Christian Terrorists Kill American Civilians and Shoot Police

[*michaelsean*]

(11-29-2015, 01:24 AM)GMDino Wrote: To be fair it may not have been his first thought.

Just the thought that some folks on here might want to up their "terrorist" lists to include some crazy white guys, who probably claim to be Christian.

And not one word of sympathy for the victims.  One gets a sense there was more interest in trying to score points than there was in the victims.  
And who doesn't recognize there are nut jobs killing people in rampages here?

[*bfine32*]

(11-29-2015, 01:22 AM)GMDino Wrote: So when someone goes into a PP and shoots up the place its not terrorism....its not meant to cause terror?

You're funny.

I'd guess what you would call it, but instead I'll let you tell me.

This should be good!

Oh...and two sources now say it was motivated by the "baby parts" videos.  Tsk...tsk.  That's some motivation there.  Good thing its not "terrorism" or we might have to watch all the crazy white guys with guns.

None of this has to do with the idiotic statement that it is terrorism regardless of the motive. Actually you have tried to show motive in this post to explain why it was terrorism.

[*Nately120*]

(11-29-2015, 12:45 AM)bfine32 Wrote: The take is not "interesting"; the take is motive determines if it is terrorism or not. Pretty much everybody but you and Nately understand this simple fact.

Motive, eh?  Maybe we should waterboard him until he confesses to all kinds of crazy stuff like we do with other terrorists.  

[*bfine32*]

(11-29-2015, 02:26 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Motive, eh?  Maybe we should waterboard him until he confesses to all kinds of crazy stuff like we do with other terrorists.  

It is profound that you continue to post, because others look at your posts and say "Is that me?" Then they have to look into the mirror and answer the question.

I have no idea when Americans started hating America, but it has happen and many take pride in it.

The OP is something that is shameful and it is crazy the support it is getting.

 

[*Nately120*]

(11-29-2015, 03:12 AM)bfine32 Wrote: It is profound that you continue to post, because others look at your posts and say "Is that me?" Then they have to look into the mirror and answer the question.

I have no idea when Americans started hating America, but it has happen and many take pride in it.

The OP is something that is shameful and it is crazy the support it is getting.

 

I don't suppose that "Americans hating America" includes Americans who hate American policy and laws so much that they kill people in order to scare people away from exercising said freedoms, does it?

[GMDino]

(11-29-2015, 01:36 AM)bfine32 Wrote: None of this has to do with the idiotic statement that it is terrorism regardless of the motive. Actually you have tried to show motive in this post to explain why it was terrorism.

Has Lucy been giving you tips on how to be wrong and defend it?

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition

Quote:Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code

18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorism”:
"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

• Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
• 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
• Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., 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.*
  

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

• Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
  
• Appear 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
• Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S
  

18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:

• Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
• Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930© (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).
  

* FISA defines "international terrorism" in a nearly identical way, replacing "primarily" outside the U.S. with "totally" outside the U.S. 50 U.S.C. § 1801©.

I don't see where it is defined solely by "motive".

Solid post though.

[BmorePat87]

(11-29-2015, 10:56 AM)GMDino Wrote: Has Lucy been giving you tips on how to be wrong and defend it?

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition




I don't see where it is defined solely by "motive".

Solid post though.

By the definition of "motive", trying to coerce or intimidate civilians is a motive. Now, it seems like you were trying to say that the very fact that this man was trying to cause fear in people  (intimidate), regardless of his motive (using motive strictly as whatever the outcome of their coercion is... i.e. "end planned parenthood funding), means that this is terrorism. 

In this sense, you are right. However, if we are just using the broad definition of motive, bfine is also right. If I killed someone just to kill them, it is not terrorism. I need a motive, which may just be the fact that I am trying to coerce or intimidate.

Granted, I didn't read through the whole exchange, but if someone stated "we need to know why they were trying to intimidate them so that we know if it was terrorism", then I would suggest that this person was incorrect. 

