Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, the type of terror we're seeing now changed with Columbine, imo. That gave crazy people a new idea. Times changed and so the methods did too. I have always worried about crazy people getting ideas from news about what other crazy people did. Copycat killings is a known phenomenon.
But then you also remember planes being hijacked and innocent people being shot due to being Jewish or American. Or the murder of the Israeli athletes at Munich. There are actually a lot of examples of innocent civilians being killed but technology changed, and society I think has coarsened in some kind of way.
But your font is very hard to read.
I remember the first time I went to Europe in my youth, and one of the places I was visiting had a local separatist/terrorism thing going on. It wasn't ubiquitous or anything (to the point where I wouldn't have gone) but it was seen as prudent to avoid walking too close to military or police facilities, especially at night. Local friends I had made would joke that their terrorists were "softies", and that they'd intentionally bomb buildings and such when they knew (or thought ) no one was there. Since bombing isn't exactly an exact science, sometimes there were innocent victims.
That being said, while that era wasn't all milk and honey, it's definitely different from today.
I went to (almost) a gazillion concerts and other events in my youth with some pretty huge crowds in the hundreds of thousands. And never once thought there could be a bomber or a shooter in the crowd. (I did think about the danger of stampedes sometimes.)
It wasn't because I was youthful and carefree - it's because stuff like that was hardly ever targeted back then.
My kids are youthful and carefree too, but they're living in an era where a bunch of kids their age just got blown to bits at an Ariana Grande show a few months ago. It's not the same as it was for us.
School shootings have predominantly been perpetrated by lone individuals with a loose screw such as the one in Dunblane that sort of started the recent trend so to speak, but not always.
There was a political movement associated school siege at Beslan, Russia. That terrible event resonated around the world due to the number of victims involved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_siege
Aside from those two, I cannot recall where innocent school children were deliberately targeted due to religious or political beliefs.
Using children for political motives to simply to create as much shock value as is possible just seems so far off the scale so as to be improbable for even the most hardened and radicalized of humans.
You would think all would realize it would take from their cause far more than it would ever contribute in furtherance.
You seem to be deliberately turning a deaf ear to what we are saying.
Anders Breivik in Norway was a terrorist too.
But it certainly seemed from the evidence that the Parliament gunman was mentally unstable but he was considered a terrorist because he converted to Islam. What were his political or religious motivations? Why not the shooter of the mosque in Quebec City or the black church in the US. I am hearing what others are saying, just not agreeing that a Muslim shooter is a terrorist but a non Muslim is automatically not but a mentally deranged individual instead. I believe that if the Orlando shooter was a Christian the motive would be claimed by the public to be a mental problem with the gunman maybe being terrible upset with himself for being gay whereas most comments I have read on the matter he is being denounced as a Muslim terrorist.
I maintain my opinion that the word is too quickly attached to any criminal axion by a Muslim and extremely slow to be placed upon a white non Muslim doing a similar action. You and others may not share my opinion , but they are all just opinions on a forum. I am not deliberately turning a deaf ear, you simply have not convinced me that my opinion is incorrect.
But it certainly seemed from the evidence that the Parliament gunman was mentally unstable but he was considered a terrorist because he converted to Islam. What were his political or religious motivations? Why not the shooter of the mosque in Quebec City or the black church in the US. I am hearing what others are saying, just not agreeing that a Muslim shooter is a terrorist but a non Muslim is automatically not but a mentally deranged individual instead. I believe that if the Orlando shooter was a Christian the motive would be claimed by the public to be a mental problem with the gunman maybe being terrible upset with himself for being gay whereas most comments I have read on the matter he is being denounced as a Muslim terrorist.
I maintain my opinion that the word is too quickly attached to any criminal axion by a Muslim and extremely slow to be placed upon a white non Muslim doing a similar action. You and others may not share my opinion , but they are all just opinions on a forum. I am not deliberately turning a deaf ear, you simply have not convinced me that my opinion is incorrect.
I actually said a few times on here that the Quebec City mosque massacre was terrorism. I haven't said anything about Dylann Roof in the black church. That's terrorism as well in my book. I didn't say anything about Pulse Orlando.
I actually said a few times on here that the Quebec City mosque massacre was terrorism. I haven't said anything about Dylann Roof in the black church. That's terrorism as well in my book. I didn't say anything about Pulse Orlando.
So maybe you just *might* be turning a deaf ear.
I have been speaking of what so many in the public have said not simply your own personal words. Sorry for any confusion.
It's worth mentioning that the Oklahoma City bombing was also a terrorist attack because it was meant to destabilize the American government.
The Quebec City mosque massacre was also a terrorist attack because it was meant to intimidate Muslims and make them feel like they shouldn't be living in Quebec.
Those two would be terrorist attacks as they had clear motivations behind them, even if they were perpetuated by individuals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
The Edmonton police believe that their man acted alone and was inspired but by but not part of ISIS. When he was reported in 2015 it was for incoherent rants and he was after the incident taken to a mental institution. Regardless of his mental state he will be regarded as a terrorist due to being a Muslim as was the Orlando shooter however none of the white mass murdeters, including Dylan Hood or the Quebec mosque shooter have been as they are white. Yes the fact that one was Muslim and one was not should have no bearing unfortunately in real life it has almost everything to do with it. The man who drove his car into the crowd in Charleston was part of the white supremists groups and that was not called terrorism either and I cannot remember a crime by a Muslim that was blamed on mental problems and not terrorism nor blamed on the entire religious or ethnic community of the culprit. You may have explained it how it should be bUT that is not how it is.
Being inspired by ISIS, gives cause for serious investigation as there is a possibility that the person is part of a cell operating in an area or some form of radicalization happening nearby.
I agree with you that being Muslim shouldn’t automatically put you on a special list and the way the labelling happens is inadequate.
If a Muslim commits an act in the name of religion, then he/she is a terrorist, but if it’s done as a result of a mental state then it wouldn’t be as the individuals actions can be excluded.
Those two would be terrorist attacks as they had clear motivations behind them, even if they were perpetuated by individuals.
Being inspired by ISIS, gives cause for serious investigation as there is a possibility that the person is part of a cell operating in an area or some form of radicalization happening nearby.
I agree with you that being Muslim shouldn’t automatically put you on a special list and the way the labelling happens is inadequate.
If a Muslim commits an act in the name of religion, then he/she is a terrorist, but if it’s done as a result of a mental state then it wouldn’t be as the individuals actions can be excluded.
I don't think the Edmonton City Police think he is connected and there was a terrorist expert interviewed on the news who think it highly unlikely. The city police did a great job stopping him however I doubt he was that compentive of an attacker either. Your last sentence is exactly what I mean, the Parliament gun man and Orlando shooter both seem to have had some mental problems, especially the guy in Ottawa and this Edmonton guy was reported for being extremely opposed the sect of Muslims he was not, that is why he was first investigated by the Police and his coworker said his rants were incoherent.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) no one was there. Since bombing isn't exactly an exact science, sometimes there were innocent victims.
