 120 posts about it??
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Please Gblowz point out what I'm dodging.
You on the other hand Spin more than a Jet engine on take off.
You post how McVeigh wasn't charged as a terrorist.
We finally find out why he wasn't. No punitive law for being one.
Even through your smokescreen law post.
But guess what even though there was no "Terrorism" punishment law he was still put to death. Hows that for "being new to the biusness".
As far as "ad hominem" goes keep insulting my country .
Rather than insult your's I'll just insult you.
Because there is no way in hell everyone over there can be as ignorant or have such a pompous attitude as you.
Hows that for ad hominem.
Have a nice day Tard.
Bronk
How cute! I must have struck a nerve! :rofl
Have a nice day Your Highness.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
So no one has any real info based on the idiots actual motivation yet we have over 120 posts about it??
The LGF guys will find out whatever there is to find out about a thing that involves possible Muslim terrorists.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/
Hot LGF News:
American Jihadis' Web Network Deseret News Attacks LGF For Publishing Facts
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Salt Lake City Killer's Records Released
Local Salt Lake City blogger Jonathan notified us that some of Sulejman Talovic’s juvenile records have been leaked. Excerpts:
At age 12, Talovic was before a judge for allegedly holding a knife over the head of girl while stating, “I’ll kill you,” according to a source who is familiar with the case.
Two years earlier, Talovic was referred to juvenile court for throwing rocks at a little girl.
About the same time, he threatened his parents’ landlord with a knife. ...
The first girl was not struck by the stones. And the mother of the second girl snatched her up in the nick of time, just as Talovic took a swipe with the blade, according to the source, who has seen court documents relating to the case. ...
Talovic was also referred to court for stealing fireworks from a Smith’s grocery store on June 22, 2001.
On July 9, 2001, Talovic admitted the shoplifting crime, and it was the last time he appeared in juvenile court, according to the source, quoting court records.
UPDATE at 2/15/07 6:00:14 pm:
There appears to be a controversy over whether the video of the rampage contains evidence that Talovic shouted “Allahu akbar!” during his killing spree. My email to Allahpundit on this:
No way. I made my living by listening closely to recorded sounds and music for many years, and I’d bet big money that the ‘allahu akbar’ chant is not on that tape. There’s a very characteristic sing-song quality to the chant, that you can hear even in last-minute suicide bomber tapes, and I do not hear that at all in the SLC video.
Not there. Nope.
The case is still open as to whether Islamism was a factor, but if there’s evidence to be found, it isn’t in this video recording.
05:24 PM PST | link: 131 comments | link only
last comment: Cartman 6:16:47 pm 2/15/07
digg this | del.icio.us | tags | email this article
Tags: Salt Lake City, Sulejman Talovic, Bosnia, Crime
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
Here's a video from inside the place stolen from AGW. It has some distant garbled audio... it would be interesting to hear it cleaned up or interpreted by the people who were actually there to give some insight into this scumbag's motives.
video (http://kutv.com/video/?id=23467@kutv.dayport.com)
There are a couple other related videos on the site, too.
The only sounds I can make out are the shouts from the police and the music piped through the mall's loudspeakers. You can clearly hear the off-duty police officer shout "Ogden PD!" a few times at one point and then telling some other officers to come to the 2nd level. You can't hear anything, at least nothing identifiable from the gunman and nothing like "allah akbar!" as some have reported hearing.
This kid was just a nut case, sadly probably suffering from lasting psychological effects of growing up in a war zone.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Debonair
im kind of PO'd that no1 has come up with a better term than that by now...we're supposed to be so ingenuitive & whatnot....:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :noid
"Antimerican" Said somewhat fast.
Rumor round the campfire is that "Viking" would be "GSholz".
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Profiling also has added difficulties in the US. Muslims can come from quite a few races,
It would seem to me that we could certainly narrow down the list of possibles with some judicious profiling at the airports. It doesn't only have to be race; there are other factors.
As was pointed out, how many grandmothers > age 70 have been involved in terrorist acts so far? Grandfathers?
White mothers with child?
I used to hang around airports quite a bit; I saw a very larger number of the elderly get the full security screening. I think that time could have been better spent.
I know some of the "profiling" that is allowed right now. It's not race related but it too wastes of time when used alone, IMO. Coupled with some racial profiling, it would utilize resources far more efficiently.
For example, if you're checking for "factor X" which is a common trait of those you might want to catch, you can cross reference factor x with age.