[GMDino]

(11-29-2015, 12:43 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: By the definition of "motive", trying to coerce or intimidate civilians is a motive. Now, it seems like you were trying to say that the very fact that this man was trying to cause fear in people  (intimidate), regardless of his motive (using motive strictly as whatever the outcome of their coercion is... i.e. "end planned parenthood funding), means that this is terrorism. 

In this sense, you are right. However, if we are just using the broad definition of motive, bfine is also right. If I killed someone just to kill them, it is not terrorism. I need a motive, which may just be the fact that I am trying to coerce or intimidate.

Granted, I didn't read through the whole exchange, but if someone stated "we need to know why they were trying to intimidate them so that we know if it was terrorism", then I would suggest that this person was incorrect. 

That's why I used the FBI definition.

That and we all know Larry is just trying to push the conversation in a way that he could be "right".

[*bfine32*]

(11-29-2015, 10:56 AM)GMDino Wrote: Has Lucy been giving you tips on how to be wrong and defend it?

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition




I don't see where it is defined solely by "motive".

Solid post though.

I will give you an A for effort; unfortunately, you receive an F for content. Go back and read Post #16 and tell me if that situation was an act of Domestic Terror. And then explain why you say it is or is not (no meme, no feeble attempt at imitation, no cut and paste, just your own thought process). The shooter's name is Marquinta E. Jacobs if you need to do additional research.


This is my last post on this petty back and forth with you on this subject, as I feel it is trivializing the tragedy of the event. You can rest assured that you can answer the question about Post 16 as asked without retort. 

[GMDino]

(11-29-2015, 01:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I will give you an A for effort; unfortunately, you receive an F for content. Go back and read Post #16 and tell me if that situation was an act of Domestic Terror. And then explain why you say it is or is not (no meme, no feeble attempt at imitation, no cut and paste, just your own thought process). The shooter's name is Marquinta E. Jacobs if you need to do additional research.


This is my last post on this petty back and forth with you on this subject, as I feel it is trivializing the tragedy of the event. You can rest assured that you can answer the question about Post 16 as asked without retort. 

Before I go off and do a bunch of research on something allow me one more thought:

Really struck a nerve in this thread, eh?

The man who shot up the PP committed an act of domestic terrorism as defined by the FBI.  Why you want to argue it is beyond me.  This "petty back and forth" is you trying to say this was just a random violent act.  A crime.  But NOT terrorism for some reason.

Oh, and solid post with lots of facts.  Thanks for participating.  

I'll await my notification that I was "anonymously" reported for...something.


EDIT: I looked at your post #16. Not terrorism.

Now look at post #1. Terrorism.

Thanks!

[Rotobeast]

(11-29-2015, 03:23 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'll await my notificationon that I was "anonymously" reported for...something.

Is that Cajun ?


Sorry, I'm not really into grammar/spelling smack.

[GMDino]

(11-29-2015, 04:02 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Is that Cajun ?


Sorry, I'm not really into grammar/spelling smack.

Ha! 

 No my "phone" auto-corrects it that way.  

[*michaelsean*]

(11-29-2015, 04:58 PM)GMDino Wrote: Ha! 

 No my "phone" auto-corrects it that way.  

You have a stupid phone

[*bfine32*]

The part that is getting lost in this thread:

http://news.yahoo.com/colorado-shooting-suspect-said-no-more-baby-parts-011209476.html

Quote:TWO CIVILIAN CASUALTIES

The second of the three people killed in the rampage at a was identified by a family member on Sunday as Jennifer Markovsky, a stay-at-home mother of two young children. Originally from Hawaii, she was at the clinic to support a friend, according to her sister in law, Julia Miller.

Garrett Swasey, 44, the officer killed in the attack, worked for the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. He was a father of two and served as an elder at a local church.

"We will cherish his memory, especially those times he spent tossing the football to his son and snuggling with his daughter on the couch," his widow, Rachel Swasey, said in a statement.

The name of the second civilian killed on Friday was still

not confirmed. Police said an official announcement was expected on Monday.

In addition to the three fatalities, nine people were injured, including five police officers.

