dreamingwolf Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 this is not a terrorist act, their needs to be some form of religous or political connection to the crime to define it as terrorism. If he was a member of the world socialists and this act was designed to scare people away from the capitalist excercise of retail shopping I would agree this was a terrorist act, but he was just an insane douche bag that wanted to get his name in the paper and thats it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 Meaning, you thought it was OK to call somebody out and attack them, since they can't talk back? Exactly. Seems fairly obvious that it is inappropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 gamer?...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSW Posted December 6, 2007 Author Share Posted December 6, 2007 this is not a terrorist act, their needs to be some form of religous or political connection to the crime to define it as terrorism. If he was a member of the world socialists and this act was designed to scare people away from the capitalist excercise of retail shopping I would agree this was a terrorist act, but he was just an insane douche bag that wanted to get his name in the paper and thats it. No not really. Goal/Cause = check Created act of terror = check Seeks audience/large crowd/venue for his act of terror = check Seeks Media attention to draw attention to his cause = check Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ax Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 He wanted to go to a crowded place to create terror which would get him media attention for his cause. But his cause died with him. Most "terrorists" acts are to further a cause, yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 Seems fairly straight foward to me. He wanted to go to a crowded place to create terror which would get him media attention for his cause. what exactly was his cause? fame? that seems like a one man crusade to me, not much of organization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingGibbs Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 Meaning, you thought it was OK to call somebody out and attack them, since they can't talk back? Sorry, but that was a heated subject between he and I lastyear. I called him out when he was here. Maybe if he would show more compassion for the victims instead of the killers my opinion of him would be different. I'm surprised anyone would defend him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 When was it decided that terrorism was hard to define? It's not, and never has been. Terrorism is violence directed at infrastructure or civilians intended to breed fear in the civilian population and cause them to doubt their governments ability to protect them. The reasoning is political - they want the government to do something so they strike at the government power source (the people) hoping to force the government to comply out of fear of losing control. What happened at this mall is not terrorism. This is mass murder by an individual. Something that has happened many times before and prior to 9/11 was never confused for terrorism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 Sorry, but that was a heated subject between he and I lastyear. I called him out when he was here. Maybe if he would show more compassion for the victims instead of the killers my opinion of him would be different. I'm surprised anyone would defend him. You allowed him to push your buttons. But for you to call him names when he isn't even here, for an incident that took place last year... seems almost silly to me. Let that crap go. Certainly most of us don't agree with many of his views on subjects, but that is what society is made up of including this board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ax Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 When was it decided that terrorism was hard to define? It's not, and never has been. Terrorism is violence directed at infrastructure or civilians intended to breed fear in the civilian population and cause them to doubt their governments ability to protect them. The reasoning is political - they want the government to do something so they strike at the government power source (the people) hoping to force the government to comply out of fear of losing control.What happened at this mall is not terrorism. This is mass murder by an individual. Something that has happened many times before and prior to 9/11 was never confused for terrorism. Shhhhhhh! Common sense was not what the OP was after here. Muslim hater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 I'm surprised anyone would defend him. I'm not defending him. Frankly, I'm mostly convinced that he's a virtual person who's been created to make lesser right wing nutjobs look loony by association. (I also think it would really help things around here if people would resist the temptation to stick quarters into the Mass Juke Box, in every single thread, and thus turning every single thread into a "let's talk about how Mass feels about the world" thread.) What I am doing is objecting to posters attacking a person, stating that they know that attacking a person is against the board rules, claiming that they figured that breaking the rules was acceptable in this case because the person they were kicking was safely down, and then telling "law enforcement" "please don't punish me for knowingly breaking the rules. I'll follow the rule that I knew I was breaking, if you tell me that I have to." Leave Mass' name out of your post, and it's a complaint about a type of post that you (and I) object to. Without his name, then you're objecting to a tactic, not a person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingGibbs Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 You allowed him to push your buttons. But for you to call him names when he isn't even here, for an incident that took place last year... seems almost silly to me. Let that crap go. It's not just that incident it's many of his views that deserve to be scrutinized. What I am doing is objecting to posters attacking a person, stating that they know that attacking a person is against the board rules, claiming that they figured that breaking the rules was acceptable in this case because the person they were kicking was safely down, and then telling "law enforcement" "please don't punish me for knowingly breaking the rules. I'll follow the rule that I knew I was breaking, if you tell me that I have to." He's banned so it's not against the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 While there is no universal definition of terrorism, various experts point out that there are common elements to most terrorist acts. Terrorists choose targets and actions to maximize the psychological effect on a society or government. Their goal is to create a situation in which a government will change its policies to avoid further bloodshed or disruption. For these reasons, terrorists often choose methods of mass destruction, such as bombings, and target transportation or crowded places to increase anxiety and fear. Terrorists plan their acts to get as much media exposure