Please link me to the thread you're specifically talking about. Good chance I was around in it.
You're saying now that anyone that takes a criminal action for the same cause of the enemy is not doing a criminal act, or an act of war, but is doing a terrorist act.
So therefore all those people setting off IED's or that have attacked our embassy in Iraq after the invasion are not acts of war but terrorist acts.
But when I point out that we didn't have any attacks on our land from 1993 to 2001 I get told that the embassy bombings count as "our land", but they don't count when they've happened in the past 8 years because those aren't terrorist acts but actions of war.
It seems people are wanting it both ways, being able to call anything terrorism or not terrorism how it suits them for the argument their making.
So what you're saying is that anyone that commits a criminal act because they agree with the enemy, they're a terrorist?
So a kid spray painting "Stop this illegal war", which is a belief the terrorists share, is a terrorist cause he's taking up their cause? Yes, that's going to an extreme, but you've given me no other real criteria to go off of.
Sorry, unless he's actually found to be CONNECTED to that group in some way shape or form, to me this is an obvious and clear act of MASS MURDER....just like columbine, or the museum shootings, or all other mass shootings in recent memory.
Unless there comes out some evidence he's connected to a terrorist cell, has some things in place after that was hoping to send a political message, or he was specifically targetting civilians on the base to inspire fear in them, there's nothing here that shows me "terrorism".
(now i wait to see if someone calls me an "apologist", cause you know, down playing "terrorism" as mass murder is like you're just calling it jay walking )
Last edited by Zyphlin; 11-06-09 at 11:18 AM.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
If you want to see a comparative study, look one up yourself.