[Belsnickel]

(11-29-2015, 09:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The part that is getting lost in this thread:

http://news.yahoo.com/colorado-shooting-suspect-said-no-more-baby-parts-011209476.html

I heard that the third was a 29 year old Iraq War vet. Such a sad, senseless act.

[GMDino]

(11-29-2015, 09:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The part that is getting lost in this thread:

http://news.yahoo.com/colorado-shooting-suspect-said-no-more-baby-parts-011209476.html

Not one person has said its not a sad, horrible thing that people got killed in a terrorist attack.

Its just that some (you) won't admit it was terrorism so you want to make it about something other than that and will focus on the victims THIS time.

Its sad.  Just admit you are wrong and move along.

We all mourn the dead.  This isn't about that in this thread.

[*bfine32*]

(11-29-2015, 10:38 PM)GMDino Wrote: Not one person has said its not a sad, horrible thing that people got killed in a terrorist attack.

Its just that some (you) won't admit it was terrorism so you want to make it about something other than that and will focus on the victims THIS time.

Its sad.  Just admit you are wrong and move along.

We all mourn the dead.  This isn't about that in this thread.

The truly sad thing is that you would reply to a post sharing information about the victims in such a manner.

Where have I denied it's an act of terrorism? 

I have said we should wait before we stereotype the shooter as a Christian radical (early reports indicate he had no religious ties) and that motive is necessary to determine whether or not it is an act of terrorism.

There was someone in here (I should add it to my sig) that ridiculously said "Its domestic terrorism...not matter what the motive was."


But if it will help you to stop trying to defend this ridiculous statement: "I was wrong"; not sure about what, but "I was wrong".


What is this thread about, if it is not a forum where we can mourn the dead?

[*bfine32*]

(11-29-2015, 09:33 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I heard that the third was a 29 year old Iraq War vet. Such a sad, senseless act.

Truly sad, but I have just been informed that this thread is not about that. 

[GMDino]

(11-29-2015, 11:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The truly sad thing is that you would reply to a post sharing information about the victims in such a manner.

Where have I denied it's an act of terrorism? 

I have said we should wait before we stereotype the shooter as a Christian radical (early reports indicate he had no religious ties) and that motive is necessary to determine whether or not it is an act of terrorism.

There was someone in here (I should add it to my sig) that ridiculously said "Its domestic terrorism...not matter what the motive was."


But if it will help you to stop trying to defend this ridiculous statement: "I was wrong"; not sure about what, but "I was wrong".


What is this thread about, if it is not a forum where we can mourn the dead?

You spent most of your posts arguing about what "terrorism" is!

Pull you big girl panties up and take your crocodile tears and make a thread about the victims of violence and how you think they don't get enough respect.  And stop playing the martyr when you get caught and get it handed to you.

Thanks!  Have a great day!  Troll.

[GMDino]

So it is a very slow day here (first day of hunting in PA) and I had time to go back an reread this thread to see if perhaps it had gone off-course somehow.

Just to recap.

This thread was never about the victims. Clearly no one wants to diminish the innocent lives lost to a terrorist.

The thread, this board usually, is to discuss the political and social implications of such attacks and events. While there is often something said about the real world lives lost the vast majority of the posts here are not about that.

There is nothing wrong with such posts about the people involved...nothing at all. And perhaps we should be MORE concerned about them than what to "think" about each event. However this thread was presented as a rebuttal to the multitude of recent posts about the refugees that should be banned due to "violence" they "might" bring with them.

Specifically, however, some wanted to change the tone of the thread to fit their political/social agenda and then claim the OP (and others) had no heart because the thread wasn't about what they now want it to be.

(11-27-2015, 08:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Terrible situation. Where did it say the shooter was Christian?

(11-27-2015, 08:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why would I bet on something I have no idea about or influence on? I think I'll just wait and see before jumping to conclusions. 

(11-27-2015, 09:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: That moment when folks look silly when they realize being white doesn't automatically make you Christian.

What was the race of the people that carried out the Paris bombings?

'''''''waiting for someone to say human.

(11-27-2015, 10:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure I will.

Like I said we should wait before we stereotype.

