Austin Bomber. Terrorism?

Toxick

Splat
I just looked at a survey where over 75% of the people said that the actions of the Austin Bomber should be considered Terrorism.



Do we have a clue to this #######'s motives yet? Last I heard, he was just a nut. Did he have an agenda beyond seeing how many people he could blow up? Because IMO, that's a pretty big component to define something as terrorism - trying to scare people into seeing things your way - or kill those who refuse.

If you say that he is a terrorist, what's your reasoning?



Same with the Las Vegas shooter - I think we still don't know what was going through that #######'s head - yet everyone calls him a terrorist. If he is, I haven't heard what his motive is or what agenda he was trying to push.






Full disclosure, and at the risk of sounding like a pompous jackass: If your answer is "they terrified people", then I probably won't value your opinion very highly.
 

littlelady

God bless the USA
Any situation that causes terror would be called terrorism, imo. For example, my dot’s hub’s bf growing up has 2 sons, 4 and 5, who no one wants to invite over because they are total terrors. They cause havoc wherever they go. It has gotten to the point that dot’s hub questions continuing to socialize with that family. Examples of these boys behavior are acting like they are scared of dogs, but the moment they get the chance, they do a neck hold and pull the dog’s hair, trying to push other children down the stairs, throwing things at children and adults, physically jumping on kids to knock them over, throwing rocks at neighbors for no reason, and on and on. I don’t know the answer for them, and how to deal with it, but it seems they will have to distance themselves from them; Emmy is 2 and Luke is 2 months. They fear for their children’s safety. Sad.

Thank goodness we own very sweet and loving labradoodles, or there could have been a serious problem.

Edit...These same parents went to the anti gun march on Saturday. I don’t know who they left the boys with. It certainly wasn’t grandparents. Both sides moved away a while back, and I don’t blame them one bit.
 
Last edited:

black dog

Free America
Any situation that causes terror would be called terrorism, imo. For example, my dot’s hub’s bf growing up has 2 sons, 4 and 5, who no one wants to invite over because they are total terrors. They cause havoc wherever they go. It has gotten to the point that dot’s hub questions continuing to socialize with that family. Examples of these boys behavior are acting like they are scared of dogs, but the moment they get the chance, they do a neck hold and pull the dog’s hair, trying to push other children down the stairs, throwing things at children and adults, physically jumping on kids to knock them over, throwing rocks at neighbors for no reason, and on and on. I don’t know the answer for them, and how to deal with it, but it seems they will have to distance themselves from them; Emmy is 2 and Luke is 2 months. They fear for their children’s safety. Sad.

Thank goodness we own very sweet and loving labradoodles, or there could have been a serious problem.

Edit...These same parents went to the anti gun march on Saturday. I don’t know who they left the boys with. It certainly wasn’t grandparents. Both sides moved away a while back, and I don’t blame them one bit.

So, you are saying you don’t care what he did before he offed himself?

No you crazy dumb bitch, He's dead. Who cares why he did it.
And quit responding to my posts.
 

littlelady

God bless the USA
No you crazy dumb bitch, He's dead. Who cares why he did it.
And quit responding to my posts.

Oh my gawd, are you serious? You are the one that put a 30 day hiatus on responding to me, and you couldn’t commit. You should, then, stop quoting my posts to save for posterity when you don’t reply to them. And, why are you calling me a crazy dumb bitch? I had nothing to do with what happened in Austin. And, didn’t you say, yesterday, that everyone is entitled to an opinion? You are the one that said you wouldn’t respond to me back when, but you couldn’t help yourself because you are such a narcissistic know it all. You are such a hypocrite. I feel sorry for you.

I will never respond to you again, unless you make me do so. You are your own worst enemy, and a hoot to boot. :killingme: Thanks for the reply. I got you, sanctimonious jerk.