as possible. Media coverage magnifies the terrorist act by spreading fear among a mass audience and giving attention to the terrorist cause. Seems fairly straight foward to me. He wanted to go to a crowded place to create terror which would get him media attention for his cause. That strikes me as a pretty disingenuous explanation, my friend. There are very clear connotations to the word "terrorist" today that are far removed from the deranged actions of one lonely murderous suicidal suburban kid in Nebraska. Surely you don't expect me to believe you used the term, as apparently defined by some anonymous "terrorism expert," without stopping to consider that reality? Particularly given you also closed your initial post by saying if it had been a Muslim kid, the forum would have treated the matter entirely differently? And then for some unfathomable reason followed that comment with a smilie face? I don't know you or your posting history, but based on first impressions, this thread looks like a matter of making use of a tragic news event to advance some personal agenda. I'd very much like to be convinced otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 I don't know you or your posting history, but based on first impressions, this thread looks like a matter of making use of a tragic news event to advance some personal agenda. I'd very much like to be convinced otherwise. I'm suddenly getting strong readings from my banometer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cdowwe Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 Rot in hell you SOB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 Larry, I think you're completely missing my point. If a family chooses to possess firearms (hunting rifles, etc), and the parents know what their kids are doing and even teach them how to properly use one, like at a firing range, then there is no "oblivousness".What I am outraged at is when parents, guardians, or whoever is the primary supervising adult doesn't have a flippin' clue what their kids are doing. It's called parental responsibility. Now i don't know about other people, but in my household I wouldn't have my kids anywhere near a firearm...and if I ever saw one of them brandishing a gun...and a semiautomatic rifle no less...my reaction wouldn't be "ehh, oh well, kids will be kids". But that's just me. I agree with you that many parents have no clue what their kids are doing, but this guy is 19. He's an adult. He doesn't really require supervision, but a bell should have went off with the woman knowing he had weapons and was acting strangely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 Real good-lookin' kid. :doh: I bet he drove one of these turdbuckets... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 Did people label the muslim student a terrorist when he try to run people over with his car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trio Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 technically he did not "own" a semi automatic weapon... since, like in most case, the firearm he used for this was stolen....in this instance from his stepfather... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DariusCyrus Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 dude was an emo... just look at the pic.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aejm1400 Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 For me, in this horrible situation there was one good thing I heard. That would be how quickly the police responded to the situation. I didn't know anyone killed directly, but the UPS guy that comes to my workplace daily said 3 guys from his worked were affected with a mother-in-law, sister, and wife were killed. The guy's brother was also the 2nd cop on the scene yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSW Posted December 7, 2007 Author Share Posted December 7, 2007 That strikes me as a pretty disingenuous explanation, my friend. There are very clear connotations to the word "terrorist" today that are far removed from the deranged actions of one lonely murderous suicidal suburban kid in Nebraska. Surely you don't expect me to believe you used the term, as apparently defined by some anonymous "terrorism expert," without stopping to consider that reality? Particularly given you also closed your initial post by saying if it had been a Muslim kid, the forum would have treated the matter entirely differently? And then for some unfathomable reason followed that comment with a smilie face? I don't know you or your posting history, but based on first impressions, this thread looks like a matter of making use of a tragic news event to advance some personal agenda. I'd very much like to be convinced otherwise. No personal agenda here. Just an observation that you apparently do not agree with. I am not worried about my posting record. I am confident it can withstand the same review given to plenty of other active members on this board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 No personal agenda here. Just an observation that you apparentlydo not agree with. I am not worried about my posting record. I am confident it can withstand the same review given to plenty of other active members on this board. Based on your last two posts, it looks pretty clear that you have no intention of giving me an honest answer to honest questions, but 'll give it one more shot. 1) What was your motivation for posting the thread? 2) Why did you choose the word "terrorist" to describe a shooting at a mall in Nebraska by a lone, troubed suburbad kid? 3) Why the comment about how if it had been a Muslim kid, the forum would have treated the event differently, particularly given your use of the word "terrorist" at a time when that word carries such clear, obvious connotations? 4) Why the smilie face to puctuate the observation noted in #3? You say you had no agenda. That doesn't stand up to even cursory scrutiny. The only non-agenda reason a reasonable person could reach as to the possible motivation for posting this news item would be simply to share a sad news event. Coloring it as you have, however, first with the capricious use of the word "terrorist" in the title, then with the Muslim spin at the end of the OP, and now with repeatedly sidestepping direct questions, makes it pretty clear you had something else in mind. Any chance you'll respond honestly to straight requests for insight into your "observations?" Seems to me if you felt strongly enough to post them in the first place, you'd be willing to explain them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 Real good-lookin' kid. :doh: I bet he drove one of these turdbuckets... Not if he was working at Burger King. :laugh: And dude, your obsession is getting scary. I think it must come from deep routed jealousy. BTW I see you still cant help but keep a picture of a guitar in your sig so you can show how cool you are. Very smooth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edgun88 Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 It is always the same kinda kids that do stuff like this. People should see stuff like this coming. So sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.