Another white person with health issues. Definetly not domestic terrorism.
I can seriously believe this is how the Gov actually views it's citizens. In light of the last 100 years, I wouldn't be surprized
@SaltyVanillaSteak, I mean, there was no evidence of terrorism. It's not like he had a political manifesto like the Uni-Bomber.
@SaltyVanillaSteak, the only people that make this claim are those who don't know what a terrorist is, and those who do, but pretend they don't do they can make some argument about race.
@Doctor Krieger, I mean, he was targeting citizens at random, with a seeming trend toward minority populations. People were afraid that they could be next. He literally instilled terror upon a population. Wasn’t the Washington Sniper considered a terrorist after victim number two? Legit question, because I don’t remember, but I’m pretty sure he was.
@SaltyVanillaSteak, yea recently a foreign exchange student from asia was labeled a terrorist cause of his plans and what he said. If it was a white kid it would have been a different case.
@Doctor Krieger, there doesn't need to be a political manifesto. Terrorism simple means to inflict terror. Yes the media will use it only to be political but that is incorrect. Technically you can be a terrorist without killing anyone.
@Implicit88, Except terrorism doesn't "simply mean to inflict terror." Terrorism -
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. This is just one definition, obviously, and it's a narrow one, but all definitions of the term agree on the fact that there has to be some sort of goal, political or otherwise, above and beyond just doing damage. Without this distinction, literally anything anyone does to scare someone else would be terrorism. There was no evidence of any specific goal in this case, aside from killing/maiming people, which, as I stated, is not enough to qualify an act as terrorism.
@the fork, legally speaking, it is the use of violence or coercion to achieve a political or ideological end.
@Implicit88, legally speaking, that's incorrect. Political or ideological goals, as well as violence or coercion, are necessary.
@Berntley, political or ideological goals must be involved, according to the legal definition.
@Doctor Krieger, does targeting minorities not qualify as political or ideological? Or is it just that there is not specific confirmation that that was the goal? Honestly, the argument about whether or not it should be labeled terrorism is pretty semantic compared to how they are otherwise painted in the media, where this kid is described as “quiet, nerdy, troubled”, and kids like Trayvon Martin has the media scrambling to discredit him as a thug.
@Berntley, there's no evidence that he targetted them because they were minorities. Not everything bad that happens to a minority is the result of racism. Don't be an idiot.
@Doctor Krieger, Wow, swinging back fairly hard for a civil discussion. Idiocy would be to flat out ignore the strong correlation. His first three victims, where the packages were specifically left at peoples homes, killed minority individuals. This was before he changed his methods to more random attacks, where anybody could have fallen victim. There was also the package that he took to Fedex, but I don’t think we know who the intended victim was. It’s a lot more foolish to be so certain that it’s not racist, than to suggest, based on what actually happened, that it could have been.
@Berntley, again, just because his victims were minorities does not prove political intent. You can scream "strong correlation" all day long, it's meaningless. Epistemologicaly insignificant. Not evidence of anything.
@Doctor Krieger, All I’m saying is that they should be taken into consideration. We’ll never know for sure, and again, the ultimate argument (was it terrorism?) is semantic. But to so feverishly deny that there could have possibly been an effort to target minority groups, when there was such a strong trend toward minority victims, is to discount so very much that’s at play. From an epistemological standpoint, you’re disregarding literally the significant data involved. Those who were killed. As John Watson said, “Mind is irrelevant”. His actions are all we can take into account. And his actions were to kill or injure a disproportionate number of minority individuals. We will never have more information than that. Your conclusion is far from sound.
@Berntley, my conclusion is literally that there's no evidence of political motive, therefore none of terrorism as the word is legally defined.
You are loosely engaging in the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. As long as other possible explanations for the demographics of the bombings exist, the demographics themselves are not evidence. That is not epistemologicaly sound.
@Doctor Krieger, and you’ve conveniently backed the discussion up to where it started, which I’ve already agreed is semantic. Whether or not he’s labeled as a terrorist is wholly insignificant. Especially since he has been deemed a domestic terrorist by the police force in Austin already. However, you’d stated there is no evidence he targeted them because they were minorities. I’m arguing that the fact that a strong majority of his victims were minorities is evidence that suggests he was targeting minorities.
@SaltyVanillaSteak, you know “terrorism” has a definition
@Doctor Krieger, incorrect 28 C.F.R Section 0.85 clearly states it can be political or social objective. Social objective could be anything really that involves at least one other person than yourself. If your social objective is simply to be noticed you are a terrorist.
@Berntley, there is a strong chance it was due to being a minority the other guy just doesnt want to face the music. Randomly speaking about 50% of the town is white so he should have him a white person once if it was truly random. Only 8% is black.
I was just a few miles from this cvnt. He detonated himself right down the road from my parents house. Good riddance.
Who is that
U know how we can stop stupid shït like this from happening? Stop being mean to other ppl. It's that simple. This kid was, in all likelihood, bullied and/or abused. No one just randomly decides they're gonna blow some place up. It's a gradual decline due to a fücked up environment. It's no wonder he did what he did.
