|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 13 2017 12:32 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2017 12:22 m4ini wrote:Some interesting things.. That driver is a registered republican, i wonder how T_D is spinning that one, since it was clearly democrats trying to frame thoser fuckers. Second, and it just absolutely baffles me (and makes me lose the last shred of respect towards the US federal institutions): James Alex Fields, Jr. was booked and charged with one count of second-degree murder, three counts of malicious wounding, failure to stop for an accident involving a death, and hit-and-run, Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Superintendent Martin Kumer told The Washington Post. Fields is 20 years old. This actually pisses me off. What pisses off even more is the fact that by US law he actually isn't a terrorist. Or rather, it depends on which definition of terror you want to use. Under the definition of the DoD and FEMA, he's a terrorist. Under the definition of the US Code, he's not. Why does this come off as intentional? edit: jeez, Ted Cruz and Rubio are calling it terrorism... Yet uncle Trump is too fucking retarded to even condemn white supremacists, framing everyone as equally guilty there. The first time in my life I agree with Ted Cruz and hope he gets his way. Drag this POS and fire him out of a canon. Didn't Trump want to kill terrorists families? Is he going to execute this dude's family?
@Zero, answered.
|
On August 13 2017 10:53 Plansix wrote:
And someone like that should never be president. But here we are. My money is on Sessions doing jack shit.
The US attorney general, Jeff Sessions, said: “The violence and deaths in Charlottesville strike at the heart of American law and justice. When such actions arise from racial bigotry and hatred, they betray our core values and cannot be tolerated.
Well. More than trump already though.
|
Talk is cheap. Especially with Sessions.
|
On August 13 2017 13:32 Plansix wrote:
Talk is cheap. Especially with Sessions.
Well obviously. But your president doesn't even muster the talk part properly, that's all i said.
edit:
Well, he said it.
Aside, i do know what kinda guy Duke is. I just thought it's funny to see him blast Trump, who then reacts by not pointing out white supremacists.
|
On August 13 2017 13:35 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2017 13:32 Plansix wrote:
Talk is cheap. Especially with Sessions. Well obviously. But your president doesn't even muster the talk part properly, that's all i said.
That wasn't directed at you. Just anyone who thinks Sessions is going to do something.
Edit: lol David Duke. What a fucking cowardly shit stain.
|
Yup, but he hit the nail on the head. I guess accidentally.
|
On August 13 2017 13:39 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2017 13:35 m4ini wrote:On August 13 2017 13:32 Plansix wrote:
Talk is cheap. Especially with Sessions. Well obviously. But your president doesn't even muster the talk part properly, that's all i said. That wasn't directed at you. Just anyone who thinks Sessions is going to do something. Edit: lol David Duke. What a fucking cowardly shit stain.
hes tweeting about Hillary not being in prison
sad typical deflection
|
On August 13 2017 12:46 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2017 12:42 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 13 2017 12:37 m4ini wrote:On August 13 2017 12:33 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 13 2017 12:29 m4ini wrote:On August 13 2017 12:25 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Wait for his statement on why he did it to be released, if it is at all.
He's a terrorist, but in the US, he didn't kill enough. In order for people in the US to be considered a terrorist, body count has to exceed 5. That's the definition for mass murder, not terrorism. Sandy Hook was terrorism/mass murder Colorado theater shooting was terrorism/mass murder Charleston church shooting was terrorism/mass murder. You can decide which was which. But they were all terrorism in nature. The motive needs to be known, which we know was hate based. Or maybe he was fueled up on meth and redbull and claims temporary insanity. I'm calling it murder because in this country, there's a body count number that needs to be reached (don't really know what that number is), and the motive has to be based on something that can be tied rather closely to terrorism. Sandy Hook was terrorism AND mass murder. Charleston was terrorism AND mass murder. That's really not a hard concept. To be a mass murder/mass shooting, 5 bodies are required. Not for terrorism. A terrorist attack can happen with zero bodies. As happened multiple times in the US already in the last decade. You're mistaken, i literally just went through the relevant US code articles. Here, that's what terrorism in the US is. Title 22, Chapter 38 of the United States Code (regarding the Department of State) contains a definition of terrorism in its requirement that annual country reports on terrorism be submitted by the Secretary of State to Congress every year. It reads:
[T]he term 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.[60]
Title 18 of the United States Code (regarding criminal acts and criminal procedure) defines international terrorism as:
(1) [T]he term 'international terrorism' means activities that —
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) 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
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, 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".[61]
Yeah, it's off wiki. The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as "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. Section 0.85). The U.S. Department of Defense recently changed its definition of terrorism. Per Joint Pub 3-07.2, Antiterrorism, (24 November 2010), the Department of Defense defines it as "the unlawful use of violence or threat of violence to instill fear and coerce governments or societies. Terrorism is often motivated by religious, political, or other ideological beliefs and committed in the pursuit of goals that are usually political."
