• 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!

Police: Gunman kills two at N.J. supermarket

Mr. Invisible said:
Personally, I am just sad that an 18 and 26 year old died. They had barely just started their lives.
Click to expand...

It is unbelievably heartbreaking and I think one victim was three days away from a birthday.
 
jamesrage said:
Coercing people into wearing something is not ideological. He or she could simply just love the color orange





Then please humor me and tell me what the motivation is for the work place homicides in the OP.



Posters will tell you that your position is wrong and will show the same or similar definitions of terrorism that you have been shown multiple times through out this thread.
Click to expand...


Wanting to force people to wear orange is an ideology being pushed and why it would be domestic terrorism.

You tried to claim revenge was the motive and like others instead of learning the facts before posting you just toss stuff out.
 
Furiounova said:
Wanting to force people to wear orange is an ideology being pushed and why it would be domestic terrorism.
Click to expand...

Wanting people to wear orange is not a ideology.Its wanting people to wear orange because you like the color orange.


You tried to claim revenge was the motive and like others instead of learning the facts before posting you just toss stuff out.
Click to expand...

The humor us and tell us what the motive is for a work place homicides in the OP since you seem to know what it is.
 
Furiounova said:
The very reason I am not using domestic terrorism is because it does not apply by definition.
Click to expand...
Slapping any word in front of the word terrorism and trying to use it to apply to a crime that has nothing to do with terrorism is still a incorrect usage of the word terrorism.
 
jamesrage said:
Slapping any word in front of the word terrorism and trying to use it to apply to a crime that has nothing to do with terrorism is still a incorrect usage of the word terrorism.
Click to expand...

It is terrorism and if you don't believe me, ask the survivors if they were terrified.

It is not traditional terrorism which is why I call it ST

Look, you don't address the def I gave and all you keep doing is complaining about the term so either address the definition and criteria and show why it is wrong or stop wasting your time.
 
jamesrage said:
Wanting people to wear orange is not a ideology.Its wanting people to wear orange because you like the color orange.




The humor us and tell us what the motive is for a work place homicides in the OP since you seem to know what it is.
Click to expand...

You still don't get it. The fact the shooter wanted to push people to wear orange shows a specific agenda and I don't care if you call it an ideology or not. The mere fact he had a specific goal in mind other than murder is why it is domestic terrorism. Even murder is not the goal because it is only the tool for the agenda.

The fact you claimed he did it out of revenge when that has not been shown proves facts are not your top priority.
 
Furiounova said:
Nobody is making politics of it and it is disgusting that mourning the loss of their lives is feigned just so a cheap shot can be thrown.
Click to expand...
You've been trying to make this political the whole time.
 
Furiounova said:
Explain how........
Click to expand...
You don't think trying to use a made up definition of terrorism isn't playing politics? Really? Even when everyone showed you why you are completely wrong? Really? Can't see it?
 
Furiounova said:
It is terrorism and if you don't believe me, ask the survivors if they were terrified.
Click to expand...

I am sure if you ask a rape victim,burglary/home invasion victim, armed robbery victim, car jacking victim or a victim of some other violent crime if they were terrified they will say they were terrified.

It is not traditional terrorism which is why I call it ST.
Click to expand...

Its not terrorism at all. So you are wrong.

Look, you don't address the def I gave and all you keep doing is complaining about the term so either address the definition and criteria and show why it is wrong or stop wasting your time
Click to expand...

You have been shown multiple times how you are wrong.You can't slap any word in front of the word terrorism and change the definition to something that has nothing to do with terrorism. There is state-terrorism, bio-terrorism, Eco-terrorism, religious-terrorism and other types of terrorism.The one thing they have in common is “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”.
 
LaMidRighter said:
You don't think trying to use a made up definition of terrorism isn't playing politics? Really? Even when everyone showed you why you are completely wrong? Really? Can't see it?
Click to expand...

Every word and definition in every language has been invented.

You can't show I have been playing politics with it so you are just looking for something to complain about. As usual.
 
jamesrage said:
I am sure if you ask a rape victim,burglary/home invasion victim, armed robbery victim, car jacking victim or a victim of some other violent crime if they were terrified they will say they were terrified.



Its not terrorism at all. So you are wrong.



You have been shown multiple times how you are wrong.You can't slap any word in front of the word terrorism and change the definition to something that has nothing to do with terrorism. There is state-terrorism, bio-terrorism, Eco-terrorism, religious-terrorism and other types of terrorism.The one thing they have in common is “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”.
Click to expand...

It's okay you cannot comprehend why it is social terrorism.
 
Furiounova said:
Every word and definition in every language has been invented.
Click to expand...
By people familiar with the subject matter, credentials you haven't demonstrated.

You can't show I have been playing politics with it so you are just looking for something to complain about. As usual.
Click to expand...
Yes I can, and did. Why would you insist on creating a term for a criminal charge specific to motives and actions not displayed in this shooting if there were no political motives behind it?
 
