Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

CNN: Truck strikes cyclists in Manhattan, up to 6 dead


Spaceman Spiff

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

 

But how do you stop one zealot with a rental truck?  These low-tech assaults are damned near impossible to predict or prevent.

 

Nothing.

 

I can tell you what you don’t do.  You don’t give up your liberties and rights in the name of safety.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I swear, POTUS has the intellect of a 7 year old. Those texts show such a lack of understanding. 

 

Anyway, I heard about this around 6:30 this evening. Nothing can be done to stop these kind of attacks. We sure can be one ****** up species.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

How so?

 

Well...

 

1.  It doesn’t incite fear.

2.  There isn’t any overt meaning in the killing.

3.  He didn’t really kill very many people.

 

 

This is just your standard crazy person driving a vehicle through a crowd.

 

Personally, I’m more afraid of sending my children to school or attending a game or concert than I am of something like this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Springfield said:

 

Well...

 

1.  It doesn’t incite fear.

2.  There isn’t any overt meaning in the killing.

3.  He didn’t really kill very many people.

 

 

This is just your standard crazy person driving a vehicle through a crowd.

 

Personally, I’m more afraid of sending my children to school or attending a game or concert than I am of something like this.

Well with the lack of a a "real" definition of terrorism AND the lack of details about the suspect, I would still argue your position.

 

1.  I bet the people on that sidewalk were scared.  It also incites fear that a person can do this with minimal technology/advanced equipment which is certainly going to incite fear in people (maybe not you).

2.  Hard to say here but I would say the yelling of Alluh Ackbar right after killing 8 people makes me suspect there is a meaning here.

3.  How many people are required to be killed before it is terrorism?  The underwear bomber didn't kill anyone and I would still call that terrorism.

 

My concern is how will this administration use this to advance their "cause".

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Well with the lack of a a "real" definition of terrorism AND the lack of details about the suspect, I would still argue your position.

 

1.  I bet the people on that sidewalk were scared.  It also incites fear that a person can do this with minimal technology/advanced equipment which is certainly going to incite fear in people (maybe not you).

2.  Hard to say here but I would say the yelling of Alluh Ackbar right after killing 8 people makes me suspect there is a meaning here.

3.  How many people are required to be killed before it is terrorism?  The underwear bomber didn't kill anyone and I would still call that terrorism.

 

My concern is how will this administration use this to advance their "cause".

I agree with most of this, but Alluh Ackbar can be used differently depending on the circumstances.

Also it's been brought up a bunch of times recently in incidents later determined not to be religiously motivated terrorist attacks. 

So while it is helpful in informing us of the religion of the attacker (assuming people aren't hearing what they expect to hear or making things up as has happened at times), it may not be as helpful as an indicator of intent as we may think.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, visionary said:

I agree with most of this, but Alluh Ackbar can be used differently depending on the circumstances.

Also it's been brought up a bunch of times recently in incidents later determined not to be religiously motivated terrorist attacks. 

So while it is helpful in informing us of the religion of the attacker (assuming people aren't hearing what they expect to hear or making things up as has happened at times), it may not be as helpful as an indicator of intent as we may think.

True it can be used differently depending on circumstances.  But based on the circumstance of he just ran of a whole mess of people and then got out with guns, I feel like we can make a reasonable safe assumption as to the motive.  

 

I'm not saying 100% it is terrorism (radical Islamic terrorism if you will :)) but for Springfield to say this is NOT terrorism seems way off.  If I were a betting man, I'd put good money on terrorism.  There is no signs that I have heard of that he accidentally veered off the road and hit all those people, he came out with guns, yelled a phrase that is quite popular at other terrorist actions, used a means that is common in Europe, etc.  I mean what else do you need to be able to safely assume it's terrorism?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Well with the lack of a a "real" definition of terrorism AND the lack of details about the suspect, I would still argue your position.

 

1.  I bet the people on that sidewalk were scared.  It also incites fear that a person can do this with minimal technology/advanced equipment which is certainly going to incite fear in people (maybe not you).

2.  Hard to say here but I would say the yelling of Alluh Ackbar right after killing 8 people makes me suspect there is a meaning here.

3.  How many people are required to be killed before it is terrorism?  The underwear bomber didn't kill anyone and I would still call that terrorism.

 

My concern is how will this administration use this to advance their "cause".

 

Fair enough.

 

To me, it is unfathomable that this could be considered terrorism as first sight but Las Vegas could not.  Un ****ing fathomable.  This was child’s play compared to Las Vegas.  This isn’t even a blip on the radar for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...