The new definition distinguishes between motivations for terrorism (religion, ideology, etc.) and goals of terrorism ("usually political"). This is in contrast to the previous definition which stated that the goals could be religious in nature.
And so forth, there's more, but not a single one is tied to a bodycount. My argument, failingly being presented, is that in my opinion, if you look at the new definition of terrorism as the politicians apply it, this isn't terrorism. Just a mentally unstable individual who wanted to cause mayhem at a rally. Sure, it can meet the literal definitions, but they won't call it that. Optics or something I guess. The examples I gave above left no room for anyone to dawdle on what it was called. They term those examples terrorism because of the amount of people killed, not because of the motives behind them (exception being the church. That was explicitly stated by the perpetrator). See the edits. You're entitled to your opinion, but so am i: this was terrorism. Politically motivated attack on "opposition" (counter protesters). There's a big problem here. They do call similar attacks terror (edit: "they" being politicians and media). They did call attacks on police officers terror. They did not call this here terror. If you don't see a disconnect there, i don't know. Hell, Cruz and Rubio are calling this terror.
But but but... i thought terrorism implied it was done by brown people?
If the guy had shooted Allahu Akhbar instead of Sieg Heil, no one would even talk about it not being terrorism. Apparently killing for one racist is mass murder, for another one is terrorism. But we knew that already.
That made me laugh. Waiting to hear how those people are not nazis and how violence is on the left in american politics.
|
|
|
On August 13 2017 15:04 riotjune wrote:
a basket of deplorables
Shhhhh don't say that it's insulting! And politically incorrect (tm)
|
On August 13 2017 15:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:Shhhhh don't say that it's insulting! And politically incorrect (tm)
Which is exactly why I said it. Damn, I sure hurt every one of them feelings didn' I?
|
On August 13 2017 15:43 riotjune wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2017 15:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 13 2017 15:04 riotjune wrote:
a basket of deplorables Shhhhh don't say that it's insulting! And politically incorrect (tm) Which is exactly why I said it. Damn, I sure hurt every one of them feelings didn' I?
But don't generalize, many confederate flags and svastika bearers in this march were decent, peaceful nazis.
By the way, out of 85 deadly terrorist acts commited in the US since 11/9, 62 were the deed of white supremacists
Source (GAO)
But it's urgent to ban muslims, and violence comes from the left. Obviously
|
On August 13 2017 15:53 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2017 15:43 riotjune wrote:On August 13 2017 15:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 13 2017 15:04 riotjune wrote:
a basket of deplorables Shhhhh don't say that it's insulting! And politically incorrect (tm) Which is exactly why I said it. Damn, I sure hurt every one of them feelings didn' I? But don't generalize, many confederate flags and svastika bearers in this march were decent, peaceful nazis. By the way, out of 85 deadly terrorist acts commited in the US since 11/9, 62 were the deed of white supremacists Source (GAO)But it's urgent to ban muslims, and violence comes from the left. Obviously
Have you SEEN those radical college kids at Berkeley?
|
On August 13 2017 16:48 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2017 15:53 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 13 2017 15:43 riotjune wrote:On August 13 2017 15:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 13 2017 15:04 riotjune wrote:
a basket of deplorables Shhhhh don't say that it's insulting! And politically incorrect (tm) Which is exactly why I said it. Damn, I sure hurt every one of them feelings didn' I? But don't generalize, many confederate flags and svastika bearers in this march were decent, peaceful nazis. By the way, out of 85 deadly terrorist acts commited in the US since 11/9, 62 were the deed of white supremacists Source (GAO)But it's urgent to ban muslims, and violence comes from the left. Obviously Have you SEEN those radical college kids at Berkeley?
Sarcasm?
|
|
|
On August 13 2017 14:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2017 12:46 m4ini wrote:On August 13 2017 12:42 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 13 2017 12:37 m4ini wrote:On August 13 2017 12:33 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 13 2017 12:29 m4ini wrote:On August 13 2017 12:25 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Wait for his statement on why he did it to be released, if it is at all.
