Bitcoin Forum

Other => Politics & Society => Topic started by: galdur on December 02, 2015, 08:04:57 PM



Title: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: galdur on December 02, 2015, 08:04:57 PM
Hereīs yet another one. These terror attacks arenīt quite daily yet but almost seem to be getting there.

-------------------------------------

Authorities responding to reports of mass shooting in San Bernardino, Calif

At least one person opened fire at a social services facility in San Bernardino, California on Wednesday. Early reports said that 20 people may have been wounded, but as the situation developed it remained unclear how many exactly were hurt.

Reports first surfaced around 11:15 a.m. PT of an incident in the area, and the official San Bernardino Country Sheriff's Department Twitter account said an active shooter was in the area.


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: galdur on December 02, 2015, 08:14:09 PM
I guess it looks bad for publicity to be in an endless war against terrorism in faraway lands - resulting in ballooning terrorism of course - while terrorists run freely back home and can attack at will. So it canīt be called terrorism.


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: saddampbuh on December 02, 2015, 09:20:44 PM
because the killers don't usually have political aims


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: Lethn on December 02, 2015, 09:52:42 PM
Well at least they can't claim there isn't enough gun control like they usually do, I actually think I saw it on Bill Maher's show where a politician there was pretty much boasting about their gun laws, people like him who advocate it so much are going to look pretty stupid now.

Also it depends, this could be just another case of somebody going crazy I don't think all the details are out yet on this one.


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: Gyfts on December 02, 2015, 10:39:47 PM
Police said they are not sure if it was terrorism or not because from the perspective of the police and media, it was armed shooters who's goal was to kill. Political influence hasn't been investigated and won't be until the suspects are identified.


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: jasonjm on December 02, 2015, 10:54:11 PM
if this was jihadis, all hell is going to break loose.

not saying it is, but the fact that there were 3 shooters is pretty rare for the USA.


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: Spendulus on December 03, 2015, 12:02:57 AM
if this was jihadis, all hell is going to break loose.

not saying it is, but the fact that there were 3 shooters is pretty rare for the USA.

I think accurate reporting shouldn't be disparaged.  Criticize them when and if it turns out all shooters were Muslim, all were recent illegal immigrants, all went to a Mosque where we know radical teaching was done, but "we don't know if there was a political component to it."

And at that time, call it what it is - "Radical Islamic Terrorism."  If that is what it is. 

California is very restrictive on gun laws, ridiculously so.  But the people there are far from stupid....



Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: WaterSupply on December 03, 2015, 12:05:21 AM
Hello :-)

Mass shootings in the US are not called terrorism because most of them do not have a political agenda. They normally seem to be mentally unwell people going on the rampage or people involved in gangs etc. That is just my opinion

Cheers


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: Holliday on December 03, 2015, 12:06:32 AM
California is very restrictive on gun laws, ridiculously so.  But the people there are far from stupid....

That's kind of an oxymoron, isn't it?


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: galdur on December 03, 2015, 12:26:48 AM
Donīt have a political agenda? Itīs mass murder that terrorizes people. You lap up definitions from fruitcakes that run around the world pretending to fight terrorism and are unable to keep the peace in their own fucking country? Letīs say that these attacks become a daily occurrence. Do you think maybe that you could glean some political agenda from them at some point?


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: WaterSupply on December 03, 2015, 12:30:14 AM
Hello :-)

What would you say is the political agenda then with these shootings? As far as i can tell most of them do not have political agendas, it seems to me that guns are far too accessible and not enough is done to look at mental health and solving arguments and bitterness that turns to hate and eventually murder???

Cheers

Donīt have a political agenda? Itīs mass murder that terrorizes people. You lap up definitions from fruitcakes that run around the world pretending to fight terrorism and are unable to keep the peace in their own fucking country?


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: galdur on December 03, 2015, 12:34:40 AM
Hello :-)

What would you say is the political agenda then with these shootings? As far as i can tell most of them do not have political agendas, it seems to me that guns are far too accessible and not enough is done to look at mental health and solving arguments and bitterness that turns to hate and eventually murder???

Cheers

Donīt have a political agenda? Itīs mass murder that terrorizes people. You lap up definitions from fruitcakes that run around the world pretending to fight terrorism and are unable to keep the peace in their own fucking country?

You already said Hello and expressed your enjoyment once. Try again, like a human being this time.

The political agenda is to terrorize people, show them that the authorities canīt defend them and probably donīt give a hoot about their protection anyway. Itīs about undermining the general order. And of course the GLARING message is that those who are self-appointed policemen of the world are unable to police their home turf to begin with.


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: galdur on December 03, 2015, 01:38:04 AM
14 dead. 1 suspect killed. 'Pipe bombs' thrown at cops

If a political manifesto is found, I guess maybe the government will designate this particular mass murder as an act of terrorism. But itīll probably end up as yet another lone gunm...sorry dead crazy gunmen story.


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: Spendulus on December 03, 2015, 02:24:54 AM
California is very restrictive on gun laws, ridiculously so.  But the people there are far from stupid....

That's kind of an oxymoron, isn't it?

No, because there is incredible diversity in people and culture in California.  Liberal sleezeballs may hold San Francisco and Los Angeles, but there are more handguns and rifles hidden or buried out there in CA than could be counted on the fingers and toes of a million Hezbolah.

Watch now how the local sheriffs who have the right to allow or deny concealed carry permits react.


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: jasonjm on December 03, 2015, 02:45:20 AM
one of the shooters confirmed as "Farooq Saeed" apparently.

doesn't sound like the typical white anti abortion nutcase.