A couple years ago there was shooting here on post. Everybody immediately assumed we were getting ready for another Ft Hood type shooting. Turned out it was a "domestic issue". 

(11-27-2015, 11:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Unlike you and the OP I do not know the religious affiliation, if any, of the man responsible for this shooting. I was merely commenting on the ignorance of a couple guys assuming the shooter was a Christian because he was a WHITE MALE.

Those involved in the Paris Terror attack were WHITE MALES.  

(11-27-2015, 11:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Because there are those that must try to compare domestic crimes to international terrorism and Jihad. I have no idea why they try so hard, but apparently it means a lot to them. 

There was a guy on here about a week ago that posted about a shooting in Texas, simply because it involved a WHITE MALE. 

Wack jobs come in all shapes and sizes; but anyone trying to compare these issues to international Terrorism is just displaying their simple side. 

It took until this post to mention the victims.

(11-28-2015, 02:12 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Now research the word international. 

We will soon discover his motivation and there is a good chance that he was misguided. 

Debating this while 3 people who left for work this morning don't get to come home makes us all seem petty.

(11-28-2015, 02:37 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I suppose the obvious point that is missed is that we do not yet know the motivation of the shooter. 

Maybe, just maybe we can wait to discover that before we "argue" over it. 

(11-28-2015, 08:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: uuuhhmmmm......The motive pretty much determines if it is terrorism or not; domestic or otherwise. 

(11-29-2015, 12:45 AM)bfine32 Wrote: The take is not "interesting"; the take is motive determines if it is terrorism or not. Pretty much everybody but you and Nately understand this simple fact.

(11-29-2015, 01:36 AM)bfine32 Wrote: None of this has to do with the idiotic statement that it is terrorism regardless of the motive. Actually you have tried to show motive in this post to explain why it was terrorism.

(11-29-2015, 03:12 AM)bfine32 Wrote: It is profound that you continue to post, because others look at your posts and say "Is that me?" Then they have to look into the mirror and answer the question.

I have no idea when Americans started hating America, but it has happen and many take pride in it.

The OP is something that is shameful and it is crazy the support it is getting.

 

(11-29-2015, 01:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I will give you an A for effort; unfortunately, you receive an F for content. Go back and read Post #16 and tell me if that situation was an act of Domestic Terror. And then explain why you say it is or is not (no meme, no feeble attempt at imitation, no cut and paste, just your own thought process). The shooter's name is Marquinta E. Jacobs if you need to do additional research.


This is my last post on this petty back and forth with you on this subject, as I feel it is trivializing the tragedy of the event. You can rest assured that you can answer the question about Post 16 as asked without retort. 

And after being shown how wrong he was...we go back to the victims.

(11-29-2015, 09:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The part that is getting lost in this thread:

http://news.yahoo.com/colorado-shooting-suspect-said-no-more-baby-parts-011209476.html

And after being called out, again:

(11-29-2015, 10:38 PM)GMDino Wrote: Not one person has said its not a sad, horrible thing that people got killed in a terrorist attack.

Its just that some (you) won't admit it was terrorism so you want to make it about something other than that and will focus on the victims THIS time.

Its sad.  Just admit you are wrong and move along.

We all mourn the dead.  This isn't about that in this thread.

We play the martyr card:

(11-29-2015, 11:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The truly sad thing is that you would reply to a post sharing information about the victims in such a manner.

Where have I denied it's an act of terrorism? 

I have said we should wait before we stereotype the shooter as a Christian radical (early reports indicate he had no religious ties) and that motive is necessary to determine whether or not it is an act of terrorism.

There was someone in here (I should add it to my sig) that ridiculously said "Its domestic terrorism...not matter what the motive was."


But if it will help you to stop trying to defend this ridiculous statement: "I was wrong"; not sure about what, but "I was wrong".


What is this thread about, if it is not a forum where we can mourn the dead?

(11-29-2015, 11:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Truly sad, but I have just been informed that this thread is not about that. 

Just wanted to get all that in before the posts disappear (again) or it is claimed "no one cares about the victims" (again).