He's a terrorist, but in the US, he didn't kill enough. In order for people in the US to be considered a terrorist, body count has to exceed 5. That's the definition for mass murder, not terrorism. Sandy Hook was terrorism/mass murder Colorado theater shooting was terrorism/mass murder Charleston church shooting was terrorism/mass murder. You can decide which was which. But they were all terrorism in nature. The motive needs to be known, which we know was hate based. Or maybe he was fueled up on meth and redbull and claims temporary insanity. I'm calling it murder because in this country, there's a body count number that needs to be reached (don't really know what that number is), and the motive has to be based on something that can be tied rather closely to terrorism. Sandy Hook was terrorism AND mass murder. Charleston was terrorism AND mass murder. That's really not a hard concept. To be a mass murder/mass shooting, 5 bodies are required. Not for terrorism. A terrorist attack can happen with zero bodies. As happened multiple times in the US already in the last decade. You're mistaken, i literally just went through the relevant US code articles. Here, that's what terrorism in the US is. Title 22, Chapter 38 of the United States Code (regarding the Department of State) contains a definition of terrorism in its requirement that annual country reports on terrorism be submitted by the Secretary of State to Congress every year. It reads:
[T]he term 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.[60]
Title 18 of the United States Code (regarding criminal acts and criminal procedure) defines international terrorism as:
(1) [T]he term 'international terrorism' means activities that —
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) 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
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, 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".[61]
Yeah, it's off wiki. The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as "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. Section 0.85). The U.S. Department of Defense recently changed its definition of terrorism. Per Joint Pub 3-07.2, Antiterrorism, (24 November 2010), the Department of Defense defines it as "the unlawful use of violence or threat of violence to instill fear and coerce governments or societies. Terrorism is often motivated by religious, political, or other ideological beliefs and committed in the pursuit of goals that are usually political."
The new definition distinguishes between motivations for terrorism (religion, ideology, etc.) and goals of terrorism ("usually political"). This is in contrast to the previous definition which stated that the goals could be religious in nature.
And so forth, there's more, but not a single one is tied to a bodycount. My argument, failingly being presented, is that in my opinion, if you look at the new definition of terrorism as the politicians apply it, this isn't terrorism. Just a mentally unstable individual who wanted to cause mayhem at a rally. Sure, it can meet the literal definitions, but they won't call it that. Optics or something I guess. The examples I gave above left no room for anyone to dawdle on what it was called. They term those examples terrorism because of the amount of people killed, not because of the motives behind them (exception being the church. That was explicitly stated by the perpetrator). See the edits. You're entitled to your opinion, but so am i: this was terrorism. Politically motivated attack on "opposition" (counter protesters). There's a big problem here. They do call similar attacks terror (edit: "they" being politicians and media). They did call attacks on police officers terror. They did not call this here terror. If you don't see a disconnect there, i don't know. Hell, Cruz and Rubio are calling this terror. But but but... i thought terrorism implied it was done by brown people? If the guy had shooted Allahu Akhbar instead of Sieg Heil, no one would even talk about it not being terrorism. Apparently killing for one racist is mass murder, for another one is terrorism. But we knew that already. https://twitter.com/goldengateblond/status/896409564668583941That made me laugh. Waiting to hear how those people are not nazis and how violence is on the left in american politics.
To be fair though, politicians & such had the "excuse" that alt-right ideology wasn't nearly as mainstream and well-publicized three or five years ago ; thus it was easy to brand them as lone mad men instead of what they were and are : terrorists. Now that this ideology is very mainstream and helped elect a President*, it's just impossible not to brand them as terrorists, and the so-called establishment Republicans have understood this well. There's only Trump refusing to acknowledge that.
*On that note, I wonder what would have been the reaction if a Jihadi group had played an important role (as important as all the alt-right leaders had with Trump) in electing a US President. Double standards and such.
|
On August 13 2017 16:57 Slaughter wrote:
Yes lol.
Sorry to be a bit thick, you never know here :p
|
|
|
Sweden33723 Posts
On August 13 2017 17:45 Tabbris wrote:Random conversation I had with someone on /r/donald http://imgur.com/a/Fa1thNo white supremacy here!
Feels like these people just don't go outside very often....
|
On August 13 2017 18:18 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Feels like these people just don't go outside very often....
This conversation could go in the dictionary as a definition of racism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
