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.
Given the Patriot Act definition, the label of domestic terrorism comes down to intention. What was Dear's motive? What was Allen's motive? Can you answer either of these questions?
Go re-read it. it APPEARS. Right now...its domestic terrorism. its not about intentions until those intentions are known and over-ride the appearance.
Go re-read it. it APPEARS. Right now...its domestic terrorism. its not about intentions until those intentions are known and over-ride the appearance.
"Appears" is the problem with charging someone with domestic terrorism; it's awfully subjective. For example, in the case of the Charleston shooter:
"[i]f the Justice Department’s goal is symbolism, terrorism charges would be a much more powerful message. At one time, white supremacists were routinely treated as domestic terrorists — the Enforcement Acts, passed in 1870 and 1871, targeted the Ku Klux Klan and its campaigns of intimidation against newly freed blacks and their allies. But since Sept. 11, 2001, all too frequently we have seen a disturbing double standard in which non-white shooters or bombers are called terrorists, while their white counterparts are not. Neither the white supremacist who killed six people in a Sikh temple in Wisconsin nor the anti-government radicals who killed two police officers in Las Vegas and left a note saying, “This is the start of the revolution” were generally labeled terrorists. (The data show that white supremacist and other non-Muslim extremists have killed far more people since Sept. 11 than jihadists.) But if Dylann Roof were Muslim, and had been accused of killing nine Christian Americans to start a “holy war,” the Justice Department would have charged him as a terrorist in a second." https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ge-him-as-one/
The Charleston shooter hasn't been charged with domestic terrorism but rather with a hate crime. Things that make ya go hmmmmmm.
The Charleston shooter hasn't been charged with domestic terrorism but rather with a hate crime. Things that make ya go hmmmmmm.
And? your charges do not always reflect the realities. And choices can be made on the charges that are based upon what you can prove.
Its probable that this guy will not be charged with terrorism either, as simply charging him with the murder of a police officer is simple, and gets him the death penalty. Why go any further?
We don't know the motive of either. Do you know Dear's motive? The Colorado Springs Police Department says that they don't know. Are you going to believe them or what some media pundit assumes was his motive? Maybe he didn't have a motive. Maybe he didn't take his meds yesterday. Why jump to conclusions?
You realize that goes both ways, right? It's pretty obvious that you need to believe that Dear's motives had nothing to do with the politics of PP.
You realize that goes both ways, right? It's pretty obvious that you need to believe that Dear's motives had nothing to do with the politics of PP.
We don't know what Dear's motives were, and I am very interested in knowing why you think that you know so much about this man's motives when it is isn't even clear that he knew why he acted yesterday.
We don't know what Dear's motives were, and I am very interested in knowing why you think that you know so much about this man's motives when it is isn't even clear that he knew why he acted yesterday.
Oh I dont know, we've been hearing snippets that make some of his motivation clear at this point, although that data is still early, and limited.
We don't know what Dear's motives were, and I am very interested in knowing why you think that you know so much about this man's motives when it is isn't even clear that he knew why he acted yesterday.
I'd love for you to provide a quote where I implied as much.
I'd love for you to provide a quote where I implied as much.
Happy to oblige.
Quote:
Originally Posted by helenejen
It's pretty obvious that you need to believe that Dear's motives had nothing to do with the politics of PP.
Do you deny that by claiming that I "need to believe that Dear's motives had nothing to do with the politics of PP" that you weren't implying that his motives did have something to do with said politics?
Latest updates: the "gunman" was murmuring about baby parts and had an NRA bumper sticker on his truck.
Link?
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.