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: jasonjm on December 03, 2015, 02:49:25 AM
as to why people in California have shitty gun laws, it is actually pretty easy. Most People in NY and in California think they know better than everyone else. Better than other NYers and Californians too, I have lived in both places.

So when you think everyone around you is an idiot, you basically don't want other people to have any rights, definitely not any guns, because they are all idiots and you know better than them, and they are all just irritating people.

That is pretty much the typical mindset of the average NYer and Cali person.




Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: MakingMoneyHoney on December 03, 2015, 02:51:07 AM
Are we trying to label them terrorism because our president is terrorizing the civilians to invoke fear to get rid of guns?

Ever Wonder Why the Most Mass Shootings Ever Have Happened Under Obama?

http://i.imgur.com/nml8dU5.png
 (https://youtu.be/Az2neZzL6UA)


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: jasonjm on December 03, 2015, 02:53:41 AM
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2015/12/20151202_SB2.jpg (http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2015/12/20151202_SB2.jpg)

media is now trying to portray this as a workplace dispute. 1 person going postal, normal, but 3?

calling BS right now.






Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: jasonjm on December 03, 2015, 02:56:09 AM
Are we trying to label them terrorism because our president is terrorizing the civilians to invoke fear to get rid of guns?

Ever Wonder Why the Most Mass Shootings Ever Have Happened Under Obama?

http://i.imgur.com/nml8dU5.png
 (https://youtu.be/Az2neZzL6UA)


obama has no chance on his gun crap. Under his presidency  - there has never been a stronger shift to gun rights in the last 30 years.

check at how the poll numbers have shifted.

let him moan and groan, he will be gone in 12 months.


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: galdur on December 03, 2015, 02:59:30 AM
I don't know if heīs invoking fear to get rid of guns. If he is and itīs policy it has clearly had the opposite effect. I think gun sales spike after every terrorist attack. Which is a natural reaction from the population. They keep getting repeated confirmation about the obvious: the government canīt keep the peace so they have to be prepared to do the peacekeeping themselves.


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: MakingMoneyHoney on December 03, 2015, 03:04:53 AM
Are we trying to label them terrorism because our president is terrorizing the civilians to invoke fear to get rid of guns?

Ever Wonder Why the Most Mass Shootings Ever Have Happened Under Obama?

http://i.imgur.com/nml8dU5.png
 (https://youtu.be/Az2neZzL6UA)


obama has no chance on his gun crap. Under his presidency  - there has never been a stronger shift to gun rights in the last 30 years.

check at how the poll numbers have shifted.

let him moan and groan, he will be gone in 12 months.

And then, they will probably put in Hillary who wants us to be like Australia and turn all our guns in. They are having gun drives galore these days to get people to turn them in willingly.

I don't know if heīs invoking fear to get rid of guns. If he is and itīs policy it has clearly had the opposite effect. I think gun sales spike after every terrorist attack. Which is a natural reaction from the population. They keep getting repeated confirmation about the obvious: the government canīt keep the peace so they have to be prepared to do the peacekeeping themselves.

They are certainly causing a great divide in this nation, those who are now stocking up on guns, and those who are swayed by the media crying "take 'em all." I honestly believe there are more on the side of being duped than there are stockpiling their guns. I don't think this is an even fight...no matter how good the numbers look of those buying more and more, there are far too many people out there becoming afraid and wanting the guns to be taken away, and only available to police.

It's funny how people are so anti-police right now, but they want them in charge and the only ones with guns, lol.


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: galdur on December 03, 2015, 03:42:15 AM
Well, I think the police are way overbashed. There are scumbags there for sure but still this force manages to kill "only" about 1000 per year or so. It doesnīt seem much in a country of over 300 million where much of the population and their dog are armed to the teeth and certainly criminals come well equipped. There are scandalous incidents and extra judicial executions but what do people expect? A fish rots from the head. The nutsos in charge of the country kill people without due process of justice here and there around the world and probably at home as well. So that sends a message to the population, cops included. Thatīs what leaders do, they lead by example.


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: galdur on December 03, 2015, 03:56:25 AM
Solution: Stop voting freakin homicidal maniacs whose solutions are always kill kill kill, into office. Once theyīre in others of the same ilk will be attracted to them like shitflies to cow dung.  And once theyīre entrenched it isnīt so easy to get rid of them even if some slightly less homicidal maniac gets into office. Obama is stuck with much of the crap that brought you all the war scams and violence of the Bush years. And some of the worst of that dates farther back to other nutcases. If you want to get rid of cockroaches you definitely donīt help them procreate, thatīs for sure.


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: mtnsaa on December 03, 2015, 04:19:32 AM
Of course they have a political agenda, not all mass shooters but plenty of them, like the guy who did the black church shootings. They are mostly lone wolves so not sure if they qualify as terrorist. The definition is rather vague and if course the media is guilty. Terrorist is almost a synonym of arab fanatics to the western world while it's very clear that it's a label that can be applied to many other cases.

What I remember is watching a documentary about the trial of some ecologists that attempted to shutdown a company and were getting terrorist charges, life in prison and death penalty just for some property damage. It was in Oregon I think, I don't remember the name, sorry.


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: mtnsaa on December 03, 2015, 04:24:20 AM
Here it is for anyone interested: If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front. Eco-terrorism is the only other use of the word or concept I can think of besides the usual ISIS/AL QADEA reports.


