12 dead in Paris shooting

[matsuki]

Someone needs to start a Islamic suicide cult where you get 999,999 virgins and permission to eat all the bacon you can for "giving you life to the cause."

[Russell]

Someone needs to start a Islamic suicide cult where you get 999,999 virgins and permission to eat all the bacon you can for "giving you life to the cause."

Ehrmm, don't try to be original, Matsuki, that idea is already taken...

[Grumpy Gramps]

Why anyone wants to have a bunch of nagging spinsters after they die, is beyond my comprehension. Worse than hell, so - allahu akbar - let's go to hell where the whores are, it's the lesser evil

[Samurai_Jerk]

California massacre shooter pledged allegiance to ISIS

Could have pledged allegiance to the flying pasketti monster or slender man all the same...

Russel, if you take a shit on your neighbourg mailboxe and post "i'm wiith Isis"... You're not a terrorist. You are a nutcase. It's the same as if I claim that Yua Aida is my gurlfriend. There's stuff in life that need to work both ways to be true...

Would you also say the Unabomber was not a terrorist since he was clearly disturbed and acting alone? I would say he was because his goal was political. These two may have been inspired by Daesh rather than directly supported by them, but that doesn't mean they're not terrorists.

[Coligny]

If you don't see an issue with using the same label for the unabomber and daesh trained assassins...

Those clowns are at best domestic terrorists.

[Samurai_Jerk]

If you don't see an issue with using the same label for the unabomber and daesh trained assassins...

Those clowns are at best domestic terrorists.

Then you need to come up with a new word for Daesh trained attackers because the Unabomber has always been considered a terrorist.

[Grumpy Gramps]

Nowadays, the term "terrorist" is way overused imo. Maybe in some places, the cops get unrestricted powers if they declare an umbrella theft to be an act of terrorism, so they can shoot the little old lady dead, who took the wrong umbrella, I don't know.

Even I call my cat a terrorist, when He meows at the door and I had already told Him three times that He can't go out tonight, because it's the night before gomi-day and I don't want Him to rummage through the trash.

[Coligny]

If you don't see an issue with using the same label for the unabomber and daesh trained assassins...

Those clowns are at best domestic terrorists.

Then you need to come up with a new word for Daesh trained attackers because the Unabomber has always been considered a terrorist.

The guy was a serial murderer. A brain damaged one man show.

What daesh do in France is not far from what the French secret services did in NZ against the rainbow warrior.
What the unabomber did is not that far from Jack the ripper.
If you label different things under the same name (unabomber / daesh)
Or the same things under different names (daesh / rainbow warrior)

I can't do anything for you...
You can also call an aircraft carrier an apple pie all you want. And you certainly have the rethoric to prove yourself right advitam eternam...
Just don't ask me to trust your judgement when you claim it's safe to land on the baked goodness...

[Samurai_Jerk]

If you don't see an issue with using the same label for the unabomber and daesh trained assassins...

Those clowns are at best domestic terrorists.

Then you need to come up with a new word for Daesh trained attackers because the Unabomber has always been considered a terrorist.

The guy was a serial murderer. A brain damaged one man show.

What daesh do in France is not far from what the French secret services did in NZ against the rainbow warrior.
What the unabomber did is not that far from Jack the ripper.
If you label different things under the same name (unabomber / daesh)
Or the same things under different names (daesh / rainbow warrior)

I can't do anything for you...
You can also call an aircraft carrier an apple pie all you want. And you certainly have the rethoric to prove yourself right advitam eternam...
Just don't ask me to trust your judgement when you claim it's safe to land on the baked goodness...

It wasn't me who decided to call Kaczynski a terrorist. It was the FBI. The basic definition of terrorism is violence committed for political purposes. It doesn't require a conspiracy by a well organized group which is what you seem to be implying. There is a grey area between terrorist and nutjob in which Kaczynski probably sits (What about Timothy McVeigh?). It's harder to argue that Islamists inspired by Daesh aren't terrorists though. Especially when Daesh has specifically called on their supporters to do exactly this kind of thing. And in this case you do have a conspiracy by at least two people. Which reminds me, what happened to that third suspect?