Edit: So, according to you, we are done here. Thank you. I wish you the best in life. Take care. Robin

I just saw your new post, so this is not, technically, a reply; it is a reverse reply. :lol: You think you are so honorable, and all, but it seems you will say anything to make yourself feel good. You think I am a dumb bitch. Well, guess again. :killingme: I wish the best for your son in the Marines, and hope he does not turn out like you.

And the great thing about my strategy is you can’t reply without compromising your position. I love when a plan comes together. :diva:I find it hilarious that for some reason I stick in your craw, when you try to come across as such a macho man. What is it about me that unravels you? Is it because I got your number from the beginning?
 
Last edited:

black dog

Free America
Oh my gawd, are you serious? You should, then, stop quoting my posts to save for posterity when you don’t reply to them. And, why are you calling me a crazy dumb bitch? I had nothing to do with what happened in Austin. And, didn’t you say, yesterday, that everyone is entitled to an opinion? You are the one that said you wouldn’t respond to me back when, but you couldn’t help yourself because you are such a narcissistic know it all. You are such a hypocrite. I feel sorry for you.

I will never respond to you again, unless you make me do so. You are your own worst enemy, and a hoot to boot. :killingme: Thanks for the reply. I got you, you sanctimonious jerk.

Edit: So, according to you, we are done here. Thank you.

Good, see if you can make it past 3 days this time nutbag.
 

LightRoasted

If I may ...
If I may ...

Terrorism, commonly defined, is usually the actions of known political, or geopolitical, factions, that is used to further an agenda. In this case, though not appearing to be political, the frequency of these devises did cause a certain level of fear and apprehension in the area and therefore could be associated with terrorism. Though is a stretch to call it outright terrorism, it could be argued that it is on a certain level. I'd say those 75% of people haven't really thought it through as to what true terrorism really is. If they had, they wouldn't have labeled this as such.
 

RoseRed

American Beauty
PREMO Member
Oh my gawd, are you serious? You are the one that put a 30 day hiatus on responding to me, and you couldn’t commit. You should, then, stop quoting my posts to save for posterity when you don’t reply to them. And, why are you calling me a crazy dumb bitch? I had nothing to do with what happened in Austin. And, didn’t you say, yesterday, that everyone is entitled to an opinion? You are the one that said you wouldn’t respond to me back when, but you couldn’t help yourself because you are such a narcissistic know it all. You are such a hypocrite. I feel sorry for you.

I will never respond to you again, unless you make me do so. You are your own worst enemy, and a hoot to boot. :killingme: Thanks for the reply. I got you, sanctimonious jerk.

Edit: So, according to you, we are done here. Thank you. I wish you the best in life. Take care. Robin

I just saw your new post, so this is not, technically, a reply; it is a reverse reply. :lol: You think you are so honorable, and all, but it seems you will say anything to make yourself feel good. You think I am a dumb bitch. Well, guess again. :killingme: I wish the best for your son in the Marines, and hope he does not turn out like you.

And the great thing about my strategy is you can’t reply without compromising your position. I love when a plan comes together. :diva:I find it hilarious that for some reason I stick in your craw, when you try to come across as such a macho man. What is it about me that unravels you? Is it because I got your number from the beginning?

:crazy:
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
90343F2F-160F-4DA0-9E00-36653B0323AE.jpeg
 

Toxick

Splat


Hm. No.

I was hoping that race wouldn't come into it. I am certainly not asserting that Caucasians are incapable of terrorism. But I've always believed that terrorism has a very specific definition and although "Terror, Terrified" are derived from the same root, they are not what constitutes Terrorism.

I've always believed that Terrorism is defined by motive, not by skin tone. Also, "Mentally Disturbed" and "Terrorist" are not mutually exclusive. Not by a damn sight.


F'rinstance - I think it's a fair bet that everyone agrees Timothy McVeigh (who I believe matches the top box on the skin chip there) is a terrorist. His actions were politically and policy driven. Therefore he fits the description of 'terrorist'. He had an agenda. PETA has had more than its fair share of terrorists pulling off events in their name. All agenda driven. I could probably dig up names and faces of these people - I'll wager that I'd find more white faces than not. So, no. That's not it, and it's not my intention imply such.