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: galdur on December 03, 2015, 04:32:20 AM
If youīre  not with us, youīre with the terrorists. And we define whoīs a terrorist. If you donīt play ball with us you may be designated a terrorist. And if you resist our occupation of your country you are a terrorist and will be dealt with accordingly. International law, Geneva convention, War crimes? Forget it, youīre a terrorist.



Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: Spendulus on December 03, 2015, 04:58:58 AM
I don't know if heīs invoking fear to get rid of guns. If he is and itīs policy it has clearly had the opposite effect. I think gun sales spike after every terrorist attack. Which is a natural reaction from the population. They keep getting repeated confirmation about the obvious: the government canīt keep the peace so they have to be prepared to do the peacekeeping themselves.

So now it's at least one "Devout Muslim" shooter, rest to come out in the next couple days.  People are going to get more and more fed up with this.  Frankly I don't even want to hear any more of the misinformation arguments "They not Muslims Muslim is peace" crap.

Right, where this leads is people arming themselves, then the police focus on the easy targets, put the middle class lawbreakers in jail.  Anyway they can pay bond, pay lawyers, pay the system, and get out with a couple years or probation.  The system feeds on them.  The actual bad guys, they don't pay.  Same dynamics as crime ridden Chicago, nationwide.  At least where firearms are illegal.

Where I live we don't have that problem...many others, sure.

A curious thing - you'd think that the fact that CA already banned all this stuff would be prima facia evidence that banning guns did not work, duh...




Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: galdur on December 03, 2015, 05:17:24 AM
Well, the way i see it when you have an environment plagued with terrorism like the U.S. and are interested in getting even more terrorism the best way is to provide what terrorists like best: soft and easy targets where they can operate as long as possible without opposition. Firearms are so prevalent in the U.S that in order to help terrorism grow youīll probably be forced to decree choice terrorist targets like schools, institutions for the invalid, malls etc totally gun free. If Iīm not mistaken there has been active policy regarding this in place for quite a while.


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: Spendulus on December 03, 2015, 05:57:28 AM
Well, the way i see it when you have an environment plagued with terrorism like the U.S. and are interested in getting even more terrorism the best way is to provide what terrorists like best: soft and easy targets where they can operate as long as possible without opposition. Firearms are so prevalent in the U.S that in order to help terrorism grow youīll probably be forced to decree choice terrorist targets like schools, institutions for the invalid, malls etc totally gun free. If Iīm not mistaken there has been active policy regarding this in place for quite a while.
Active policy at the federal level to create "Gun Free Zones" and then place signage there indicating such.  Schools.  But other places are free to place their own signs out.  State laws are clear about this - the individual has a right to Open carry/concealed carry in accordance with the laws - but a business owner has rights too, and one of his rights is to put up the "No guns allowed" sign.  Then there are other laws which trump those such as no guns in bars (we learned back in the 1880s that guns in bars didn't work out too well....)


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: galdur on December 03, 2015, 06:41:33 AM
Yes, I forgot; obviously you have signage and advertising. Thatīs marketing.

When the public complains about the apparent opposite effect of all  these efforts by government to save people from themselves the excuse is always incompetence. This Joe Sixpack can understand, thereīs no shortage of human errors and incompetence in his environment. He can identify with that no problem.  But what he misses is that unlike in his reality, government incompetents arenīt fired, they are promoted or kicked upstairs. Theyīre given more money to continue being incompetent ie. implement the successful policy. Sometimes this shit is so blatant that after a gigantic intelligence system that knows when a fly farts in Farawayistan somehow manages to sleep through countless warnings and terrorists learning to fly planes under their noses - itīs incompetence.The system is blinking red for months and they sleep on and itīs incompetence. Solution: bigger system and more money. Promotions all around.






 



Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: BADecker on December 03, 2015, 08:07:38 AM
Hereīs yet another one. These terror attacks arenīt quite daily yet but almost seem to be getting there.

-------------------------------------

Authorities responding to reports of mass shooting in San Bernardino, Calif

At least one person opened fire at a social services facility in San Bernardino, California on Wednesday. Early reports said that 20 people may have been wounded, but as the situation developed it remained unclear how many exactly were hurt.

Reports first surfaced around 11:15 a.m. PT of an incident in the area, and the official San Bernardino Country Sheriff's Department Twitter account said an active shooter was in the area.

Yes. It is kind of interesting.

With cops it is the other way around. You don't have one cop opening up on a bunch of people. Usually you have a bunch of cops opening up on one person. Most of the time that person is absolutely harmless.

This brings us to the topic of, Are terrorists cowards?

:)


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: galdur on December 03, 2015, 08:23:43 AM
Hereīs yet another one. These terror attacks arenīt quite daily yet but almost seem to be getting there.

-------------------------------------

Authorities responding to reports of mass shooting in San Bernardino, Calif

At least one person opened fire at a social services facility in San Bernardino, California on Wednesday. Early reports said that 20 people may have been wounded, but as the situation developed it remained unclear how many exactly were hurt.

Reports first surfaced around 11:15 a.m. PT of an incident in the area, and the official San Bernardino Country Sheriff's Department Twitter account said an active shooter was in the area.

Yes. It is kind of interesting.

With cops it is the other way around. You don't have one cop opening up on a bunch of people. Usually you have a bunch of cops opening up on one person. Most of the time that person is absolutely harmless.

This brings us to the topic of, Are terrorists cowards?

