Colorado Springs Shooting

[Weebler I]

As tiresome as how minorities are depicted by mainstream media? And I'm using the term applied by the mainstream when any individual or group that is not white engages in an act of violence which is politically or religiously motivated.

I can understand that frustration, but it really has little to do with this notion of labelling every multiple-killing gunman a terrorist. That's just pettiness.

What you said about non-white killers being labelled terrorists isn't true. Was the double cop-killer in NY earlier this year labelled a terrorist? no, the irony is he was called mentally ill.

Was the Oregon shooter labelled a terrorist? no, but this time it's a white multiple shooter so he should be called a terrorist...okay.

Let me guess. This isn't terrorism either, right?

White supremacist video foreshadows shooting near Black Lives Matter protest in Minneapolis

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.2446801

4 Arrested in Shooting at Black Lives Matter Protest Are Identified

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/26/us...fied.html?_r=0

Like I said, if this is really where you're going with this notion that everyone has to be called a terrorist or no one is called a terrorist

...then the MSM is going to have to come up with a bunch of new terms to differentiate between terrorist attacks.

And for what? to get at the illusory perceived racism of when the term is used, it's a nonsense.

[kiDynamite92]

Yes, if they're committing terrorist attacks or involved in terrorist activity. That's what the list is there for. It's not biased, it's common sense.

The News then uses the term so we (you and me) understand wtf they're talking about when we hear there has been a terrorist attack.

So if you want the news to call every multiple shooter a terrorist, what you are going to call 9/11, 7/7, Paris style attacks?

How are you going to inform the public of the nature of the thread?

Commonsense? If it was as easy as that America would be the first nation that should be deemed as such! For one it's been engaged in how many wars in the last 50 years, was built of the largest genocide in human history, repeatedly threatens other countries with destruction if they don't comply to their wills and also in violation of the NPT treaty.

OK I think I'm going to have to break this down bit by bit so you can understand.

First lets examine the English definition for a terrorist: Someone who commits acts of violence or intimidation in order to pursue political gains.

Now if examine the event in Colorado we can see it clearly fits that description. Some white guy went in, shot up an abortion clinic because he is against abortion - something that each and every american has a legal right to.

Now if the same guy went in there, shot up a bunch of people trying to steal money, obviously it wouldn't fit that definition would it? Unless of course you could find some wider political reason for them doing so.

Sidenote, you're actually the one who personalised it, talking about murdering families, not I. I was putting it in your terms so you can understand.

You want to complain about colonisation of the past while living the benefits of it today. Newsflash, you're living in a former colony bro, all the good things and current freedoms within it that you enjoy emanate from the structures and institutions which the colonists put in place.

All the genocide as you put occurred hundreds of years ago, Americans today only enjoy all the good things from colonisation as one of the foremost nations in world and have little reason to complain and every reason to be grateful.

I wasn't attacking you personally when I said that, I was using that as an analogy so you can understand the situation better. You on the other hand are using ad hominems instead of addressing my arguments.

Newsflash it doesn't matter if I enjoy the benefits of colonization, it was WRONG. The indigenous didn't want the Europeans there and didn't benefit one bit. Tell me this, would it be ok for Obama to let in the whole of Africa, arm them with guns and told to kill off every american there is so that they could benefit from it later on?

[Weebler I]

OK I think I'm going to have to break this down bit by bit so you can understand.

First lets examine the English definition for a terrorist: Someone who commits acts of violence or intimidation in order to pursue political gains.

Now if examine the event in Colorado we can see it clearly fits that description. Some white guy went in, shot up an abortion clinic because he is against abortion - something that each and every american has a legal right to.

Right, so we're going to have the news call every multiple shooter with a cause a terrorist attack (black & white offenders), okay.

How do we then differentiate between those nutty lone gunmen (of all races) and the orchestrated 9/11 style attacks in common discourse and on television so that the public understands the nature of the threat?

This is what we're talking about here, changing the nature of how a threat to the public is communicated en masse.

Let me just add that you'd then be out of step with how the rest of the Western countries delivers its news. All for what? in case a particular minority does some mental gymnastics to get offended? to get big bad whitey who is quite conspiring against us on the low? I mean, come on, it's pointless.

I wasn't attacking you personally when I said that, I was using that as an analogy so you can understand the situation better. You on the other hand are using ad hominems instead of addressing my arguments.

Newsflash it doesn't matter if I enjoy the benefits of colonization, it was WRONG. The indigenous didn't want the Europeans there and didn't benefit one bit. Tell me this, would it be ok for Obama to let in the whole of Africa, arm them with guns and told to kill off every american there is so that they could benefit from it later on?

