• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mass Shooting at Sikh Temple Outside Milwaukee [W:211]

Because people dont want some white guy that looks like your cousin to be in the same box as OBL.... it is sadly a very common and natural thing to do. Denial basically. There is no difference between a white Christian using a weapon to terrorise the public or a dark/black Muslim using a bomb to blow up a bus, or an Asian using poison gas to kill people in a subway... they are all terrorists, but they are not called that depending on who is describing it.
More is the pity. No race or nationality has the market cornered on savagery and inhuman behavior. Some subhumans attempt to capitalize politically on the inhuman behavior. More despicable in my book. I agree...terrorism is terrorism.
 
I qualify it because you can't use a one size fits all solution to terrorism, problem with one size fits all is it fits none very well. Tactics to combat sunni on ****te terrorism are different than fighting al-Queera on ****te violence. (this took BushII years to understand)

Nor can we use drone missile strikes in this country on white supremist compounds like we do in Yemen.

Hence we refine and define. Still why do you use the term 'only' to describe domestic terrorism? Has anyone shrugged their shoulders and said, "eh, it is 'just' domestic terrorism, move along, move along, nothing to see or learn here."? Have they?

Now I have an opinion on why some shy away from the term domestic terrorism. Seems there was a threat assessment report focusing on domestic terrorism that caused some folks to bark and howl about focusing on 'real' Christian Americans exercising their right to keep and bear instead of those radical Islam-i-o-fascists. Lets not remember there were warnings about just such acts of domestic terrorism.

It was spree shootings or some such. :roll:

it is social terrorism, (no it ain't, this is tiny fragments of humanity that falls through the cracks, not big chunks of 'society' attacking other parts.) Now the anti-gay crowd MIGHT be social terrorism, but not splinter groups and rogue individuals, they are domestic terrorists.
 
Terrorism is terrorism. We dont run around the globe pointing out it is 'only' domestic terrorism when some scumbag blows up a souk in Iraq. We shouldnt qualify it as anything less than here.
So then, we should not talk about different types of religions, whether it is "Christian" or Islam or Sikh, we should just use the blanket description of "religion" and be done with it....right? After all...it is all the same....right?

Good god man, why in the world would you reduce everything down to such a level. You might as well say "everything is just "things".

What a simplistic mindset.

Edit:
The reason you don't want specificity in the discussion, is because you want to avoid specifically talking about who committed the act.
 
Last edited:
So then, we should not talk about different types of religions, whether it is "Christian" or Islam or Sikh, we should just use the blanket description of "religion" and be done with it....right? After all...it is all the same....right?

Good god man, why in the world would you reduce everything down to such a level. You might as well say "everything is just "things".

What a simplistic mindset.

Edit:
The reason you don't want specificity in the discussion, is because you want to avoid specifically talking about who committed the act.
We should use the term religion when we are talking about the theoretical construct of organized religion. We should use specific religions when addressing specific religions. And as much as I know you would LOVE to marry the terms religion and terrorism, they are not in any way shape or form the same thing.

Does calling something an act of 'domestic terrorism' make you somehow feel better? How? Why? Maybe the problem in that equation is...you.
 
So then, we should not talk about different types of religions, whether it is "Christian" or Islam or Sikh, we should just use the blanket description of "religion" and be done with it....right? After all...it is all the same....right?

Good god man, why in the world would you reduce everything down to such a level. You might as well say "everything is just "things".

What a simplistic mindset.

Edit:
The reason you don't want specificity in the discussion, is because you want to avoid specifically talking about who committed the act.
Oh...hey...lets be REALLY clear on that. I ABSOLUTELY want to be VERY clear on who committed the act. It was a POS asshole that committed the act. I havent read anything yet on his mindset or motive but I can accept it was attached to his connections to some idiotic skinhead mentality. I VERY SPECIFICALLY will discuss who it was and why. I will very clearly condemn who it was and why. However there are SOME douchebags that will take this guy and even his skinhead affiliation and attach it to anyone they can in attempting to make some idiotic blanket political statement. Can you even ****ing IMAGINE what kind of a disgusting **** would do such a thing? Those that do that are disgusting subhuman vermin in my book.
 
We should use the term religion when we are talking about the theoretical construct of organized religion. We should use specific religions when addressing specific religions. And as much as I know you would LOVE to marry the terms religion and terrorism, they are not in any way shape or form the same thing.

Does calling something an act of 'domestic terrorism' make you somehow feel better? How? Why? Maybe the problem in that equation is...you.
Got it, when we talk about specific types of religion, it is OK to be specific.....but if we talk about specific types of terrorism.....well....that is not OK.

Yes, yes....because I talk about specific types of terrorism....and you for some reason cannot....it is obvious that the "problem" is specific to me.

Whatever makes you happy......but you don't seem happy here.....so why are you here.....other than exposing your own hypocrisy?
 
Got it, when we talk about specific types of religion, it is OK to be specific.....but if we talk about specific types of terrorism.....well....that is not OK.

Yes, yes....because I talk about specific types of terrorism....and you for some reason cannot....it is obvious that the "problem" is specific to me.

Whatever makes you happy......but you don't seem happy here.....so why are you here.....other than exposing your own hypocrisy?
Sorry...I just dont see the 'difference' in 'terrorism'; you do. And you claim thats 'hypocrisy'? Good lord...thats hilarious! :lamo

Achmed blows up a backback bomb killing women and children in a souk at Emirs Market...thats 'terrorism'. Adolph guns down 6 innocent people in Wisconsin. Thats 'terrorism'. Why you feel the need to label it anything other than what it is is beyond me.
 
However there are SOME douchebags that will take this guy and even his skinhead affiliation and attach it to anyone they can in attempting to make some idiotic blanket political statement.
Well, that is kind of ironic coming from a guy wanting to remove specificity and put any terrorism under that blanket. Does that make you a douche bag?
 
Sorry...I just dont see the 'difference' in 'terrorism'; you do. And you claim thats 'hypocrisy'? Good lord...thats hilarious! :lamo

Achmed blows up a backback bomb killing women and children in a souk at Emirs Market...thats 'terrorism'. Adolph guns down 6 innocent people in Wisconsin. Thats 'terrorism'. Why you feel the need to label it anything other than what it is is beyond me.
Uh, because making broad, blanket comments about a subject as varied as terrorism.....would be kind of "douche-y"....to use the parlance of the day.
 
Sorry...I just dont see the 'difference' in 'terrorism'; you do. And you claim thats 'hypocrisy'? Good lord...thats hilarious! :lamo

Achmed blows up a backback bomb killing women and children in a souk at Emirs Market...thats 'terrorism'. Adolph guns down 6 innocent people in Wisconsin. Thats 'terrorism'. Why you feel the need to label it anything other than what it is is beyond me.

Discourse on models requires specific assignment in understanding and combating different forms of terrorism and blanket terms imply they are for the same reasons thus any proposal in addressing them would be counter productive.

When a car breaks down how does a mechanic repair it? He doesn't simply say it is broke so I need to fix it. He has to diagnose the specific area of failure to fix the vehicle. The same principle is applicable to terrorism because all cars breaking down do not break down for the same reasons just S terrorism is not always done for the same reasons.
 
Well, that is kind of ironic coming from a guy wanting to remove specificity and put any terrorism under that blanket. Does that make you a douche bag?
Oh...I can be at times. Theres no doubt. But no...I dont think that is the case here.
 
Uh, because making broad, blanket comments about a subject as varied as terrorism.....would be kind of "douche-y"....to use the parlance of the day.
Really? You need more than "subject committed an act of terror"? Why? To what objective?
 
Really? You need more than "subject committed an act of terror"? Why? To what objective?

To understand why it happened to find ways to reduce the occurrence.
 
To understand why it happened to find ways to reduce the occurrence.
You wont find that by labeling it something other than 'terrorism'. You will find that if you examine who and why.
 
You wont find that by labeling it something other than 'terrorism'. You will find that if you examine who and why.

Examining the who and why is exactly the reason for the specific labels.

Do you realize we aren't saying it isn't terrorism?
 
Examining the who and why is exactly the reason for the specific labels.

Do you realize we aren't saying it isn't terrorism?
Oh yes...I get the reason...I simply disagree. I see no value in it. Terrorism is terrorism. He committed an act of terror or he didnt.
 
Oh...I can be at times. Theres no doubt. But no...I dont think that is the case here.
Got it, if you take a specific act and place it in a blanket category, that is not "douche-y", but if others make blanket statements about specific acts, they are "douche-y".

Like I said, the hypocrisy is thick.
 
Oh yes...I get the reason...I simply disagree. I see no value in it. Terrorism is terrorism. He committed an act of terror or he didnt.
So then, to follow on your logic, the way to prevent all terrorism...is to use the same methods...no matter what, no matter who, no matter where.
 
So then, to follow on your logic, the way to prevent all terrorism...is to use the same methods...no matter what, no matter who, no matter where.
As soon as you discover the secret to 'preventing terrorism' you be sure to let the world know. In the interim, yes...we use investigation, infiltration, information, and do the best we can. Across the board..

So THAT is your objective in labeling a terrorist act 'domestic'?
 
Got it, if you take a specific act and place it in a blanket category, that is not "douche-y", but if others make blanket statements about specific acts, they are "douche-y".

Like I said, the hypocrisy is thick.
No...using a specific act or incident as a platform to attack others is specifically douche-y. Agreed?
 
As soon as you discover the secret to 'preventing terrorism' you be sure to let the world know. In the interim, yes...we use investigation, infiltration, information, and do the best we can. Across the board..
No, that is the point, fighting it outside the US allows different tactics and methods than what can be used here.

So THAT is your objective in labeling a terrorist act 'domestic'?
Mine? No "mine is....because it is. And when one (not you) gets into a deeper a deeper analysis, the understanding that this is a domestic terrorist act committed by an extreme RW, more specifically a neo-NAZI, one can start to really narrow the discussion down.....which would make "blanket statements" less applicable......but....oh snap!.....you don't want to get specific.
 
No...using a specific act or incident as a platform to attack others is specifically douche-y. Agreed?
Not if those others are:
1) of the same specific group, ideology or mindset...
2)defending the actions of that person...
3) are trying to deflect the criticism of that person...

on and on...
 
No, that is the point, fighting it outside the US allows different tactics and methods than what can be used here.

Mine? No "mine is....because it is. And when one (not you) gets into a deeper a deeper analysis, the understanding that this is a domestic terrorist act committed by an extreme RW, more specifically a neo-NAZI, one can start to really narrow the discussion down.....which would make "blanket statements" less applicable......but....oh snap!.....you don't want to get specific.
Oh snap! You want to attack the guy...great. What was his motive? Do we know? Was it related to his skinheadediddity? Do we know? if so, aw yaeeeeeaaaah boi...snap...you can rag on them as well. Of course...Im assuming you wont be ragging on ALL skinheads and will be sure to specify its not ALL skinheads, just like we are sure to specify its not ALL Muslims...right?

yes...it gets that silly. An asshole committed a heinous attack that we assume to be a terrorist attack (wait...was the attack in Colorado a terrorist attack?). Go with that.
 
Not if those others are:
1) of the same specific group, ideology or mindset...
2)defending the actions of that person...
3) are trying to deflect the criticism of that person...

on and on...
I agree. So ASSUMING this wasnt somne asshole committing a random act of mass murder ala Colorado, then this was an act of terrorism that we can directly attribute to his relationship to the skinhead community?
 
Oh snap! You want to attack the guy...great. What was his motive? Do we know? Was it related to his skinheadediddity? Do we know? if so, aw yaeeeeeaaaah boi...snap...you can rag on them as well. Of course...Im assuming you wont be ragging on ALL skinheads and will be sure to specify its not ALL skinheads, just like we are sure to specify its not ALL Muslims...right?

yes...it gets that silly. An asshole committed a heinous attack that we assume to be a terrorist attack (wait...was the attack in Colorado a terrorist attack?). Go with that.
I'll rag on all neo-NAZI skinheads, they all share that IDEOLOGY. That is different from attacking Muslims, since there are many, many different forms of Islam.....but here we are going into specifics, something you previously wanted to avoid when talking about terrorists.
 
Back
Top Bottom