:)

Well, they usually end up dead so theyīre probably not cowards per se. They donīt attack defenseless people out of cowardice. They are creating terror, terrorizing the public and probably interested in maximum effect. So they go for easy and soft targets. Theyīre not going to seek out armed opposition. If youīve spent a lot of time listening to retarded presstitutes cover this you probably need some time for the above points to sink in.


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: galdur on December 03, 2015, 09:15:31 AM
You only hear of a fraction of mass shootings in the media. I guess they only bother if a number get killed.

But so far in 2015 there have been 353 mass shootings in the U.S. where four or more people have been shot. Not necessarily all killed. Shot, as in shooting. According to:

http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: Spendulus on December 03, 2015, 02:05:23 PM
You only hear of a fraction of mass shootings in the media. I guess they only bother if a number get killed.

But so far in 2015 there have been 353 mass shootings in the U.S. where four or more people have been shot. Not necessarily all killed. Shot, as in shooting. According to:

http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015

The southern border of the US with Mexico has long been where drug gangs acted no differently than ISIS, in attempting to hold control of large areas by terror.  Mass killings, beheadings, rape, all the tactics.


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: galdur on December 03, 2015, 02:16:32 PM
You only hear of a fraction of mass shootings in the media. I guess they only bother if a number get killed.

But so far in 2015 there have been 353 mass shootings in the U.S. where four or more people have been shot. Not necessarily all killed. Shot, as in shooting. According to:

http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015

The southern border of the US with Mexico has long been where drug gangs acted no differently than ISIS, in attempting to hold control of large areas by terror.  Mass killings, beheadings, rape, all the tactics.

Yeah, those scumbags virtually rule territories by terror. I donīt know what else to call it. Maybe Texas should invade and clean up at least the border areas. The Mexicans donīt seem up to the task. Or maybe theyīre not too interested.


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: Spendulus on December 03, 2015, 02:23:39 PM
You only hear of a fraction of mass shootings in the media. I guess they only bother if a number get killed.

But so far in 2015 there have been 353 mass shootings in the U.S. where four or more people have been shot. Not necessarily all killed. Shot, as in shooting. According to:

http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015

The southern border of the US with Mexico has long been where drug gangs acted no differently than ISIS, in attempting to hold control of large areas by terror.  Mass killings, beheadings, rape, all the tactics.

Yeah, those scumbags virtually rule territories by terror. I donīt know what else to call it. Maybe Texas should invade and clean up at least the border areas. The Mexicans donīt seem up to the task. Or maybe theyīre not too interested.

Texas has done exactly that before.  Historically that was the reason for the creation of the Texas Rangers - to do exactly what Washington really didn't care about.

Today the gangs keep 90% of the violence a mile or two on the Mexican side, to avoid angering the sleeping giant and resulting in exactly the outcome that you suggest.

I guess given the nature of the work of the Mexican Cartels, you could call all this "workplace violence."

Of course the Mexican people suffer under harsh anti-gun laws, so they are easy to terrorize.  Once you cross to the American side, at least within a hundred miles of that border likely even home has firearms.    Make no mistake about it, this deters the terrorist activity or at least contains it to areas where they can locate soft targets. 

This article from Detroit shows similar logic -

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2015/12/01/armed-citizens-deter-terrorist-attacks-in-detroit-police-chief-says/


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: Lethn on December 03, 2015, 02:46:40 PM
I don't know if heīs invoking fear to get rid of guns. If he is and itīs policy it has clearly had the opposite effect. I think gun sales spike after every terrorist attack. Which is a natural reaction from the population. They keep getting repeated confirmation about the obvious: the government canīt keep the peace so they have to be prepared to do the peacekeeping themselves.

That's just it with this sort of thing, people who rant on about guns don't realise that the police can't keep up with these people and react properly so people are just ignoring everything the politicians say.


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: Spendulus on December 03, 2015, 03:14:36 PM
I don't know if heīs invoking fear to get rid of guns. If he is and itīs policy it has clearly had the opposite effect. I think gun sales spike after every terrorist attack. Which is a natural reaction from the population. They keep getting repeated confirmation about the obvious: the government canīt keep the peace so they have to be prepared to do the peacekeeping themselves.

That's just it with this sort of thing, people who rant on about guns don't realise that the police can't keep up with these people and react properly so people are just ignoring everything the politicians say.


At some point all the CCL holders are going to say "Enough!" and refuse to assist when something bad comes down in a place with prominent "No Gun Zone" signs posted.


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: galdur on December 03, 2015, 03:26:22 PM
Hereīs  the most recent feel good stories from thisainthell.us .. never a dull moment...

Bobo sends us our first story from Colorado Springs, Colorado this morning where an enlisted soldier let a fellow into his residence who looked like a plumber, until he threatened the soldier with a knife which caused the soldier to pull out his gun and hold the thief until police arrived. It turns out that the thief also had a gun in his waistband that he wisely kept hidden from the soldier.

In Bradenton, Florida, a homeowner tackled an armed burglar and took his gun. When the burglar made a motion that looked like he was trying to draw another firearm, the homeowner shot him in the ankle with the burglar’s own gun and then bear-hugged him until the police arrived and took the criminal off to the hoosegow. It’s always a good idea to have your own gun and you shouldn’t depend on the burglars to bring a gun for you.

A very detail-starved story from Las Vegas, Nevada reports that an armed citizen was injured when he intervened in a robbery. The victim and the criminal shot it out. The victim is in critical condition, but no mention of the criminal’s status at the moment.

In Tulsa, Oklahoma an armed homeowner scared off two burglars and held the third at gun point until police arrived after the trio forced their way into his home armed with a machete and a club.