[wagyl]

That definition doesn't satisfy the freedom fighter vs terrorist distinction.

And to satisfy Coligny's thread purity, bringing it back on topic: were the actions of La direction générale de la Sécurité extérieure in friendly nation New Zealand against protest against France's nuclear test program freedom fighting? It is undeniably for political purposes.

[Samurai_Jerk]

That definition doesn't satisfy the freedom fighter vs terrorist distinction.

Does that distinction need to be satisfied? Doesn't that depend on which side you're on?

[Wage Slave]

If the definition of terrorism is clean, clear and simple why aren't this guy and his ilk branded terrorists?

http://www.vox.com/explainers/2015/12/1/9828590/planned-parenthood-colorado-springs-abortion-mass-shooting

[Samurai_Jerk]

If the definition of terrorism is clean, clear and simple why aren't this guy and his ilk branded terrorists?

http://www.vox.com/explainers/2015/12/1/9828590/planned-parenthood-colorado-springs-abortion-mass-shooting

They are as far as I know.

Anti-abortion extremists are considered a current domestic terrorist threat by the US Department of Justice. Most documented incidents have occurred in the United States, though it has also occurred in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. G. Davidson Smith of Canadian Security Intelligence Service defined anti-abortion violence as "single issue terrorism". A study of 1982–87 violence considered the incidents "limited political" or "subrevolutionary" terrorism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

[kurogane]

I have always preffered the classic definition. It is clean and simple, and avoids the pitfalls of pretending it is a debate amenable to discursive resolution: if we are for them they're freedom fighters and if they are evil they are terrorists. Like the brave, resourceful and increasingly beleagured Israelis versus those worthless Palestinian baby killers, though it would be nice if the Israelis would up their game a bit and at least make an effort not to just massacre them. It's starting to look like too many of them sort of enjoy it, and those settlers are F'in bonkers, both of which are bad things. Never Again!!!!!!!! Remember Munich!!!!!!!!!!! Next year in a united Jerusalem!!!!

Good point about the abortion clinic killings, though. I wonder how much domestic political considerations play into that sort of linguistic gerrymandering? Calling them terrorists might be seen to dignify their undignified cause, but on the other hand not branding them as such seems to trivialise the root causes and factors involved. Inasmuch as it is political I would say they are terrorists, as are most protestors at such clinics. I agree with Grampy Grumps that the label is overused, though I think that reflects the popularity of plainly peurile Profound Buzzwords even the middling classes can latch onto, a lot like Bullying, Dolphins, and all this gender identity pandering. Simpletons like it simple, and Twitter is their muse and their means.

[Samurai_Jerk]

Good point about the abortion clinic killings, though. I wonder how much domestic political considerations play into that sort of linguistic gerrymandering?

On the flip side calling something terrorism that might not be means much stiffer penalties and, in the case of the US, federal charges. Harassment might mean a fine and probation. Terroristic threats means serious jail time.

[wagyl]

That definition doesn't satisfy the freedom fighter vs terrorist distinction.

Does that distinction need to be satisfied? Doesn't that depend on which side you're on?

But that makes it too difficult! We sometimes change sides. I distinctly remember Afghan Mujahideen being freedom fighters. Did they become terrorists because they won their freedom?

[Wage Slave]

If the definition of terrorism is clean, clear and simple why aren't this guy and his ilk branded terrorists?

http://www.vox.com/explainers/2015/12/1/9828590/planned-parenthood-colorado-springs-abortion-mass-shooting

They are as far as I know.