Colonisation is most often viewed as intrinsically wrong. It was very wrong for the people who were wigwamming it up back then but it has been very right for all the Americans living today who live as beneficiaries of the actions of said colonists, and ensuing laws and institutions they put in place.

They've only ever felt the benefits of colonialism, they can oppose colonialism in principle but there's simply no justification for them to complain about how colonialism personally worked out for them in the USA. Gratitude is the order of the day, to be grateful for everything it has given them, high quality first world lives and opportunities, not resentment for no tangible reason.

Anyhow, been good chatting. I always have time for those who don't resort to insults in debate, and I'd hope that feeling is reciprocated. Peace.

[bojangles1987]

If you shoot a place up because of an ideology and with the intent to terrorize, you are a terrorist. You don't have to belong to a larger group, that's ridiculous.

Let's be honest, people automatically associate terrorism with Islam, which is ****ing ******ed and racist. Lone Muslim terrorists are immediately called terrorists all the time, why should it be different for anyone else? Catholics and cults and every other larger ideological group in the existence of humanity has done the same ****. They're no better than Islam.

[kiDynamite92]

Right, so we're going to have the news call every multiple shooter with a cause a terrorist attack (black & white offenders), okay.

How do we then differentiate between those nutty lone gunmen (of all races) and the orchestrated 9/11 style attacks in common discourse and on television so that the public understands the nature of the threat?

This is what we're talking about here, changing the nature of how a threat to the public is communicated en masse.

Let me just add that you'd then be out of step with how the rest of the Western countries delivers its news. All for what? in case a particular minority does some mental gymnastics to get offended? to get big bad whitey who is quite conspiring against us on the low? I mean, come on, it's pointless.

Um yeah, that's how it should work. Someone killing someone because of a particular ideology that they have subscribed to is terrorism regardless of them being affiliated with a terrorist group or not.

I mean don't tell you think this guy who went to an abortion clinic in specific didn't plan his course of attack? I mean he managed to kill 3 people, 1 who was a cop which is no easy task. He went in there and killed indiscriminately, he attempted to kill more then he did and would have killed a lot more if he could - just like the terrorist in france.

The news should be there to get out the truth, if it causes them an inconvenience and they can't do it then don't.

Colonisation is most often viewed as intrinsically wrong. It was very wrong for the people who were wigwamming it up back then but it has been very right for all the Americans living today who live as beneficiaries of the actions of said colonists, and ensuing laws and institutions they put in place.

They've only ever felt the benefits of colonialism, they can oppose colonialism in principle but there's simply no justification for them to complain about how colonialism personally worked out for them in the USA. Gratitude is the order of the day, to be grateful for everything it has given them, high quality first world lives and opportunities, not resentment for no tangible reason.

Anyhow, been good chatting. I always have time for those who don't resort to insults in debate, and I'd hope that feeling is reciprocated. Peace.

Well maybe some people would rather have been back in Europe rather then be the decedents of murders. Some people are like that, not saying I am but there definitely are and they should have every right to complain.

Anyway you got the rest of it right with it being wrong in principal and yeah no worries bro, peace

[joseph5620]

]If you shoot a place up because of an ideology and with the intent to terrorize, you are a terrorist. You don't have to belong to a larger group, that's ridiculous.[/B]

Let's be honest, people automatically associate terrorism with Islam, which is ****ing ******ed and racist. Lone Muslim terrorists are immediately called terrorists all the time, why should it be different for anyone else? Catholics and cults and every other larger ideological group in the existence of humanity has done the same ****. They're no better than Islam.

Don't tell that to Weebler. He believes you have to look a certain way to be a terrorist.

[El Malo.]

So i guess you stroking it to **** hub in your parents basement makes you mass murder don't it

Lmao

This board is great

[New England]

Don't tell that to Weebler. He believes you have to look a certain way to be a terrorist.

it's tough to blame these limeys, scandies, etc. they're ****geneously exposed to ****** hating in europe. they really don't even understand what they're doing.


europeans are scared of muslims. it's really that simple.

[New England]

If you shoot a place up because of an ideology and with the intent to terrorize, you are a terrorist. You don't have to belong to a larger group, that's ridiculous.

Let's be honest, people automatically associate terrorism with Islam, which is ****ing ******ed and racist. Lone Muslim terrorists are immediately called terrorists all the time, why should it be different for anyone else? Catholics and cults and every other larger ideological group in the existence of humanity has done the same ****. They're no better than Islam.

you have to say derka, and f#ck camels, and strap bombs to your chest.

[krazyn8tive]

you have to say derka, and f#ck camels, and strap bombs to your chest.

This is pretty true actually