Why do some ppl have this need to hurt someone for no reason? Cuz we humans are natural assholes and cases like this will continue to pop up.
@Lord Booty The Third, actually, there are a bunch of mental health conditions (such as bipolar disorder and schizophrenia) in which people feel strongly influenced to do something, and just feel it's what they have to do. In bipolar especially, people make random, impulsive decisions during the manic stage where they have to do something then and now. When they get back to normal, they are somehow awoken to the consequences of their actions. It's tough stuff.
@Kuntover9000, u can't blame everything on mental disorders. They clearly knew what they were doing. It's set off a bomb for christ's sake. That shït ain't random. Probably took him awhile to build it. From the time he decided to build it and to the time he set it off, what u are telling me that all of those were random impulses. No sir, that is complete bs. This was premeditated. This guy hated the world for hating him because of ppl who decided to make this guy feel like shït.
I'm not saying this guy isn't to blame. Fück him for blowing ppl up. But the reasoning behind why we did is cuz ppl can't help but belittle others for no reason other than it's in their nature to do so.
@Lord Booty The Third, I'm not saying all of them have one mental health problem or another, and I'm not saying that all of them are mentally ill in the first place. I'm just saying that some of them are fu€ked in the head, and can't stop themselves in the moment. I'm taking a psychology class rn and literally yesterday we learned about a crap ton of psychological disorders.
@Lord Booty The Third, utopian drivel. You'll only ever stop people from "being mean" by stopping people from existing at all. Extinction is the only means to ending any flaws inherent in humanity.
Besides, SSRIs are far more suspect than bullying.
@Doctor Krieger, is it wrong to hope for a world with no hate? Like I said, it is impossible, for we humans are natural dïckheads.
@Lord Booty The Third, yes, it is wrong to hope for a world you cannot achieve at the expense of the world that is.
@Doctor Krieger, it's thinking like yours that makes the idea of a better world impossible, smh
@Lord Booty The Third, It's thinking like mine that opposes the worst that humanity has to offer.
Difference is...This guy did it because he wanted to. Sand People do it because it literally says to kill those who don't follow Allah
@Elmato, the sand people travel in straight lines to hide their numbers...
He's a hero.
Is this Nicholas Cruz?
@liberachi , No. It's the now deceased Austin TX package bomber
@liberachi , stop calling that monster by his name. He is a pos and does not deserve any recognition by anyone
@Osama bin Dead, I'm guessing we shouldn't say Osamas name or Hitler's name either then :o
@Mortimer Smith Sr, I know I sound hypocritical, but my username is just for sh!ts and giggles. It makes me happy and humored that he is dead
@Osama bin Dead, Giggles? Osama killed thousands and caused 911 and you get offended when someone says Nicolas Cruz's name? You really are the definition of a hypocrite
@Osama bin Dead, I understand not wanting to glorify a bomber, but dehumanizing him isn't going to solve anything. It's not going to bring back the people killed, and it's not going to prevent future attacks by other individuals. If anything, it reinforces the disconnect between these people and their targets. Domestic terrorists and school shooters seem to have the common mindset that the world is their playground and believe that everyone they don't like or care about is expendable. If they hear the world tell them that they're not human for having that mindset, then they'll cut themselves off from it. It's not a mindset anyone should have, but they need help. That might sound smarmy and overly-optimistic, but it's a more practical solution to preventing future attacks than mob mentality, which hasn't seemed to work so far.
@Click To Login, dude chill out. I am tired of hearing his name constantly over the tv and radio. That’s why I said what I said. You need to relax
@Click To Login, dude chill out. I am tired of hearing his name constantly over the tv and radio. That’s why I said what I said. You need to relax. I said it makes me laugh that Osama is dead. Read next time. In no way do his actions make me giggle
@Osama bin Dead, Nicolas Cruz is set for the death penalty and nobody is laughing because its a serious matter. If you read the previous comment you said, and i quote, "my username is for shlts and giggles". Not to mention that nobody said "Nicholas Cruz is amazing" or anything like that, @liberachi was confused and asked a simple question.
@Click To Login, I’m not trying to be rude or anything, and if I said anything incorrectly, I apologize, I was slightly drunk. My username is a joke, it’s from Always Sunny in Philadelphia. What I was saying is how the media acknowledges these recent mass murderers, seemingly making them famous. It leads others to want that fame, by murdering innocent people. In no way am I defending evil
@liberachi , no, it is not.
@Osama bin Dead, dude was fücked in the head. His agency is dubious. What he did was horrible, but I reserve judgement for when I know that he was a willing agent in his actions.
It’s not a stereotype if it’s true
Leave it to fp comments to turn this pic about the difference in comments surrounding a suspect in a crime that happens to be white and a suspect who happens to be black, into a debate about the freedom of information and the legal definition of terrorism... smh
Family Guy is so funny.