Is dump going to call this domestic terroism?
- Thread starter TTQ64
- Start date
In order to fit the definition, the shooter would need to have a political agenda. So far they have no evidence of such an agenda. Horrifying as it is, if there isn't one then it isn't terrorism.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
maybe it was just workplace violence..........
When has the definition of terrorism changed?
"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" (28 C.F.R.
He fits the bolded description
SmarterthanYou
rebel
without knowing his INTENT, you can not even begin to define this as terrorism. pull your head out of your ass.
What part of unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property don't you understand? That alone qualifies as a terrorist.
He fucking terrorized 20K people at a concert killing 58+.........stop trying to protect white men as if they can't be terrorist.
He intended to use force and violence to kill.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
use the whole definition or don't use it at all.
I'm using the part of the definition that fits. "unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property"
it's one "or" the other.
Shooting 58 people is an act of terror, whether it has a political motivation or not, it is terrorism
The President isn't going to touch that, what will happen, and I've already seen it in their media, the right is going to say the left is politicalizing it because they are raising the issue of guns in America, the false equilivancy we see any time the preponderance of guns in America exhibits itself
The President isn't going to touch that, what will happen, and I've already seen it in their media, the right is going to say the left is politicalizing it because they are raising the issue of guns in America, the false equilivancy we see any time the preponderance of guns in America exhibits itself
EXACTLY!
But not the whole of it. This is literally taking it out of context where you ignore the reason: "in furtherance of political or social objectives." You have simply cut off the sentence in the middle of the list of actions taken for the reason specified that makes it terrorism. What political or social objective was presented? Without it, it is not terrorism, it is just a horrible crime. It is a legal term. A criminal attorney will tell you the same, as will the attorneys working with the President.
Inaccurate. It may be terrifying but it is not terrorism. Without the rest of the sentence you are simply describing assault, first degree murder, multiple murder, etc. Not terrorism.
Exactly. Should we find out that he was doing it to support antifa or KKK or some other terrorist organisation then it will definitely be called terrorism. At this point the element of the crime that makes it terrorism isn't there. That specific reason, without the motivation it does not fit the definition provided so kindly, then taken out of context, in an earlier post.
Because he's a buffoon who's afraid to rile up his base.
Absolutely!
He really didn't fare that well this morning, spoke on the tragedy from the teleprompter in a subdued voice in a speech that never got beyond boilerplate phrases.
I heard it. Those kinds of words aren't even in his lexicon, especially all the religious references.
And his stupid tweet "warmest condolences", WTH? Save the "warmest'" for congratulations, the word the idiot needed was "deepest."