Kaczynski is often labeled as a terrorist. His motive was revenge and anger, rather than politics. I'm not sure he's a bona fide terrorist. Or insane. I don't think he was non compos mentis - just evil.
 

Toxick

Splat
If I may ...

Terrorism, commonly defined, is usually the actions of known political, or geopolitical, factions, that is used to further an agenda. In this case, though not appearing to be political, the frequency of these devises did cause a certain level of fear and apprehension in the area and therefore could be associated with terrorism. Though is a stretch to call it outright terrorism, it could be argued that it is on a certain level. I'd say those 75% of people haven't really thought it through as to what true terrorism really is. If they had, they wouldn't have labeled this as such.



This is my point.

I also think those people are wrong.





From a strictly pedantic and technical point of view. I've always held the believe that Words Mean Things. And most words mean Very Specific Things. I get that English is a living language and I don't have problems with colloquialisms and all that (Like when my kids ask me "Can I have that", I don't answer "I dunno, can you?") but in a formal setting, I still think most people would still use this word wrong.

IOW: I don't believe the word is being used as a colloquialism, I think it's being completely misused.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
F'rinstance - I think it's a fair bet that everyone agrees Timothy McVeigh (who I believe matches the top box on the skin chip there) is a terrorist.


I thought McVeigh was motivated by revenge for Waco and Ruby Ridge ?



ALF, ELF ... NW Pacific terrorists driving spikes into trees cut down in logging, looking to cause exploding saw blades at the mills to main and kill, to end logging
 

Toxick

Splat
Because they terrorized people.


But did they?

They murdered and wounded people, yes. They definitely instilled "terror" to some degree. But it is my contention that those two things do not constitute Terrorism in the actual sense of the word. For those acts to be considered bona fide terrorism, we'd have to determine WHY did they murder and wound people? And the WHY would have to fit certain criteria.





If the answer is "I kilt them people ... just to watch 'em die." Then it's not terrorism.
If the answer is "The voices told me to kill everybody", It's not terrorism.
If the answer is "Texas is a Gun Toting Red-State vision of hell, and they all deserved to die" ---- NOW we're talking terrorism.
If the answer is "Las Vegas is a sinful, SINFUL town awash in violence and prostitution and God told me they had to die" --- also terrorism. And probably mental illness - but still terrorism.


As far as I can tell, those people are just evil a-holes. Not terrorists.



Just to clarify my position on the subject: The fact that something is not terrorism, is not - repeat not - a mitigating factor.
 

Toxick

Splat
I thought McVeigh was motivated by revenge for Waco and Ruby Ridge ?

Yeah. He also had issues with the contemporary foreign policy. I forgot the details, but that was part of it as well.




ALF, ELF ... NW Pacific terrorists driving spikes into trees cut down in logging, looking to cause exploding saw blades at the mills to main and kill, to end logging



Properly labeled "Eco-terrorists".
 

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
But did they?

They murdered and wounded people, yes. They definitely instilled "terror" to some degree. But it is my contention that those two things do not constitute Terrorism in the actual sense of the word. For those acts to be considered bona fide terrorism, we'd have to determine WHY did they murder and wound people? And the WHY would have to fit certain criteria.





If the answer is "I kilt them people ... just to watch 'em die." Then it's not terrorism.
If the answer is "The voices told me to kill everybody", It's not terrorism.
If the answer is "Texas is a Gun Toting Red-State vision of hell, and they all deserved to die" ---- NOW we're talking terrorism.
If the answer is "Las Vegas is a sinful, SINFUL town awash in violence and prostitution and God told me they had to die" --- also terrorism. And probably mental illness - but still terrorism.

As far as I can tell, those people are just evil a-holes. Not terrorists.

What about... If the answer is "Allahu Ackbar." (Kaboom) ???

That one seems to have stumped everybody in the media and government for the last decade!
 
Top