In the dumbass criminal department, two fellows in Pontiac, Michigan are behind bars because they took a video of the home invasion of a disabled man with the victim’s phone and posted the video to his Facebook wall as well as their own.



Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: EngiNerd on December 03, 2015, 03:38:34 PM
It's funny how people are so anti-police right now, but they want them in charge and the only ones with guns, lol.

I think that's a great example of cognitive dissonance :)


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: Spendulus on December 03, 2015, 06:34:58 PM
Hereīs  the most recent feel good stories from thisainthell.us .. never a dull moment...

....

In Bradenton, Florida, a homeowner tackled an armed burglar and took his gun. When the burglar made a motion that looked like he was trying to draw another firearm, the homeowner shot him in the ankle with the burglar’s own gun and then bear-hugged him until the police arrived and took the criminal off to the hoosegow. It’s always a good idea to have your own gun and you shouldn’t depend on the burglars to bring a gun for you.
.....

Wait, so you should have your own gun?

I guess so.

What if the burglar's gun was broke or unloaded or something?


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: galdur on December 03, 2015, 06:58:59 PM
Man, what a crazy story

and this is what a lady in Shelbyville, Tennessee had to say about it

Every Florida resident should be outraged at stories like this. 35 years old, 22 felony CONVICTIONS, and still out on the streets to terrorize law-abiding citizens??? And his bonds only total $27,500??? It is long past time to expand the scope of the three strikes law!!! Welcome to the insanity we call America.


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: Lethn on December 03, 2015, 07:20:20 PM
It's funny how people are so anti-police right now, but they want them in charge and the only ones with guns, lol.

I think that's a great example of cognitive dissonance :)

South Park had a great episode on that very subject actually, they've been on a total roll.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2Td5vPfrOo


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: jasonjm on December 03, 2015, 07:28:21 PM
For the record I was right.






Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: jasonjm on December 03, 2015, 07:35:26 PM
And Btw I have been very open about trumps presidential bid right until he made the call to kill terrorists families.

What a doosh bag

At that point we are no better than the terrorists.


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: galdur on December 04, 2015, 11:23:32 AM
FBI struggles with definition of California attack, may treat it as an act of terrorism

Meanwhile; "If you see something, say something" seems to have evolved into "If you say something, we will prosecute you" or at least I seemed to get that impression from listening to the woman that replaced Eric Holder. Where in the heck do they dig up these people?

Anyway, I personally feel bloody terrorized by these events no matter how Big Brother categorizes themī

Itīs tragic. Senseless. What a waste.

This 37-year-old man was one of those killed

http://ak-hdl.buzzfed.com/static/2015-12/3/13/enhanced/webdr15/enhanced-10828-1449168973-18.jpg


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: Lethn on December 05, 2015, 01:32:45 PM
For the record I was right.

Most of us were, America just isn't the same as Europe, you can't compare the two and suddenly expect enacting a law to magically fix everything, I can guarantee the more they push for gun control in other states that the Mexican cartels over the border will switch to smuggling guns instead because it will be far more profitable than even drugs. The police will end up being stretched so thin the won't even be able to stop a robbery very easily because they're too busy trying to shut down all these people illegally buying guns and then another bunch of shooting will happen.


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: galdur on December 05, 2015, 02:07:18 PM
The more that they talk about gun control and banning guns the more people stockpile guns. Itīs rather obvious which begs the question why are they so desperate to have people hoard guns?

About the most glaring reason for this stockpiling is basic speculation. When you anticipate interrupted supply in something that usually is in pretty high demand you stock up on it to sell later at profit.

There are other reasons of course and all this government talk spikes sales for those reasons as well.

Thereīs no way around it, well assuming that the people in charge are  aware of the connection between effect and cause - they want people to buy guns in droves. They want to spike gun sales and use every opportunity for their marketing campaign. The question is why?


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: MakingMoneyHoney on December 05, 2015, 02:09:40 PM
The more that they talk about gun control and banning guns the more people stockpile guns. Itīs rather obvious which begs the question why are they so desperate to have people hoard guns?

About the most glaring reason for this stockpiling is basic speculation. When you anticipate interrupted supply in something that usually is in pretty high demand you stock up on it to sell later at profit.

There are other reasons of course and all this government talk spikes sales for those reasons as well.

Thereīs no way around it, well assuming that that the people in charge are  aware of the connection between effect and cause - they want people to buy guns in droves. They want to spike gun sales and use every opportunity for their marketing campaign. The question is why?

So they know who is anti-government and who is asleep (and turning in their guns rather than buying them). Then they know who the enemy of the state is. In war you want to know who your enemy is.


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: galdur on December 05, 2015, 02:31:57 PM
The more that they talk about gun control and banning guns the more people stockpile guns. Itīs rather obvious which begs the question why are they so desperate to have people hoard guns?

About the most glaring reason for this stockpiling is basic speculation. When you anticipate interrupted supply in something that usually is in pretty high demand you stock up on it to sell later at profit.

There are other reasons of course and all this government talk spikes sales for those reasons as well.

Thereīs no way around it, well assuming that that the people in charge are  aware of the connection between effect and cause - they want people to buy guns in droves. They want to spike gun sales and use every opportunity for their marketing campaign. The question is why?

So they know who is anti-government and who is asleep (and turning in their guns rather than buying them). Then they know who the enemy of the state is. In war you want to know who your enemy is.

