BjornP wrote:
On the designation of "terrorist", I think that should be reserved for mass killings for some shared political, religious or philosophical cause . Otherwise that's like calling all mass shooters terrorists. If you're an emo, suicidal high school student who wants to take all the douchebags and bitches with you in an orgy of bullets and blood, you're not doing it for some sort of cause.. you're doing it exclusively for your own, individual, personal feeling of having been wronged.
If a stripper's jealous boyfriend marches down to his girlfriend's stripclub at shoots up his girlfriend, her fellow strippers and ten of the local clientele... that's not terrorism, either unless it's accompanied by some sort of political/religious/philosophical declaration of cause. "Why don't you truly love me?! *waaah waaah, bang bang bang*, otoh, wouldn't be terrorism. It would "just" be mass murder.
So, at this point, we don't know why he did what he did. I have yet to see a "truck of peace" mow down innocent civilians because they were emo. Links to contrary would be appreciated, hypothetical strippers and their psychotic boyfriends aside. This was premeditated murder. The guy didn't take his work van and veer off the street onto the sidewalk to mow down a mother with her stroller. He actually rented this van with the forethought that he was gonna run over some peeps and he did so for a 4 block stretch at speeds up to 60 mph. Context can fill in a few of these scenarios. It was terrorism, domestic or otherwise.
Yes, premeditated murder does sounds likely, then. But nothing so far points to terrorism. US Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as:
the unlawful use of force and 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"
Mass murder, even if premeditated, is not terrorism, even if terrorism can be mass murder.
BjornP wrote:
Yes, premeditated murder does sounds likely, then. But nothing so far points to terrorism. US Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as:
the unlawful use of force and 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"
Mass murder, even if premeditated, is not terrorism, even if terrorism can be mass murder.
This was in Canada, yo. Different country, a different set of rules. Let's wait for the fallout before we start claiming narratives. I was just taking exception to Monty calling the ball so early so he could rub his grossly offensive narrative in some peoples' faces.
BjornP wrote:
Yes, premeditated murder does sounds likely, then. But nothing so far points to terrorism. US Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as:
the unlawful use of force and 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"
Mass murder, even if premeditated, is not terrorism, even if terrorism can be mass murder.
This was in Canada, yo. Different country, a different set of rules. Let's wait for the fallout before we start claiming narratives. I was just taking exception to Monty calling the ball so early so he could rub his grossly offensive narrative in some peoples' faces.
Well, the terrorism definitions aren't that far apart:
(A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and
(B) in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada, and
But yeah, he may turn out to have some political objective that's not been publicized, so I guess I can't rule terrorism out entirely, either.
Anyway, here he is being taken down by Canadian police (who could apparantly tell he wasn't holding a real gun, I guess? ):
BjornP wrote:
Yes, premeditated murder does sounds likely, then. But nothing so far points to terrorism. US Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as:
the unlawful use of force and 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"
Mass murder, even if premeditated, is not terrorism, even if terrorism can be mass murder.
This was in Canada, yo. Different country, a different set of rules. Let's wait for the fallout before we start claiming narratives. I was just taking exception to Monty calling the ball so early so he could rub his grossly offensive narrative in some peoples' faces.
First of all it's Monte not Monty.
Also fuck off with your "calling the ball early." If you look at page two of this thread every post except mine is suggesting this was Islamic terrorism despite no such evidence being presented.
The reports that the police do not consider this to be a terrorist attack are at least 9 hrs old.
So the narrative put forward by the usual suspects blaming Islam is false in this case. Just like the last such incident in Canada which turned out to be a white nationalist and not a pair of gay Muslims shooting up a Mosque as was claimed by one person here.
Unlike all the other claims on page two, my statement was based on actual reports not just biased speculation from people wishing this was a Muslim terrorist.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
It’s not that people “want” the attacker to be Muslim, it’s simply that the homicidal acts of mentally retarded autists and the attacks of Muslims are pretty much identical, so who would be faulted for mixing the two up?
Montegriffo wrote:
First of all it's Monte not Monty.
Also fuck off with your "calling the ball early." If you look at page two of this thread every post except mine is suggesting this was Islamic terrorism despite no such evidence being presented.
The reports that the police do not consider this to be a terrorist attack are at least 9 hrs old.
So the narrative put forward by the usual suspects blaming Islam is false in this case. Just like the last such incident in Canada which turned out to be a white nationalist and not a pair of gay Muslims shooting up a Mosque as was claimed by one person here.
Unlike all the other claims on page two, my statement was based on actual reports not just biased speculation from people wishing this was a Muslim terrorist.
Good to see your priorities are in order over a vowel. Is Monty grossly offensive to you? Call the magistrate.
Except yours. Aren't you special. Now it is "Islamic" terrorism when before it was just terrorism that morphed into "international" terrorism and now suckles on the teet of "Islamic" terrorism that you were denying.
Your statement assumed facts yet to be in evidence.
Shame that it's not actually a Muslim or a terrorist. How are you going to drive the narrative now?
Again, I ask for a link to show that the murderer was not a Muslim nor a terrorist. Who is trying to drive a narrative, hack?
Montegriffo wrote:
First of all it's Monte not Monty.
Also fuck off with your "calling the ball early." If you look at page two of this thread every post except mine is suggesting this was Islamic terrorism despite no such evidence being presented.
The reports that the police do not consider this to be a terrorist attack are at least 9 hrs old.
So the narrative put forward by the usual suspects blaming Islam is false in this case. Just like the last such incident in Canada which turned out to be a white nationalist and not a pair of gay Muslims shooting up a Mosque as was claimed by one person here.
Unlike all the other claims on page two, my statement was based on actual reports not just biased speculation from people wishing this was a Muslim terrorist.
Good to see your priorities are in order over a vowel. Is Monty grossly offensive to you? Call the magistrate.
Except yours. Aren't you special. Now it is "Islamic" terrorism when before it was just terrorism that morphed into "international" terrorism and now attempts to suckle on the teet of "Islamic" terrorism that you were denying. Your motives are obvious to everyone but you.
Your statement assumed facts yet to be in evidence.
Shame that it's not actually a Muslim or a terrorist. How are you going to drive the narrative now?
Again, I ask for a link to show that the murderer was not a Muslim nor a terrorist. Who is trying to drive a narrative, hack?
I'm no longer going to reply to any arsehole who deliberately mis-spells my name.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
Postby Speaker to Animals » Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:17 am
Terrorism is violence targeting civilians with the intent to achieve some ideological aim.
Crazy people who kill are not terrorists. You still have to put them down, but people like that are not an ideological threat to society. There exists no ideology to combat, no organization, and not even a community, per se.
Montegriffo wrote:I'm no longer going to reply to any arsehole who deliberately mis-spells my name.
It's asshole and misspell is one word, no hyphen. I can see how your proclamation makes it easier for you rather than providing having to provide supporting evidence of your claims. The old lady in the crosswalk, who was mowed down by the van driven by the terrorist, admires your resolve.
I was just taking exception to Monty calling the ball so early so he could rub his grossly offensive narrative in some peoples' faces.
