Perhaps enough armed Oathkeepers can be found to guard movie theaters as well as military recruiting offices?
I should live so long as to see the NRA headquarters need to be protected from repeated armed attacks!
2 Likes
Did you see where some knucklehead was āguardingā a recruiting station somewhere the other day, wanted to show someone his neato-keen AR-15 and accidentally let a round go into the street? Oopsie! He was asked to stop his guarding kthanxbai.
5 Likes
Then why did he try to escape?
8 Likes
Being mentally unstable is not mutually exclusive with being a terrorist. Iād suggest the vast majority if not all of radicalized domestic terrorists are mentally unstable, and that the experts all agree with ME.
The problem is precisely that authorities nor the media define this as terrorism. That doesnāt mean they know jack shit more about it whatsoever ā it means they do what they deem to be politically expedient in the face of a bunch of citizen-assholes who wonāt stand for their ideological brethren coming under the full brunt of anti-terrorism efforts.
And when they avoid applying the proper terminology, ostensibly so they donāt get heat from the right as did Janet Napolitano, the consequences are that the requisite resources required to meet this threat ā a threat far greater than that from any Muslim terrorist ā are not deployed to match the priority.
Calling radicalized right wingers out as the terrorists is not acceptable in a country dominated by a loudmouth minority of imbeciles sympathetic to their cause. Itās not acceptable in the media, and itās not acceptable in law enforcement, because of course the last thing we want to do is piss off tea partiers by pointing out this guy was both a terrorist and a member of their movement. Itās been rumored that Obama has had more threats on his life than most if not all prior Presidents, yet we hear nothing official about that, either. That is simply coddling the nitwits out of fear of repercussions just like weāre doing with Cliven Bundy and his band of domestic terrorists, and that shit has got to stop. Give terrorists an inch, they take a mile.
So Cletus and Marvelene can call it whatever they like, and they can break their arms patting themselves on the back that the āauthoritiesā are on their side. I never gave much of a flying fuck for authority, so Iām not going to be satisfied until these labels are applied uniformly without regard to race, gender, religion, or national origin, and more importantly, the law enforcement resources are deployed in proportion to the actual threat, not one minimized by calling these acts carried out by radicalized right wingers the mere act of a crazy man.
This particular crazy man got crazy because he listens to the same right wing extremist media all the other crazy men (and women) do. Heās been radicalized just like a disenfranchised Muslim we have no hesitation calling a terrorist. Therefore, fuck Loretta Lynch, this guy is a terrorist, period. Likewise, the man who attacked a Unitarian assembly because thatās where the liberals go is a terrorist. So are the goons who slaughter abortion providers in their own homes with a high-powered rifle while their family watches in horror. So are the Klansmen waving the Confederate battle flag.
Oh, never mind, itās futile. You already know everything.
6 Likes
No, they arenāt. Thatās the fucking problem. They SHOULD.
That must have been an awful experience.
1 Like
Intense, huh? Hardly. You are a funny guy.
Is that what they teach terrorism experts where you got your qualifications?
5 Likes
Iām sooo relieved that Terrorism does not exist in America. (takes deep breath and exhales in relief)
2 Likes
In this case, the target, a movie theater, seems unconnected to the shooterās politics. I believe I called the Charleston attack terrorism, because it was designed to intimidate black people. It seems doubtful this shooter was trying to intimidate movie goers, anymore than Holmes in Colorado was. And I also said those who attack abortion clinics are terrorism.
The fact that not all attacks by rightists arenāt stopped doesnāt mean the authorities donāt care. They havenāt stopped all attacks by Muslims either. Besides having sensible gun laws, how would you have stopped this guy?
This guy was doubtless influenced by the crap he listened to. I would be perfectly happy to shut down all such crap, along with jihadist sites, Stormfront, and nasty sites of all stripes. But even countries with hate speech laws have acts such as this. Norway has pretty strong ones and that didnāt stop the terrorist Breivik (no hesitation in using that term, whatsoever0.
No, you have to prove that it was terrorism. Because DOJ does not agree with you. Using your logic if a guy stabs someone in the subway and says āI hate Americaā, thatās a terror attack. Iām in NYC, and from your perspective I see about 3 terror attacks a dayā¦
But thatās a hate crime, which is what he was charged with. He specifically targeted black people.
Funny, all the people like yourself arguing with me, are disagreeing with DOJ, the experts. Thatās called delusion. Par for the course.
Who says that? I think there are doubts that this particular one should be called one. And as I said, the doubts have to do with the target chosen and the intent of the specific, rather than the race or ideology of the criminal.
You moving the goalposts, pal? What āitā are you referring to? Iāve already said Iām not talking about the incident in Lafayette. Iām talking about the official government definition of domestic terrorism I cited and linked to. No mention of the group affiliation you have repeatedly said over the past weeks was a necessary condition. I donāt care where youāre from or what you see. Show me an official source that makes that a necessary condition. I donāt think you can. I say again, itās not my logic. Itās the official deal. Prove me wrong, buddy.
3 Likes
Really? Because I never said such a thing, but thanks for making stuff up. By what people are saying on here, I see 3 terror attacks a day here in NYC. People yelling at people on the street about hating America, intimidating them, etc.,hey, must be a terror attack.
Oh, I did not realize that we were talking about your little world, not the real world.
Why of course he did.
Intimidate movie goers? Of course not. He wanted to instill fear in the public ā the fear that people like himself are going to be acting out in this manner, at random, in public spaces. Has nothing to do with movies, it has to do with inciting terror. Thatās why itās called āterrorism,ā right?
Hereās an example of another guy, a former Christian pastor, who, were he Muslim, would be up the river for life by now. He was deemed not a threat, because of course, heās not a terrorist:
We have a decidedly uneven use of the term āterroristā and it would be more palatable to entertain the idea that this particular shooter wasnāt one if some of the others who clearly are were called such. They never are. Eric Frien, who killed two state cops in PA, was called a āsurvivalist.ā Someone claimed that no, Eric Rudolph was called a terrorist, and maybe heās called that now, but as I recall the coverage, I donāt remember that term being used ā of course that all predates the Muslim scare in the wake of 9/11.
This isnāt a political thing to me ā it really is about prioritizing the deployment of resources to address the threats where they exist. Perhaps thatās happening, but when we have to walk on eggshells so as not to offend the radical right, I have to wonder.
Oh, so James Holmes was a terrorist? Didnāt Adam Lanza intimidate and kill people in a school, and say mental health did not get enough attention (political). Hey, two more terrorists.