Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

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


Spaceman Spiff

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

WI would say the yelling of Alluh Ackbar right after killing

 

12 hours ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

 

Allahu Akbar

 

12 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I apologize.  I attempted to spell it fonetically.   

 

11 hours ago, visionary said:

Thanks, I didn't think I was spelling it right.  

 

49 minutes ago, grego said:

I actually see that spelling online. I'm not sure akbar is wrong per se. Kind of like Quran and Koran, Mohammed/Muhammed. Different alphabet, so the translation will be imperfect. 

 

It's "Alan Arkin."

 

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

Defining terrorism is kinda like defining porn.  I know it when I see it.  And I see a lot of the latter.

 

but i think youre including mass killing where there is no apparent motive in that definition. sometimes people kill people because they are actually mentally ill. i'm thinking about some of the adam lanza school shooting. or the aurora theater shooting- i dont know of a political/reliigeous/social motive in those cases (much like LV at the moment). i would also say that there must be some grey area with some of these shootings- i'm sure some people are mentally ill, but use some political excuse to kill people. 

 

i would put the dylan roof shooting in the terrorist category, btw. killing people based on their race is terrorism.

 

i think we tend to define terrorism now as a mass shooting rather than a killing based on a kind of motive. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Destino said:

I don't understand this bizarre argument over what to label terrorism.  If it was politically motivated it's terrorism, if not it's mass murder.  The number of people killed or injured doesn't factor in.  

 

A person can be a terrorist without having killed anyone.  Terrorist organizations like ISIS are comprised of much more than just mass murderers.  The people handling the money, recruiting, and even managing their online presence are all terrorists.  

 

Because man, as soon as it’s labeled terrorism the security hawks start swarming.  People who want your phone calls and all that other bull****.

 

The implications when you call something terrorism is that there is a giant overreaching problem that needs to be dealt with.  Laws need to be made, citizens need to be protected.  The state needs more control.

 

We sit through mass murders all the time and nothing happens, NOTHING.  But now, since this guy is a terrorist (not claiming he isn’t) there will be all sorts of proposals on how to stop it, mostly ones that simply harm Muslims on the whole.  And lots of people will agree with it because they’ve been scared up into a frenzy by the media and others.

 

Meanwhile, you can still buy bump stocks and take enough antidepressants to kill a large horse yet still own a firearm.

 

 

Call it terrorism, I don’t care.  But this country has way worse problems than some two bit lowlife running down a group in a park.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Destino said:

I don't understand this bizarre argument over what to label terrorism.  If it was politically motivated it's terrorism, if not it's mass murder.  The number of people killed or injured doesn't factor in.  

 

A person can be a terrorist without having killed anyone.  Terrorist organizations like ISIS are comprised of much more than just mass murderers.  The people handling the money, recruiting, and even managing their online presence are all terrorists.  

 

I've never understood the issue either. 

 

The only problem I've had is when things occur over seas they're terrorists if they're fighting a government we don't like, they're rebels if they're fighting a government we do like. Different issue though.

 

Motive matters, and whether it's terrorism or not is all to do about motive.

 

More to the comment I was making in regards to @Springfield - There's a huge difference between your gut reaction leaning terrorism when the suspect is identified as a muslim and leaning crazy person when it's identified as anyone else, and thinking all muslims are terrorists or that only muslims can be terrorists.

(Exception would be if the act is using explosives... i think everyone immediately goes to 'terrorism' when explosives are involved...)

 

Given the last 20 years, it's completely logical and understanding to have that gut reaction. The majority of acts committed against civilians by muslims have indeed been terrorism related, and the majority of acts committed by non-muslims against civilians have been non-terrorism related. 

 

It's just unfortunate a sizable portion of our population (including our politicians...) is unable to understand that muslim != terrorist

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

Because man, as soon as it’s labeled terrorism the security hawks start swarming.  People who want your phone calls and all that other bull****.

 

The implications when you call something terrorism is that there is a giant overreaching problem that needs to be dealt with.  Laws need to be made, citizens need to be protected.  The state needs more control.

 

We sit through mass murders all the time and nothing happens, NOTHING.  But now, since this guy is a terrorist (not claiming he isn’t) there will be all sorts of proposals on how to stop it, mostly ones that simply harm Muslims on the whole.  And lots of people will agree with it because they’ve been scared up into a frenzy by the media and others.

 

Meanwhile, you can still buy bump stocks and take enough antidepressants to kill a large horse yet still own a firearm.

 

 

Call it terrorism, I don’t care.  But this country has way worse problems than some two bit lowlife running down a group in a park.

 

This reads to me like:
"Nothing is being done about gun violence so why are we bothering to do anything about terrorism?"

 

I don't think that's what you actually mean, that's just how it reads to me.

 

I get your frustration and I have it as well. There's a serious issue with the intelligence level our discourse about these issues right now and it's making people who understand that, and aren't racist/bigots/xenophobic, incredibly frustrated...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of whether this is ISIS inspired or mentally whack job inspired -- these types of attacks have bern.my biggest fear.  

 

Not a cell, just someone intent on killing people.   We need to go Minority Report to stop that. 

 

Thank goodness he didnt have a gun. .

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

 

 

 

Call it terrorism, I don’t care.  But this country has way worse problems than some two bit lowlife running down a group in a park.

 

i think what youre saying is that there is undue attention given to radical islamic attacks as opposed to the (usually) white guy who kills some people for X reason. if so, are you basing this on number of deaths? number of instances, or something else?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dealing with terorism in a sensible and helpful way - good. 

 

Inciting fear and xenophobia and ignorance and causing other problems instead of dealing with terrorism - bad.  

 

Not dealing with gun violence at all - also bad.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

This reads to me like:
"Nothing is being done about gun violence so why are we bothering to do anything about terrorism?"

 

I don't think that's what you actually mean, that's just how it reads to me.

 

I get your frustration and I have it as well. There's a serious issue with the intelligence level our discourse about these issues right now and it's making people who understand that, and aren't racist/bigots/xenophobic, incredibly frustrated...

 

13 minutes ago, grego said:

 

i think what youre saying is that there is undue attention given to radical islamic attacks as opposed to the (usually) white guy who kills some people for X reason. if so, are you basing this on number of deaths? number of instances, or something else?

 

This whole thing frustrates me.

 

It frustrates me because, as a nation, we are bouncing from one catastrophe to the next.  Before this there was Puerto Rico, before that Las Vegas, before that Florida, before that Houston, before that something else that I forget.  Im sure my timelines are wrong, but you guys get the point.  Nothing gets done.  It’s the fact that nothing gets done that frustrates me.

 

I’d love to prevent this.  I’m just so numb to the whole “lots of people died today” news stories that I have trouble caring.  I don’t want that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, visionary said:

Dealing with terorism in a sensible and helpful way - good. 

 

Inciting fear and xenophobia and ignorance and causing other problems instead of dealing with terrorism - bad.  

 

Not dealing with gun violence at all - also bad.  

Inciting fear and social unrest (which I think xenophobia qualifies as) is also one of the effects of terrorist attacks.  In many ways we are where we are today because of terrorism.  Remove 9/11 and all the terrorist related incidents and wars it spawned and I wonder if Trump even comes close to winning.  Maybe, and maybe not.  We can argue to what degree but there's no denying tthat years of fighting terrorism, with no end in sight, has changed the American political landscape.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hard to know whats real and what isn't these days, every whack job under the sun claims their allegiance to ISIS everytime something like this happens.  Thirty years ago we had the same whack jobs who did the same egregious things but they didn't have a catchy slogan or terrorist organization to blame it on.

 

 

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...