Anti-abortion extremists are considered a current domestic terrorist threat by the US Department of Justice. Most documented incidents have occurred in the United States, though it has also occurred in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. G. Davidson Smith of Canadian Security Intelligence Service defined anti-abortion violence as "single issue terrorism". A study of 1982–87 violence considered the incidents "limited political" or "subrevolutionary" terrorism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

Fair enough but when I see Fox news referring to them as terrorists .... Until then, agreed with Grumpy and Kuro (apart from the usual Pali trolling). And when you see people calling anyone with a muslim name a terrorist (even the president), and you do, it's hard to accept the word has any clear meaning at all in many people's minds - except for "hated person".

[kurogane]

Good point about the abortion clinic killings, though. I wonder how much domestic political considerations play into that sort of linguistic gerrymandering?

On the flip side calling something terrorism that might not be means much stiffer penalties and, in the case of the US, federal charges. Harassment might mean a fine and probation. Terroristic threats means serious jail time.

Good point, though I find prosecutorial inflation (??) a serious systemic issue (and an abuse of authority), especially in the US of late. Unless I don't like the accused........

But that makes it too difficult! We sometimes change sides. I distinctly remember Afghan Mujahideen being freedom fighters. Did they become terrorists because they won their freedom?

Not because they won their freedom so much as because once they did they stopped being proxies. That is simply ungracious.

Fair enough but when I see Fox news referring to them as terrorists ....

Well put. That was the gist of my comment on the delicate political nature of the issue at hand. Faux simply can't refer to it as terrorism because far too many of their ilk not only virulently oppose the right to choose but because they also only half-heartedly oppose violent means to do so.

Do you actually watch Fox News? That can't be good for your soul. (I admit I enjoy an occasional 15 second digestof one of them F'in up something elementary, but their reporting makes me want to spike my eyes with fresh jalapeno juice)

Until then, agreed with Grumpy and Kuro (apart from the usual Pali trolling).

Trolling? TROLLING, you say!!?????????? I wonder if I could get a gig writing for one of those whacky settler papers?

Happy Monday, Wagey

[Samurai_Jerk]

That definition doesn't satisfy the freedom fighter vs terrorist distinction.

Does that distinction need to be satisfied? Doesn't that depend on which side you're on?

But that makes it too difficult! We sometimes change sides. I distinctly remember Afghan Mujahideen being freedom fighters. Did they become terrorists because they won their freedom?

Do you mean the heroes of the improperly titled Rambo III? They became terrorists because they started attacking our people. It's as simple as that. That's not objective or fair but that's how it works.

I find prosecutorial inflation (??) a serious systemic issue (and an abuse of authority), especially in the US of late.

Agreed.

[kurogane]

The only thing that ever gets me with debating T'ist vs. FFs is that there are way too many intelligent people that think it's resolvable, rather than treating it as an Ogopogo or Alien Intelligence debate: fun and often fruitful, but effectively just verbal wanking. Then again, half the ones I know like that think Benjamin Fulford is a prophet and 9/11 an inside American job, which does cast doubts on their level of working intelligence.

FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogopogo

Our very own Cdn Nessie

[wagyl]

That definition doesn't satisfy the freedom fighter vs terrorist distinction.

Does that distinction need to be satisfied? Doesn't that depend on which side you're on?

But that makes it too difficult! We sometimes change sides. I distinctly remember Afghan Mujahideen being freedom fighters. Did they become terrorists because they won their freedom?

Do you mean the heroes of the improperly titled Rambo III? They became terrorists because they started attacking our people. It's as simple as that. That's not objective or fair but that's how it works.

When did the Taliban attack your people?

The stated justification for Operation Enduring Freedom (it was active for longer than both World Wars together and then some, but you can just smell the endurance of the freedom! They were embarrassed enough to continue as Operation Freedom's Sentinel, so we can guess that freedom has arrived, but it needs a guard to endure after all) was that the Taliban did not "render up" Osama bin Ladin, not that Afghanistan or the Taliban had attacked the United States. Pakistan was not invaded when it made the same failure. I am so confused!

[Wage Slave]

Happy Monday, Wagey

Happy Monday

[Samurai_Jerk]

That definition doesn't satisfy the freedom fighter vs terrorist distinction.