Well, half the population views the government as a threat and almost no one believes a word from it so yes, I could see them being worried about "enemies of the state". And since theyīre obsessed with defining unpleasant things somehow out of existence (terrorism for example) to cover their own incompetence, they probably define state and government as the same entity. Kings in the middle ages did the same...'L'etat c'est moi' ('I am the state') --Louis the XIV. Itīs typical autocrat mentality.


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: zivone on December 05, 2015, 02:39:44 PM
If they would find  out the suspects are Americans then there will be called "American terrorist".


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: Spendulus on December 05, 2015, 06:54:55 PM
For the record I was right.

Most of us were, America just isn't the same as Europe, you can't compare the two and suddenly expect enacting a law to magically fix everything, I can guarantee the more they push for gun control in other states that the Mexican cartels over the border will switch to smuggling guns instead because it will be far more profitable than even drugs. The police will end up being stretched so thin the won't even be able to stop a robbery very easily because they're too busy trying to shut down all these people illegally buying guns and then another bunch of shooting will happen.

Well, it is a logical fallacy of the Liberal/Democrat/fascist/totalitarian variety to think that similar rules will work similarly for large and disparate groups of people, with different cultures and historical backgrounds.



If they would find  out the suspects are Americans then there will be called "American terrorist".
Naw.  Islamic terrorists are Islamic terrorists no matter where the rotten piece of wood they crawl out from under is located.  No different than cockroaches.  Do cockroaches have a nationality?


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: Wilikon on December 05, 2015, 07:13:02 PM


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wY8Rke6saqc&app=desktop




Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: jasonjm on December 05, 2015, 08:20:32 PM
For the record I was right.

Most of us were, America just isn't the same as Europe, you can't compare the two and suddenly expect enacting a law to magically fix everything, I can guarantee the more they push for gun control in other states that the Mexican cartels over the border will switch to smuggling guns instead because it will be far more profitable than even drugs. The police will end up being stretched so thin the won't even be able to stop a robbery very easily because they're too busy trying to shut down all these people illegally buying guns and then another bunch of shooting will happen.

You can fix it.

Stop the NSA blanket surveillance. It's retarded you need to focus on individuals not the entire world.
Enforce gun rights for all states from the federal level. Concealed carry should be a right.
Get every US soldiers out of every other country except the USA.
Shut down immigration, travel visas etc with every Muslim country, except for emergency or important business type visits. Ban any person from European countries that has visits to the middle east.  
Use the army that is now home instead of overseas to secure our borders.



But it's all too logical. Instead we will get the exact opposite of every point above.


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: galdur on December 05, 2015, 08:36:28 PM
Yes, and in the interests of public safety, round up criminals and put them to work under military guard, building dams, repairing bridges and roads and other infrastructure, far away from law-abiding citizens. If they donīt play ball, shoot them.


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: Spendulus on December 05, 2015, 09:28:59 PM
Yes, and in the interests of public safety, round up criminals and put them to work under military guard, building dams, repairing bridges and roads and other infrastructure, far away from law-abiding citizens. If they donīt play ball, shoot them.
That MIGHT  be going a little bit too far.  And I see a problem with putting them to work like that.  It would take jobs away from hard working Americans.  Mexicans.


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: galdur on December 05, 2015, 10:53:17 PM
Yes, and in the interests of public safety, round up criminals and put them to work under military guard, building dams, repairing bridges and roads and other infrastructure, far away from law-abiding citizens. If they donīt play ball, shoot them.
That MIGHT  be going a little bit too far.  And I see a problem with putting them to work like that.  It would take jobs away from hard working Americans.  Mexicans.

I think removing criminals would in itself create jobs. A safer and less stressful environment has to increase business in general. People will just be more active and confident. Criminals bring chronic uncertainty which is very unhealthy for business and commerce. So, getting rid of that would be very valuable Iīm sure.


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: jasonjm on December 05, 2015, 11:01:09 PM
Legalize all drugs which would free up 50 percent of the jails and 50 percent of law enforcement and focus on violent crime

If any of you know junkies, I have never met a junkie to this day that could not find drugs. So no point in making drugs illegal. They find them no matter what. Spend the money on drug education and rehab.


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: galdur on December 05, 2015, 11:07:20 PM
Legalize all drugs which would free up 50 percent of the jails and 50 percent of law enforcement and focus on violent crime

If any of you know junkies, I have never met a junkie to this day that could not find drugs. So no point in making drugs illegal. They find them no matter what. Spend the money on drug education and rehab.

Yes, by removing criminals I have generally in mind violent ones, those who threaten and disturb the general order and terrorize the population.


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: Spendulus on December 06, 2015, 01:03:56 AM
Yes, and in the interests of public safety, round up criminals and put them to work under military guard, building dams, repairing bridges and roads and other infrastructure, far away from law-abiding citizens. If they donīt play ball, shoot them.
That MIGHT  be going a little bit too far.  And I see a problem with putting them to work like that.  It would take jobs away from hard working Americans.  Mexicans.

I think removing criminals would in itself create jobs. A safer and less stressful environment has to increase business in general. People will just be more active and confident. Criminals bring chronic uncertainty which is very unhealthy for business and commerce. So, getting rid of that would be very valuable Iīm sure.

Not necessarily true.  I've had a theory for quite a while that maximal profits to the Middle East oil producers occurs exactly when there is maximum tension, minor wars, terrorism, and such.  Threats to the West of disruption of necessary oil for day to day life would of course increase the price of the commodity.

So there is at least one specific case where less safe and more stressful environment would seem to increase total business profits.