I think it's highly unlikely that factor X coupled with a 70 year old white female would indicate a potential problem while factor X coupled with an arabic male should be of much more interest.
However, that's not the way it's done. The factors stand alone.
I will leave factor x to your imaginations.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
It's certainly effective in stopping terrorism on aircraft. On the other hand, would you say Israel has been effective in stopping terrorism? I'd say most definitely no. In a country of about 6 million, they've lost something over 1,000 citizens in the last few years, and killed about 5,500 people fighting terrorism. Yet they never seem on the verge of winning a battle they've been fighting for 60 years.
I'd say those are statistics of failure, not success.
Racial profiling might stop terrorists getting on airliners, but it also stops a much larger number of innocent people getting on aircraft. How many of those denied basic rights by their colour/religion will go on to become terrorists?
I'd say you can't buy yourself peace and security by removing the rights of whole segments of society. You'll create the very thing you seek to prevent.
Looking for a needle in a stack of needles is probably pretty tough.
If White people were committing acts of terrorism all over the world and had made it clear that they were going to continue , then I would say , that a LARGE white population living in a middle eastern country could be put under the same"Scrutiny". (sp)
Ooooops....that wasnt poltically correct. Sorry.
So when radical middle eastern terrorists living in the middle east are blowing people up that look pretty much the same in regards to skin tone , general appearance , then it's kind of hard to tell the terrorist without a program.
Just my opinion tho.
-
""I know some of the "profiling" that is allowed right now. It's not race related ""
not true, i saw racial profiling, boarding a dash 80 in Miami there was a hispanic gate agent and a hispanic security guard, they pulled three Anglos out of line for special screening, a teen age girl, a grey haired elderly man and a very old man. they loaded men in their mid twenties without a second look.
this was for a little dash 80 prop plane.
your govt at work protecting you.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
So no one has any real info based on the idiots actual motivation yet we have over 120 posts about it??
I'll guess he was a nutjob first and a moslem second.
-
Originally posted by john9001
""I know some of the "profiling" that is allowed right now. It's not race related ""
not true, .
I guess I wasn't clear.
I am aware of some of the profiling factors that are currently in use; certainly not all. The ones that I personally know about are not race related.
I am sure I don't know all of them.
-
By the way. Bosnians are white peopl. They look like you and me only with bigger heads for some reason, like flattop from dick tracy. They wouldnt be sorted out for profiling even though the majority of them ar muslim. Maybe they could get a head template at airports that one has to be able to squeeze thru to avoid the dreaded cavity search.
-
What was the religion of the Columbine shooters?
What religion was McVeigh?
What religion was every other "pig" who took on an act of terrorism on American soil?
This was a kid with a serious problem, and linking it to his religion is nonsense. It's a pretty forgone conclusion that when terrosists hit us they hit a lot harder than a teenager taking out civilians in a mall.
To all the people thinking of overthrowing the government, on this BBs? Are you all closet Muslims?
-
nashwan.. you certainly are not saying that the government of israel is not allowing it's citizens to carry concealed weapons? You would not say that strict gun control like in your tyranized country would stop the killing in Israel are you?
Nope, Israel is a good example for allowing citizens to go armed to combat those who would do them harm.
I believe that it is people like you nashwan who have disarmed your neighbors... that it is people like you who will be to blame when your country erupts in some kind of widespred violence and the good people can do nothing... every time a citizen of your country who wants to be armed but can't is killed or assaulted in your country... it is yours and people like yours fault. You are the enemy of human rights.
you may be right about the other shooting tho since I have not even heard of it.. Maybe you can provide a link to it so we can compare?
I don't care if the guy is a muslim nut job or a kkk nutjob or whatever. I want to be armed when he goes off.
eskimo... did you mean the swiss?
lazs
-
lazs,
which 10% of the populace should be armed? Who does the screening?
Serious question.
-
don't worry about it red tail , we know who we are.
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
lazs,
which 10% of the populace should be armed? Who does the screening?
Serious question.
Like he said the 10% who WANT to carry and are a responsible adults.
The same people who license now.
Just need to change the way they do it.
Bronk
Edit:
RI as an example. You can have NO criminal record. Prove that you're a US citizen. Pass the proficiency test. But they can still refuse even accept your application.
Why, because they don't see a need for people to protect themselves ?
-
actualy.. that is a good answer.
It should be anyone who wants to be. Only about 10% will have the courage and will to do it.
It is a right.... not a privilidge handed out by frieghtened women. no qualifications at all but.. strict penalties for abuse.
well... some qualifications... no minors or insane people should be allowed to go armed... minors could under the supervision of an adult who would then be responsible. It would not be out of the question to require a class of a few hours to explain the laws.
People have not changed... people can go around armed and not shoot innocent people. You don't see cops or soldiers shooting each other over every arguement... soldiers may even fight each other when they could just as easily mow the other guy down with a machine gun. Why is that?
If the gun caused the violence then surely.... in a tense situation like a soldier jammed in with people he doesn't know... at the height of his hormonal rage...certainly the gun would leap into his hands and force the man to shoot everyone tormenting him?
What happened to all the predicted fender bender shootings in states with thousands of concealed carry permits issued? They never happened...
qualifications vary state to state but they are mostly a few hours of familiarization with the laws. That is it. And.. the cc people are amoung the most law abiding of any group.
lazs
-
Originally posted by john9001
don't worry about it red tail , we know who we are.
I'm not worried about you...at all.
-
nashwan.. you certainly are not saying that the government of israel is not allowing it's citizens to carry concealed weapons?
You need a licence to keep most firearms in Israel. Most people cannot get a licence. You need to be in the right occupation (security, jeweller, army officer etc).
Israeli settlers in the West Bank can get licences automatically.
There are something less than 300,000 licences issued in Israel at the moment. The government is in the middle of a major crackdown on unlicensed firearms. (mainly aimed at those who had licences, no longer have them, but haven't turned their guns in)
I believe that it is people like you nashwan who have disarmed your neighbors... that it is people like you who will be to blame when your country erupts in some kind of widespred violence and the good people can do nothing.
Weren't you predicting 5 years ago that the British murder rate would soon overtake the rate in america?
5 years later and our rate is still a fraction of yours, and ours is going down, yours is going up.
every time a citizen of your country who wants to be armed but can't is killed or assaulted in your country... it is yours and people like yours fault.
Every time someone in the US is murdered with a gun, it's the fault of people like you. Those people shot dead at the mall? Murdered with easily available guns. In this country the fool would have used a knife, and probably lightly injured a few people.
There's a reason why the US has so many spree killings, and it's because it's so easy to get guns.
Remember when Reagan was shot? The nutter had no problem getting firearms on at least 2 occasions. He inspired a British nutter to try to kill the queen, only he couldn't get a gun, and ended up using a blank firing pistol.
Easy availability of guns = lots of dead people.
Number of people murdered with a gun in England and Wales last year - 50.
Number in america - 11,000
Your method, of arming everybody, leads to a lot more innocent people getting killed. Criminals murdered 11,000 people with guns in the US last year. Citizens killed 200 criminals. It ain't the citizens who are winning.
you may be right about the other shooting tho since I have not even heard of it.. Maybe you can provide a link to it so we can compare?
What, you mean one of the other shootings that get so much more press, you haven't even heard of?
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/02/13/philly.shooting.ap/
-
When criminals kill criminals, everyone wins. ;)
-
so how many people has your gun laws saved in the UK nashwan? tell the truth.. how much has the murder rate gone down? violent crime?
You never had a high murder rate.. there is no reduction..
I predicted that there would be an increase in your violent crime rate soon.. I don't believe that I said that 5 years ago but... time flys... maybe it was. I don't know when it will happen but it sure seems that the pressure cooker is building up steam... you have a 97% white population... as more "immigrants" are allowed.. you will be facing more violent crime.
I am responsible for a mall shooter because he got a gun? I would be responsible if he ran everyone over (like the other guy did a while back) because I believe people have the right to own cars?
You seem to think that murder and violence would go down if guns were banned.. you can't show me anything that supports that theory. not even in your own country. not in australia either.
Seems your way just makes it easier for the criminals and less likely that the inocent can defend themselves..
What I am responsible for is the 1.5 million times or more a year that crimes are stopped in the U.S. with a firearm.
What I am responsible for is the off duty cop having a gun to stop the mall shooter.
What you are responsible is every person who is harmed by being overpowered because they, or anyone near them... has had his rights to defend himself take away by you and your ilk.
You condem your fellows to tyranny by governments and thugs. Not I.
You are the enemy as surely as the mall shooter was.
you are entitled to your opinion about my rights but you are not entitled to remove them.
lazs
-
also.. read the link.. seems it was on CNN..
You don't see a difference in the killings? no difference in motive? In the case of the 3 people killed.. they were carpetbaggers who had bilked the shooter and others out of half a million dollars.. the shooter killed only those responsible... he allowed a couple of people not responsible to leave..