Does that distinction need to be satisfied? Doesn't that depend on which side you're on?

But that makes it too difficult! We sometimes change sides. I distinctly remember Afghan Mujahideen being freedom fighters. Did they become terrorists because they won their freedom?

Do you mean the heroes of the improperly titled Rambo III? They became terrorists because they started attacking our people. It's as simple as that. That's not objective or fair but that's how it works.

When did the Taliban attack your people?

The stated justification for Operation Enduring Freedom (it was active for longer than both World Wars together and then some, but you can just smell the endurance of the freedom! They were embarrassed enough to continue as Operation Freedom's Sentinel, so we can guess that freedom has arrived, but it needs a guard to endure after all) was that the Taliban did not "render up" Osama bin Ladin, not that Afghanistan or the Taliban had attacked the United States. Pakistan was not invaded when it made the same failure. I am so confused!

To clarify I'm not saying I necessarily agree with that. I'm saying that's how it works. I'm also not sure at what point they were officially designated as terrorists by certain governments or what the justification was. Was it the result of bombings, etc. they've carried out against people in Afghanistan and Pakistan or for fighting the invading coalition? I would call bombing Mosques because they are attended by the wrong kind of Muslim or shooting a school girl in the head for promoting the education of other girls terrorism.

[kurogane]

Was it the result of bombings, etc. they've carried out against people in Afghanistan and Pakistan or for fighting the invading coalition? I would call bombing Mosques because they are attended by the wrong kind of Muslim or shooting a school girl in the head for promoting the education of other girls terrorism.

Yes. They have long been serious poopyheads. None that made the invasion of Afghanistan worth it, unless you believe White Might is Right, but they are hardly worthy of any sympathy or support.

The Taliban have been condemned internationally for their enforcement of (their interpretation of) Islamic Sharia law, which resulted in the brutal treatment of many Afghans, especially women.[31][32] During their rule from 1996 to 2001, the Taliban and their allies committed massacres against Afghan civilians, denied UN food supplies to 160,000 starving civilians and conducted a policy of scorched earth, burning vast areas of fertile land and destroying tens of thousands of homes.[33][34][35][36][37][38][38] In its post-9/11 insurgency, group has been accused of using terrorism as a specific tactic to further their ideological and political goals. According to the United Nations, the Taliban and their allies were responsible for 75% of Afghan civilian casualties in 2010, 80% in 2011, and 80% in 2012.[39][40][41][42][43][44]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

[Samurai_Jerk]

Widow: Husband, shooter allegedly argued over Holocaust

Thompson-Thalasinos said her husband never spoke ill of his colleague and never expressed that Farook may have had extreme views. She said the two just "agreed to disagree."

"There are those out there who are spinning this," she said, adding, "They are making it to be that my husband was asking for it … that he caused this to happen."

A heated argument

Thompson-Thalasinos said survivors of the party later described to her an argument between her husband and Farook before Farook stormed off, returning heavily armed with his wife.

"From what I understand from those (who were) there, my husband got into an argument with Farook about the Holocaust," she said, adding "That's always been a hot button issue between Muslims and Messianic Jews."

[matsuki]

Religious poo vs. other religious poo, oh how I hate religion...

[kurogane]

All I remember of Messianic Judaism is that it is Kryptonite strength batshit, but I have met far too many Mohammedans that could use a healthy dose of Zyklon B to be convinced that the Holocaust was a bad thing that actually happened and is directly connected with the establishment of Israel. Not that gassing anybody is actually advisable, natch. BTW, the idea that one of the victims could provoke an attack just by spouting pseudoreligious political BS shows how far the US has been warped by this idea that violence is somehow inevitable. This EmospazzRUs trend really needs to be taken down.

[matsuki]

[kurogane]

Only a 1,000 years?

[matsuki]

Only a 1,000 years?

Yeah, seriously! But it doesn't mention other religions so they could be sandbagging it