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: jasonjm on December 06, 2015, 01:51:25 AM
if OPEC truly wanted to, they could have oil back at $80 in short order.

Some major economic war going on using oil, I am not even going to pretend I truly understand the who and why, but the fact that the gloves are off is plain for all to see.


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: bryant.coleman on December 06, 2015, 04:08:30 AM
Every Florida resident should be outraged at stories like this. 35 years old, 22 felony CONVICTIONS, and still out on the streets to terrorize law-abiding citizens??? And his bonds only total $27,500??? It is long past time to expand the scope of the three strikes law!!! Welcome to the insanity we call America.

The "human rights" organizations are campaigning quite heavily against the three-strikes law, and most of the American judges are not enforcing it due to the negative media publicity. Seems to me that the human rights are honored only for the criminals, and not for the innocent victims who were murders or raped by these thugs.


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: zivone on December 06, 2015, 04:53:38 AM

Naw.  Islamic terrorists are Islamic terrorists no matter where the rotten piece of wood they crawl out from under is located.  No different than cockroaches.  Do cockroaches have a nationality?

That's it, US won't call it terrorism unless the suspects nationality are sure not to be their own or else they are no different of that "cockroaches".


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: Spendulus on December 06, 2015, 05:00:29 AM
Every Florida resident should be outraged at stories like this. 35 years old, 22 felony CONVICTIONS, and still out on the streets to terrorize law-abiding citizens??? And his bonds only total $27,500??? It is long past time to expand the scope of the three strikes law!!! Welcome to the insanity we call America.

The "human rights" organizations are campaigning quite heavily against the three-strikes law, and most of the American judges are not enforcing it due to the negative media publicity. Seems to me that the human rights are honored only for the criminals, and not for the innocent victims who were murders or raped by these thugs.
The three strikes laws do generate a fair share of human abuse. 

The ONLY reason to ever consider such a thing is if it were found that juries were letting people off the hook for their transgressions.  Then suppose you try to code up a "fix" in law.  Well, the "fix" has other problems.

It's a matter of intelligent gaming between parties, each for his perceived advantage.


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: galdur on December 06, 2015, 05:12:27 AM
Yes, and in the interests of public safety, round up criminals and put them to work under military guard, building dams, repairing bridges and roads and other infrastructure, far away from law-abiding citizens. If they donīt play ball, shoot them.
That MIGHT  be going a little bit too far.  And I see a problem with putting them to work like that.  It would take jobs away from hard working Americans.  Mexicans.

I think removing criminals would in itself create jobs. A safer and less stressful environment has to increase business in general. People will just be more active and confident. Criminals bring chronic uncertainty which is very unhealthy for business and commerce. So, getting rid of that would be very valuable Iīm sure.

Not necessarily true.  I've had a theory for quite a while that maximal profits to the Middle East oil producers occurs exactly when there is maximum tension, minor wars, terrorism, and such.  Threats to the West of disruption of necessary oil for day to day life would of course increase the price of the commodity.

So there is at least one specific case where less safe and more stressful environment would seem to increase total business profits.

Yes, and the manufacture of arms does create jobs and to help keep those jobs secure and preferably create more well you need war. The stuff has to be used. Itīs like in other manufacturing. Businessmen arenīt known for just filling all warehouses with stuff and then happily going out of business. No, they try to create business opportunities and weapons manufacturers are no different. So, war is business.

But I was talking about public safety, which I believe is a much healthier approach to job creation. I simply see nothing good about violence and war. Hang me for it.


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: galdur on December 06, 2015, 05:24:26 AM
Every Florida resident should be outraged at stories like this. 35 years old, 22 felony CONVICTIONS, and still out on the streets to terrorize law-abiding citizens??? And his bonds only total $27,500??? It is long past time to expand the scope of the three strikes law!!! Welcome to the insanity we call America.

The "human rights" organizations are campaigning quite heavily against the three-strikes law, and most of the American judges are not enforcing it due to the negative media publicity. Seems to me that the human rights are honored only for the criminals, and not for the innocent victims who were murders or raped by these thugs.
The three strikes laws do generate a fair share of human abuse.  

The ONLY reason to ever consider such a thing is if it were found that juries were letting people off the hook for their transgressions.  Then suppose you try to code up a "fix" in law.  Well, the "fix" has other problems.

It's a matter of intelligent gaming between parties, each for his perceived advantage.

Not only are the people in charge totally desperate for the citizenry to buy and buy more guns (every time they mention how guns are so bad, gun sales rocket) but they are also so very concerned about the human rights of criminals that run around terrorizing the population. Which leads me to believe, in fact Iīm convinced that these people donīt have both oars in the water.
Personally I would FIRST secure the human rights of the law-abiding citizenry (part of which human rights is as safe environment as possible, I guess providing that is part of the job description of the people in charge) and THEN start paying particular attention to the human rights of murderers and rapists.


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: hunnaryb on December 06, 2015, 08:46:20 AM
Terrorism doesn't have to stem from Middle Eastern routes. A terrorist act can be from right at home and conducted by people of your home denomination.


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: Lethn on December 06, 2015, 01:00:20 PM


Just one problem with that.

1. I'm an Anarchist so I'm definitely not contributing to the problem

2. I'm British


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: Daniel91 on December 06, 2015, 02:08:22 PM
I think in every country definition of terrorism is different.
Ask question what is terrorism in Russia, China, USA or Iraq and you will receive very different answers.
For me, terrorism is every action which have goal to harm innocent people in order to destabilize society structure, divide people over religion and culture issues, start panic so that people loose feeling of safety etc. 


