More Conk terrorism - mass shooting at Planned Parenthood cl

[Chizzang]

Joe,
If some nut blows up a catholic church - is that terrorism..?
just wondering where the line is you and AZ are drawing

[Ibanez]

This is a despicable crime, but it isn't terrorism.

Nothing about this act terrorizes me.

Terrorists intend to incite mass fear within the population at large by acts of violence that randomly strike people as they go about their daily lives. Terrorists send the message that it could have been you, and you might be next.

This was a targeted act of political and social violence.

I bet the people working at that clinic felt terrorized. But, I guess since YOU'RE OK, then it's ok. I'm glad to know that your feelings is the "Is it Terrorism?" litmus test. Good to know.


Joe, that's probably your dumbest post.

[Ibanez]

The 24/7 news cycle gave this story the attention it merited and has already moved on.

What happened in Paris is still dominating the news coverage.

Get it?

Even the media get the difference between this event and terrorism.

Only people who think like you do (if one can call that "thinking") believe this is terrorism.

That's not a Christian attitude.

So, for those of you keeping score at home. Something is an act of terrorism if:

1) It affects Joe
2) The Media stays on it longer than a couple of days.

[Ibanez]

Suspect used to live in Black Mountain, NC.

Suspect has been arrested in South Carolina for multiple crimes. I'm sure his animal abuse behavior is perfectly acceptable, right JSO?

[Ibanez]

It's terrorism.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigat ... definition

Look, I get the "white Christian extremist terrorism" has political value -- but under the the definition of "domestic terrorism" within that statute, this act doesn't fit.

It this case is going federal, it's going to be based on civil rights violations. But under state law, these actions constitute murder, and likely capital murder.

"The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims". It's pretty cut and dry. Abortion is a hot political/religious topic. He wasn't acting to create a safe environment.

[CID1990]

This is a dumb argument. Terrorism is a nebulous term and as many people like to point out when it suits them- one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

The dude killed people at an abortion clinic. We'll find out what his motives were soon. In the meantime and thereafter, we'd be just as productive arguing the existence of god

[AZGrizFan]

Unless you work at an abortion clinic you're probably safe. Safe = NOT terrorized. Not terrorized = NOT terrorism.

And to use JJ's analogy I wasn't planning on going to France, so.....

Then you're good to go. Now...if you were to go to an abortion clinic in France, you'd probably be fucked.

[AZGrizFan]

Joe,
If some nut blows up a catholic church - is that terrorism..?
just wondering where the line is you and AZ are drawing

Depends. Is that nut job a muslin?

[CID1990]

Joe,
If some nut blows up a catholic church - is that terrorism..?

no, it's Protestantism

[AshevilleApp]

Joe,
If some nut blows up a catholic church - is that terrorism..?

no, it's Protestantism

Got them Belfast Blues!

[JoltinJoe]

Joe,
If some nut blows up a catholic church - is that terrorism..?
just wondering where the line is you and AZ are drawing

It would depend on the circumstances, but an attack like that is more likely to be a hate crime, rather than terrorism.

In fact, Catholic Churches were once routinely targeted like that in this country in times past. No one called it terrorism.

We need to be careful what we call "terrorism," because the term has become loaded. I think it goes back to how the Brits occupying Northern Ireland successfully managed to label the IRA "terrorists," when the IRA was, in fact, targeting personnel of the British occupation (troops, law enforcement).

To properly distinguish terrorism from political/social violence, or hate crimes (or legitimate means of oppressed people), I think it's essential to define it as an attack in which the victims are essentially random proxies for the institution that is the true target of the attack.

You can see the IRA attacking British troops, then, isn't terrorism. The PLO blowing up a beach, though, is different.

A gunman attacking Planned Parenthood isn't terrorism, since Planned Parenthood is the target.

And in your example, people bombing a church are more likely bigots than terrorists.

The goal of people using the term "terrorism" here is to try to associate pro-life expression and pro-life supporters with "terrorism." What follows next is the predictable charge that pro-life expression incites terrorism.

BTW, when the PLO blew up a Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, the US was quick to call that terrorism. I was taking a class in the "History of the Modern Middle East" at the time, and we discussed this subject in our class. The consensus we reached was essentially targeting Marines isn't terrorism; it is an act of war, rightly or wrongly.

[JoltinJoe]

This is a despicable crime, but it isn't terrorism.

Nothing about this act terrorizes me.

Terrorists intend to incite mass fear within the population at large by acts of violence that randomly strike people as they go about their daily lives. Terrorists send the message that it could have been you, and you might be next.

This was a targeted act of political and social violence.

I bet the people working at that clinic felt terrorized. But, I guess since YOU'RE OK, then it's ok. I'm glad to know that your feelings is the "Is it Terrorism?" litmus test. Good to know.


Joe, that's probably your dumbest post.

That big space over your head is showing.

[AshevilleApp]

Joe,
If some nut blows up a catholic church - is that terrorism..?
just wondering where the line is you and AZ are drawing

It would depend on the circumstances, but an attack like that is more likely to be a hate crime, rather than terrorism.

In fact, Catholic Churches were once routinely targeted like that in this country in times past. No one called it terrorism.

We need to be careful what we call "terrorism," because the term has become loaded. I think it goes back to how the Brits occupying Northern Ireland successfully managed to label the IRA "terrorists," when the IRA was, in fact, targeting personnel of the British occupation (troops, law enforcement).

To properly distinguish terrorism from political/social violence, or hate crimes (or legitimate means of oppressed people), I think it's essential to define it as an attack in which the victims are essentially random proxies for the institution that is the true target of the attack.

You can see the IRA attacking British troops, then, isn't terrorism. The PLO blowing up a beach, though, is different.

A gunman attacking Planned Parenthood isn't terrorism, since Planned Parenthood is the target.

And in your example, people bombing a church are more likely bigots than terrorists.

The goal of people using the term "terrorism" here is to try to associate pro-life expression and pro-life supporters with "terrorism." What follows next is the predictable charge that pro-life expression incites terrorism.

BTW, when the PLO blew up a Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, the US was quick to call that terrorism. I was taking a class in the "History of the Modern Middle East" at the time, and we discussed this subject in our class. The consensus we reached was essentially targeting Marines isn't terrorism; it is an act of war, rightly or wrongly.

Joe. The IRA also targeted civilians in Northern Ireland and England. Their Protestant counterparts also targeted civilians.

[Bronco]

So 12 are either killed or wounded and not a single one connected to Planned Parenthood...but all you hear in the media is Planed Parenthood over and over

Strange that on the shooters voter information card he lists his gender as female

https://web.archive.org/web/20151128051 ... _dear.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[JoltinJoe]

It would depend on the circumstances, but an attack like that is more likely to be a hate crime, rather than terrorism.

In fact, Catholic Churches were once routinely targeted like that in this country in times past. No one called it terrorism.

We need to be careful what we call "terrorism," because the term has become loaded. I think it goes back to how the Brits occupying Northern Ireland successfully managed to label the IRA "terrorists," when the IRA was, in fact, targeting personnel of the British occupation (troops, law enforcement).

To properly distinguish terrorism from political/social violence, or hate crimes (or legitimate means of oppressed people), I think it's essential to define it as an attack in which the victims are essentially random proxies for the institution that is the true target of the attack.

You can see the IRA attacking British troops, then, isn't terrorism. The PLO blowing up a beach, though, is different.

A gunman attacking Planned Parenthood isn't terrorism, since Planned Parenthood is the target.

And in your example, people bombing a church are more likely bigots than terrorists.

The goal of people using the term "terrorism" here is to try to associate pro-life expression and pro-life supporters with "terrorism." What follows next is the predictable charge that pro-life expression incites terrorism.

BTW, when the PLO blew up a Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, the US was quick to call that terrorism. I was taking a class in the "History of the Modern Middle East" at the time, and we discussed this subject in our class. The consensus we reached was essentially targeting Marines isn't terrorism; it is an act of war, rightly or wrongly.

Joe. The IRA also targeted civilians in Northern Ireland and England. Their Protestant counterparts also targeted civilians.

You are misinformed.

The IRA did not target civilians.

The first targeting of civilians in Northern Ireland was done by the police forces (controlled by Great Britain), and by British military forces, and they often targeted civilians at Catholic churches/events.

The divide in Northern Ireland was never really Catholic v. Protestant. That was, again, a convenient tool by which Great Britain defined the circumstances and thus managed to divert attention from the fact that it was illegally occupying Ireland. The Irish were predominantly Catholic. The illegal occupiers were primarily Protestant. It was a stroke of "genius" to attack the Irish civilian population while they attended church services, to create the appearance of a "religious" divide between Catholic and Protestants, and to obscure that the issue was really British occupation of six counties of Ireland.

AFTER the British targeted the Irish civilian populations, more militant members of the IRA broke away and formed what is properly referred to as the "Provisional Irish Republican Army." This is the organization which carried out the attacks you mentioned (and most famously, the attack on Lord Mountbatten). Once again, the Brits managed the PR perfectly by getting the media to use the term "IRA" to refer to what was actually the "Provisional IRA."

[JohnStOnge]

I think it's pretty simple. Terrorism is when the enemy tries to make the population it's after feel unsafe. To create anxiety. It's not about the people targeted in the specific attack per se. Yes, the people targeted will feel terror if they don't die before they realize what's going on . But the point is to make all those OTHER people who hear about what happened fear that they have to worry about it happening to THEM.

Thus something like 9-11. It largely paralyzed the United States for a while because of concern that something like that could happen again. Caused all kinds of response. Damaged the economy. And that was the objective.

Something like the guy going into the theater in Colorado or the School in Sandy Hook isn't terrorism. They're not thinking of some objective beyond where they're going. They just want to kill people. They're not using terror as a tactic for a larger purpose.

[Ibanez]

I bet the people working at that clinic felt terrorized. But, I guess since YOU'RE OK, then it's ok. I'm glad to know that your feelings is the "Is it Terrorism?" litmus test. Good to know.


Joe, that's probably your dumbest post.

That big space over your head is showing.

Yeah? I'm glad to see you're tolerant of opinions. It's seems pretty cut and dry.

[kalm]

Joe,
If some nut blows up a catholic church - is that terrorism..?
just wondering where the line is you and AZ are drawing

It would depend on the circumstances, but an attack like that is more likely to be a hate crime, rather than terrorism.

In fact, Catholic Churches were once routinely targeted like that in this country in times past. No one called it terrorism.

We need to be careful what we call "terrorism," because the term has become loaded. I think it goes back to how the Brits occupying Northern Ireland successfully managed to label the IRA "terrorists," when the IRA was, in fact, targeting personnel of the British occupation (troops, law enforcement).

To properly distinguish terrorism from political/social violence, or hate crimes (or legitimate means of oppressed people), I think it's essential to define it as an attack in which the victims are essentially random proxies for the institution that is the true target of the attack.

You can see the IRA attacking British troops, then, isn't terrorism. The PLO blowing up a beach, though, is different.

A gunman attacking Planned Parenthood isn't terrorism, since Planned Parenthood is the target.

And in your example, people bombing a church are more likely bigots than terrorists.

The goal of people using the term "terrorism" here is to try to associate pro-life expression and pro-life supporters with "terrorism." What follows next is the predictable charge that pro-life expression incites terrorism.

BTW, when the PLO blew up a Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, the US was quick to call that terrorism. I was taking a class in the "History of the Modern Middle East" at the time, and we discussed this subject in our class. The consensus we reached was essentially targeting Marines isn't terrorism; it is an act of war, rightly or wrongly.

Yeah! I've been trying forever to associate the acts of a few terrorists with all Muslims!

[93henfan]

This particular guy in Colorado seems to be a real piece of work, so I'm not sure if his intentions were crystal clear, even with his muttering of "baby parts" and his choice of Planned Parenthood as his venue.

But in the arena of those who target abortion doctors and abortion clinics in general, they are clearly terrorists. Their intent is to create fear among the doctors and the women deciding if they are going to get an abortion. It's terrorism, plain and simple. They want their targets to stop performing and/or receiving abortions. In a similar way, muslim terrorist attacks are to get the targets' countries to leave muslim lands.

Bombing a black church is something totally different. Those folks aren't trying to keep blacks from going to church. They're basically sending a message that they don't like black people. (hate crime)

[Ibanez]

This particular guy in Colorado seems to be a real piece of work, so I'm not sure if his intentions were crystal clear, even with his muttering of "baby parts" and his choice of Planned Parenthood as his venue.

But in the arena of those who target abortion doctors and abortion clinics in general, they are clearly terrorists. Their intent is to create fear among the doctors and the women deciding if they are going to get an abortion. It's terrorism, plain and simple. They want their targets to stop performing and/or receiving abortions. In a similar way, muslim terrorist attacks are to get the targets' countries to leave muslim lands.

Bombing a black church is something totally different. Those folks aren't trying to keep blacks from going to church. They're basically sending a message that they don't like black people. (hate crime)

You're wrong. JoltinJoe said so. Whites can't be terrorists.


Idiot.

[JoltinJoe]

Yea, that's what I said.

[JoltinJoe]

It would depend on the circumstances, but an attack like that is more likely to be a hate crime, rather than terrorism.

In fact, Catholic Churches were once routinely targeted like that in this country in times past. No one called it terrorism.

We need to be careful what we call "terrorism," because the term has become loaded. I think it goes back to how the Brits occupying Northern Ireland successfully managed to label the IRA "terrorists," when the IRA was, in fact, targeting personnel of the British occupation (troops, law enforcement).

To properly distinguish terrorism from political/social violence, or hate crimes (or legitimate means of oppressed people), I think it's essential to define it as an attack in which the victims are essentially random proxies for the institution that is the true target of the attack.

You can see the IRA attacking British troops, then, isn't terrorism. The PLO blowing up a beach, though, is different.

A gunman attacking Planned Parenthood isn't terrorism, since Planned Parenthood is the target.

And in your example, people bombing a church are more likely bigots than terrorists.

The goal of people using the term "terrorism" here is to try to associate pro-life expression and pro-life supporters with "terrorism." What follows next is the predictable charge that pro-life expression incites terrorism.

BTW, when the PLO blew up a Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, the US was quick to call that terrorism. I was taking a class in the "History of the Modern Middle East" at the time, and we discussed this subject in our class. The consensus we reached was essentially targeting Marines isn't terrorism; it is an act of war, rightly or wrongly.

Yeah! I've been trying forever to associate the acts of a few terrorists with all Muslims!

Yea, that's what I said too.


It's amazing how obtuse you are. I guess landing at a directional U was no accident.

I mean, really, you and Ibanez are cracking me up. I write something, carefully choosing my words, and this how you guys comprehend what I've said? Damn, the guy marking your SAT reading comprehensions sections must have gotten some great laughs from your answers.

[JoltinJoe]

But in the arena of those who target abortion doctors and abortion clinics in general, they are clearly terrorists. Their intent is to create fear among the doctors and the women deciding if they are going to get an abortion. It's terrorism, plain and simple. They want their targets to stop performing and/or receiving abortions. In a similar way, muslim terrorist attacks are to get the targets' countries to leave muslim lands.

I don't agree with you on this point, but I appreciate that you actually understand what I said and responded to it.

[D1B]

Joe's putting on a trolling clinic.

[YoUDeeMan]

It's terrorism.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigat ... definition

Interesting definitions in that link.

International terrorism:

Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;

Domestic terrorism:

Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;


Why the difference?