Now if you can't see the difference between that and a motiveless (at this time) killing spree at a mall then there is no point in talking to you.
lazs
-
You don't see a difference in the killings? no difference in motive? In the case of the 3 people killed.. they were carpetbaggers who had bilked the shooter and others out of half a million dollars
That's what the shooter believed. But then he was a nut who killed 3 people, shot at police, then shot himself in the head, so I don't have much faith in his opinion. 2 of the 3 men he murdered were retired police officers.
Now if you can't see the difference between that and a motiveless (at this time) killing spree at a mall then there is no point in talking to you.
You'll probably find a very similar motive in both cases. Both probably believed the world, and some individuals in it, had cheated them. Out of money, love, success, fame, whatever, spree killers usually have similar motives (assuming the mall shooting was not a terrorist act, of course)
so how many people has your gun laws saved in the UK nashwan?
Since the 20s? Tens of thousands. If England and Wales had the same murder rate as the US last year, and let's face it, we have similar rates of other crimes, then we'd have had about 2,750 murders. In actual fact, we had about 750, so I'd say around 2,000 lives saved last year alone.
tell the truth.. how much has the murder rate gone down? violent crime?
Since the 20s? Murder rates have gone up all over the industrialised world. Ours, with strict gun control, somewhat less than yours, with freely available guns.
You never had a high murder rate.. there is no reduction..
At the beginning of the 20th century, the British and american murder rates were similar. Britain began to implement gun controls, the US did not. The US rate soared, the British rate did not.
I predicted that there would be an increase in your violent crime rate soon.. I don't believe that I said that 5 years ago but... time flys... maybe it was. I don't know when it will happen but it sure seems that the pressure cooker is building up steam.
Only it isn't. Britain's murder rate is falling.
you have a 97% white population.
No. I don't think you have any conception of the numbers of people who have come to Britain since the Labour government opened the gates at the end of the 90s. 40% of all people living in London last year were born abroad.
as more "immigrants" are allowed.. you will be facing more violent crime.
And yet we aren't.
Labour came to power in 1997, and immigration started to soar at the end of the 90s. Yet the murder rate for 2005 was about the same as for the 90s average, and that's including 50 people killed in the London suicide bombings.
Are new immigrants and black people disproportionately involved in crime? Yes. But they just replace the existing criminal groupings.
The city with the highest murder rate in Britain is Glasgow, and it's a very white city. Second is Belfast, again with a very low black population.
I am responsible for a mall shooter because he got a gun?
Well, by your logic I am responsible for anyone killed who didn't have a gun to defend themselves, so yes.
You seem to think that murder and violence would go down if guns were banned.. you can't show me anything that supports that theory. not even in your own country. not in australia either.
Of course I can. How many people were mugged in the US? How many people were killed by muggers in the US? Now ask the same questions for the UK.
Guns are tools for killing people. It's hardly surprising that where the tools are freely available, they are more commonly used.
Seems your way just makes it easier for the criminals and less likely that the inocent can defend themselves..
This is the problem lazs. You seem incapable of understanding that a gun does not protect you. The "good guy" can lose, it's not a Hollywood movie. If criminals and victims are both armed, you are going to have a lot more dead victims than if neither is armed. In most cases, the criminal knows what's happening before the victim does, and the criminal is going to have less compunction about firing.
That's why criminals killed about 16,000 Americans, innocent people killed about 200 criminals.
What I am responsible for is the 1.5 million times or more a year that crimes are stopped in the U.S. with a firearm.
Made up figure. Phone people up at random, and 1% of them will claim to be Navy Seals who won the CMOH in the Gulf War. You can get 1% of the public to say almost anything, which is why opinion pollsters note they have a 3% margin of error. Kleck's poll on defensive gun use came up with figures much lower than the margin of error on the poll (and that doesn't mean the figure could be much higher. If 1% really defended themselves, then the maximum negative error on the sample is 3% of 1%, whereas the maximum positive error on the sample is 3% of 99%)
Hell, more Americans have been abducted by aliens than used a gun to defend themselves, if you believe in random telephone opinion polls.
What I am responsible for is the off duty cop having a gun to stop the mall shooter.
And the mall shooter having his guns in the first place. And the Philadelphia shooter, and the 30 other people who will shoot an American dead with a gun today. And the 30 tomorrow, and the 30 the day after, and so on.
You condem your fellows to tyranny by governments and thugs. Not I.
Only we're not suffering tyranny. I see far more Americans saying they have no control over their government than Britons.