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: Spendulus on December 06, 2015, 02:36:34 PM
Every Florida resident should be outraged at stories like this. 35 years old, 22 felony CONVICTIONS, and still out on the streets to terrorize law-abiding citizens??? And his bonds only total $27,500??? It is long past time to expand the scope of the three strikes law!!! Welcome to the insanity we call America.

The "human rights" organizations are campaigning quite heavily against the three-strikes law, and most of the American judges are not enforcing it due to the negative media publicity. Seems to me that the human rights are honored only for the criminals, and not for the innocent victims who were murders or raped by these thugs.
The three strikes laws do generate a fair share of human abuse.  

The ONLY reason to ever consider such a thing is if it were found that juries were letting people off the hook for their transgressions.  Then suppose you try to code up a "fix" in law.  Well, the "fix" has other problems.

It's a matter of intelligent gaming between parties, each for his perceived advantage.

Not only are the people in charge totally desperate for the citizenry to buy and buy more guns (every time they mention how guns are so bad, gun sales rocket) but they are also so very concerned about the human rights of criminals that run around terrorizing the population. Which leads me to believe, in fact Iīm convinced that these people donīt have both oars in the water.
Personally I would FIRST secure the human rights of the law-abiding citizenry (part of which human rights is as safe environment as possible, I guess providing that is part of the job description of the people in charge) and THEN start paying particular attention to the human rights of murderers and rapists.

If the hypothesis is that stupidity can explain behavior, it's an error to look for complex conspiracy theories, double dealing, and reverse psychology to explain the same behavior.


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: galdur on December 06, 2015, 02:44:52 PM
Every Florida resident should be outraged at stories like this. 35 years old, 22 felony CONVICTIONS, and still out on the streets to terrorize law-abiding citizens??? And his bonds only total $27,500??? It is long past time to expand the scope of the three strikes law!!! Welcome to the insanity we call America.

The "human rights" organizations are campaigning quite heavily against the three-strikes law, and most of the American judges are not enforcing it due to the negative media publicity. Seems to me that the human rights are honored only for the criminals, and not for the innocent victims who were murders or raped by these thugs.
The three strikes laws do generate a fair share of human abuse.  

The ONLY reason to ever consider such a thing is if it were found that juries were letting people off the hook for their transgressions.  Then suppose you try to code up a "fix" in law.  Well, the "fix" has other problems.

It's a matter of intelligent gaming between parties, each for his perceived advantage.

Not only are the people in charge totally desperate for the citizenry to buy and buy more guns (every time they mention how guns are so bad, gun sales rocket) but they are also so very concerned about the human rights of criminals that run around terrorizing the population. Which leads me to believe, in fact Iīm convinced that these people donīt have both oars in the water.
Personally I would FIRST secure the human rights of the law-abiding citizenry (part of which human rights is as safe environment as possible, I guess providing that is part of the job description of the people in charge) and THEN start paying particular attention to the human rights of murderers and rapists.

If the hypothesis is that stupidity can explain behavior, it's an error to look for complex conspiracy theories, double dealing, and reverse psychology to explain the same behavior.

I realize that your understanding of the connection between cause and effect is incomplete so Iīm not surprised that you try to use the familiar thought dead-end stoppers.


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: Spendulus on December 06, 2015, 03:28:36 PM
Every Florida resident should be outraged at stories like this. 35 years old, 22 felony CONVICTIONS, and still out on the streets to terrorize law-abiding citizens??? And his bonds only total $27,500??? It is long past time to expand the scope of the three strikes law!!! Welcome to the insanity we call America.

The "human rights" organizations are campaigning quite heavily against the three-strikes law, and most of the American judges are not enforcing it due to the negative media publicity. Seems to me that the human rights are honored only for the criminals, and not for the innocent victims who were murders or raped by these thugs.
The three strikes laws do generate a fair share of human abuse.  

The ONLY reason to ever consider such a thing is if it were found that juries were letting people off the hook for their transgressions.  Then suppose you try to code up a "fix" in law.  Well, the "fix" has other problems.

It's a matter of intelligent gaming between parties, each for his perceived advantage.

Not only are the people in charge totally desperate for the citizenry to buy and buy more guns (every time they mention how guns are so bad, gun sales rocket) but they are also so very concerned about the human rights of criminals that run around terrorizing the population. Which leads me to believe, in fact Iīm convinced that these people donīt have both oars in the water.
Personally I would FIRST secure the human rights of the law-abiding citizenry (part of which human rights is as safe environment as possible, I guess providing that is part of the job description of the people in charge) and THEN start paying particular attention to the human rights of murderers and rapists.

If the hypothesis is that stupidity can explain behavior, it's an error to look for complex conspiracy theories, double dealing, and reverse psychology to explain the same behavior.

I realize that your understanding of the connection between cause and effect is incomplete so Iīm not surprised that you try to use the familiar thought dead-end stoppers.

Occam's Razor is not your friend, obviously.

The simple problem with your assertions is that without overwhelming evidence for a position that A=B, anyone can "prove" anything they like, anytime.  We're not even discussing the level of cause and effect, but premises of arguments.

Assertion is not proof.


Title: Re: Why arenīt U.S. mass shootings called for what they are - Terrorism
Post by: galdur on December 06, 2015, 03:31:18 PM
Thatīs it. Iīve had it with this guy and his chasing his own tail. This time he wonīt come off ignore again.
Bye bye.