Why is jumping the cannon boom and taking land ahead of time not considered land thievery in Oklahoma? See, these are hard questions to answer.
You got me there. I'm Indian and Okie. It's like a Sooner fan posting on a longhorn board. Wait, maybe that's why.
Terrorism like hate crimes imply certain motivation. The reason why you want to categorize terrorism is because there is a political purpose behind it. They are looking for certain response. The El Paso shooter is a terrorist because he was trying to scare people into a behavior that he wanted.
Because the definition of "terrorism" is: the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political or religious aims. I don't recall that the Vegas shooter was acting to further a political or religious agenda.
I don't recall the media reporting anything about the identity or the motivation of the Vegas shooter. That makes me even more curious.
I thought they were happy to identify him. Edit: Just looked it up. Coverage from that day from NBC News identified him. So did CNN.
You'll notice that the anchor refers to Antifa's actions as "anti-white supremacy." However, you can plainly see them carrying a Soviet flag. What does that have to do with opposing white supremacy? Nothing. And yet the presence of this flag supposedly warrants no comment or criticism. Suppose another group led a rally supposedly supporting "peace and freedom," but members carried flags with swastikas. Would the media describe them as "pro peace and freedom demonstrators?" No. They would call them Nazis. Their stated purpose would be either ignored, questioned, denied, or ridiculed. I don't have a big problem with that, but let's be consistent.
In my mind it's anyone trying to kill/harm people (plural) when not in a defensive posture. Just because we don't know the reason the guy in Vegas killed 58 and injured 250ish (from memory so don't hold me to that) doesn't mean he's not a terrorist. He may be a mentally ill terrorist. The San Bernadino attack in 2015 is labeled terrorism yet dude shot up his own work place Christmas party. What political agenda did he have? They're both terrorism to me.
Maybe. I'm Creek on my dad's side. But, my mom's grandmother ended up in Spur Texas after some big flood. She came to Texas from Tennessee after her family had been "early settlers" and left the Cherokees before the trail of tears. So, yeah, it sounds like Liz and I are probably related as we have a similar Cherokee story. I mean they all had the high cheekbones.... That's enough, right?
As Sangre said: Terrorism- the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. The Vegas shooter was an apartment developer that had a severe gambling problem. San Bernadino- According to the FBI's investigation, the perpetrators were "homegrown violent extremists" inspired by foreign terrorist groups. They were not directed by such groups and were not part of any terrorist cell or network. FBI investigators have said that Farook and Malik had become radicalized over several years prior to the attack, consuming "poison on the internet" and expressing a commitment to jihadism and martyrdom in private messages to each other. Farook and Malik had traveled to Saudi Arabia in the years before the attack Regardless of what weird crap floats around in your atrophied Sooner mind, the facts are the facts.
iatrogenic, you don't get it. Bubba gets to call terrorism whatever Bubba wants to. He is a lefty which means he just has to "feel" it for it to be real for him. Facts and logic don't matter.
One is workplace violence and one is in-discriminant murder of unknowns. Arguing about which are or are not terrorism is silly.
You're the one who started the argument, you got your *** thoroughly kicked by the dictionary, and now you want to say it's silly. Whatever.
Just like it's stupid to deliniate whether a crime is a hate crime or not. I think it's stupid to NOT call the Vegas shooter a terrorist. So, yeah. http://giphygifs.s3.amazonaws.com/media/4pMX5rJ4PYAEM/giphy.gif
You're embarrassing yourself here, Barry. You need to quit. I just made the one comment to try to get you to think and back down, but you went for it on 4th and 1 again, and Sangre and iatrogenic basically took turns nut-slapping you. It wasn't pretty. In your mind, terrorism might mean any number of things, but the word has a definition, and no, it's not stupid to read it and follow it. The entire concept of the rule of law and therefore a civilized society is dependent on calling things what they are based on defined terms. In addition you miss the point about what's wrong with hate crimes laws. We know what hate crimes are. They are defined by statute. What's wrong with them is that they are often difficult to prove objectively and can lead to arbitrary justice. Furthermore, the inherent political nature of them invites selective enforcement.
I have to give @OUBubba credit. He always Likes my comments when I basically insult him in a friendly joking way.
And, I have to click the hook'em icon to do it. I have fun sparring with you guys. Much more than debating the order of the "or" on Lincoln Riley's depth chart.
That's why, despite his left-of-center politics (at least for WM), the Switzer picture, and being from OU, everybody generally likes him. He's a nice guy and an incredibly good sport, especially under the circumstances.