Furiounova said:
It's okay you cannot comprehend why it is social terrorism.
Click to expand...

You are failing to comprehend why the shootings in the story is not any form of terrorism. What you are doing amounts to calling a chocolate cake a T-Bone steak.Now if the chocolate cake looked like a T-bone steak,was the shape of a t-bone steak or was made out of a t-bone steak then you might be justified in calling a chocolate t-bone steak cake.The crime in the OP story has nothing to do with terrorism.So you are not justified in calling the crime in the OP story a form of terrorism.
 
Last edited:
LaMidRighter said:
By people familiar with the subject matter, credentials you haven't demonstrated.

Yes I can, and did. Why would you insist on creating a term for a criminal charge specific to motives and actions not displayed in this shooting if there were no political motives behind it?
Click to expand...

You didn't explain how I am making it political. You tossed out the ridiculous accusation because you can't actually respond to the definition and criteria of social terrorism I've spelled out.

In fact, not a single person who has been constantly whining about has actually addressed it.
 
jamesrage said:
You are failing to comprehend why the shootings in the story is not any form of terrorism. What you are doing amounts to calling a chocolate cake a T-Bone steak.Now if the chocolate cake looked like a T-bone steak,was the shape of a t-bone steak or was made out of a t-bone steak then you might be justified in calling a chocolate t-bone steak cake.The crime in the OP story has nothing to do with terrorism.So you are not justified in calling the crime in the OP story a form of terrorism.
Click to expand...

You are failing to comprhend why it is terrorism because you are allergic to new concepts.
 
Furiounova said:
You are failing to comprhend why it is terrorism because you are allergic to new concepts.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have anything to do with being allergic to new concepts. The fact is the shootings in the OP story don't have squat to do with terrorism. If the shooter had some note saying he was coerce or intimidate the government or segment of the population to do something with his two murders and a suicide then it would be terrorism.
 
jamesrage said:
It doesn't have anything to do with being allergic to new concepts. The fact is the shootings in the OP story don't have squat to do with terrorism. If the shooter had some note saying he was coerce or intimidate the government or segment of the population to do something with his two murders and a suicide then it would be terrorism.
Click to expand...

There was a time when the terms bio and eco terrorism did not exist but were created to aptly describe a certain kind of terrorism. Social terrorism is doing the same thing.

Test my definition if you are so sure it is meaningless.
 
Look, Furry. Why don't you just take it as read that no one buys your new term, and just cut to the chase -- where are you going with this? What's your conclusion? Bring it home.
 
Harshaw said:
Look, Furry. Why don't you just take it as read that no one buys your new term, and just cut to the chase -- where are you going with this? What's your conclusion? Bring it home.
Click to expand...

I really don't care if a couple of people in a thread who whine and refuse to address the actual contents say they don't like it. I really don't.
 
Furiounova said:
I really don't care if a couple of people in a thread who whine and refuse to address the actual contents say they don't like it. I really don't.
Click to expand...

And you dodge the actual question. Why is that?
 
Furiounova said:
It is called social terrorism because that is the most accurate description and not all terrorism is motivated by politics. Lynching was a form of social terrorism that had nothing to do with politics and everything to do with the social ill of racism. Yes. White people were lynched. White people who helped black people.

It also has nothing to do with trying to demonize gun owners of anyone else. Please accept my apologies for having the rude audacity to notice a trend of social terrorism and discuss it to help understand what is happening.
Click to expand...

If anyone in this country is in need of you to tell them what is going on then we are in much worse shape than previously thought!
runpanic.gif
 
Furiounova said:
There was a time when the terms bio and eco terrorism did not exist but were created to aptly describe a certain kind of terrorism.
Click to expand...

Bio and eco terrorism are terrorism because of “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”. Bio and eco just specify what type of terrorism it is.


Social terrorism is doing the same thing.
Click to expand...

Not the way you are using it. You are ignoring the "intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” part. You have to have that in order for a violent crime to be an act of terrorism.


Test my definition if you are so sure it is meaningless.
Click to expand...


Social-

denoting or relating to human society or any of its subdivisionsip, communal activity, etc



Terrorism-

“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”.

Sorry but the crime in the OP has nothing to do with terrorism.
 
jamesrage said:
Bio and eco terrorism are terrorism because of “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”. Bio and eco just specify what type of terrorism it is.




Not the way you are using it. You are ignoring the "intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” part. You have to have that in order for a violent crime to be an act of terrorism.





Social-

denoting or relating to human society or any of its subdivisionsip, communal activity, etc



Terrorism-

“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”.

Sorry but the crime in the OP has nothing to do with terrorism.
Click to expand...

Your posts are like a 75 foot thick brick wall. Do you see the part you underlined? I've addressed that several times in this thread and you still ignore it. Have fun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom