You must log in or # to comment.
The dead guy was the terrorist.
But he was white…?
fine “Domestic” terrorist
So was Timothy McVeigh.
So he was a “lone wolf” then
So this is terrorism but they refuse to give terrorism charges to local militias?
They also don’t charge people who blow up abortion clinics with terrorism either. They haven’t since the 60s - 70s.
If you look it up the courts have been petitioned several times to associate abortion clinic bombings with Christian terrorism but they keep refusing to call it what it is.
After reading about that fiasco I have very little faith our government actually has a working definition of terrorism that doesn’t shift at their convenience.
Local militias are perfectly acceptable as per the second amendment, as long as they’re “well regulated”, whatever that means…
it means that it needs to be an actual maintained organization, not Jim bob and his buddies threatening anybody they don’t like. it’s also not a requirement, it’s only the reasoning provided.
Hence the joke
Let’s hope the jury disagrees
They charged him with terrorism so a regular jury won’t get to make that decision. It will be a federal grand jury of selected stooges, and maybe even a secret court.
Uhuh… And the school shooters? No terrorist charges?..
I’m pretty sure it’s up to the state attorney to decide what charges to bring is all I’ll say.
Those tend to be a personal grudge, not a political statement.
Pretty sure you could agree he had a personal grudge as well
Potentially, but I think that’s true of most terrorists.
I think that for terrorism you need the goal to instill terror in the population. Since it was so specifically targeted and only one victim, I don’t know how well it fits. Also, most of the population doesn’t feel terror, maybe he should be hit with satisfaction charges.
The definition of terrorism doesn’t say you need to terrify people at all.
Besides, there’s been a lot of acts that are generally agreed to be terrorist acts, that have targeted a very small group of people, such as a religious group, or even one specific individual. The IRA’s famous reply to Margaret Thatcher comes to mind.
It seems his goal was to terrify one small group of people, namely senior people in the healthcare industry, and I think that counts.
I’m starting to think your username isn’t true, at all!
”We are all domestic terrorists…”
-CPAC (Republicans) 2022
“I learned it from watching you, ok?!?!?”
From what the manifesto found on him allegedly said, it sounds like his actions were politically motivated. And violence in pursuit of a political goal is kinda the definition of terrorism.
George Washington used violence to advance his political agenda of a sovereign USA. Was George a terrorist?
It’s not terrorism if you win.
History is written by the victors.
Yes, he was a good terrorist. He wasn’t captured by the enemy.
Luigi was pretty dumb wearing that creepy outfit at a McD. He was captured. Regardless of how you feel about him, being captured was a major failure.
Yeah, Luigi fucked up so bad that he wasn’t even the shooter and he still got caught /irony
Yes, why would you think he wasn’t?
If he used violence against noncombatants.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terror attacks though.
Oh, well then Muad’dib isn’t a terrorist because he only killed a mass murderer. Military brass are considered combatants, and Brian ordered thousands to their deaths.
No?
It’s very obviously an action made with intent to cause terror. It doesn’t have to be political or violent. There is often an aspect of violence and political motivation but it isn’t a requirement
It’s pretty much always meant violence for an ideology or cause. And the political motivation is very much what makes the difference.
Words do have definitions.
Well then define non-combatants. The person he shot was at fault for hundreds if not thousands of deaths. Saying he didn’t personally do them would be like saying a general is not responsible for their troops actions.
Well then define non-combatants.
“a person who is not engaged in fighting during a war, especially a civilian, chaplain, or medical practitioner.”
Sure he was responsible for deaths due to denying health coverage. But he’s still a civilian.
So is the president, who orders drone strikes on civilians.
“Different definitions of terrorism emphasize its randomness, its aim to instill fear, and its broader impact beyond its immediate victims.”
From the article you cited
He likely intended to cause terror for the victims minority.
How tf can killing a single person with a handgun be classified as terrorism?
Because the ruling class is terrified
So “terrorism” equals “middle eastern”?
Hey, I don’t make the rules.
There’s only one country who thinks like that, and they happen to be the whitest, most prolific terrorists on the planet
Is it Switzerland again? They always seem to be right on time…
uh, dunno if people have noticed but the Mediterranean is kind of goin through some shit right now. Also Italy has a pretty notable history of bombings and assassinations
But also what the other person said, dude is american. I’m so sick of my family members talking like sopranos characters because our grandparents were actual Italians. Plus they 100% definitely didn’t say gabbagool and proshoot before like 2003
Gabagool has been around for centuries.
Yes, we know he’s an American citizen, calm down please. So was Al Capone BTW, who certainly worked a lot harder to deserve a terrorism charge, but they ended up nailing him on tax evasion. So perhaps it’s really the definition of terrorism that changed. I think you’re taking the joke a little too serious.
As for your family members, I’m afraid I can’t help you with that.
I refuse to calm down and I demand help
There, there
I suggest you actually check the definition of terrorism, Capone wasn’t motivated by political ideals, he was motivated by good old fashioned greed.
Freedom fighter
Ftfy
the definition of terrorism from the FBI is very… vague
Here’s an exerpt from the declaration of Independence :3
Reasonable take.
