That’s pretty funny, but ISIS has a much more effective communications team.
2 Likes
Now, that wouldn’t happen in Taipei.
No bike path user would be taken by surprise by a truck driving down the bike path and end up squashed, that’s just everyday normality in Taiwan.
sorry it had to be in New York.
ISISWtf?
6 Likes
I wanted to laugh but ended up crying inside…
2 Likes
Yeah, I feel the same way. it’s not funny.
I ended caring about these things after the terrorist gunned down people in Vegas nothing is done. This guy does this and we’re talking about Extreme vetting.
Now there’s a shooting in Colorado. Wonder if it’s a lone “gun man” with mental problems or a terrorist?
I guess it will depend on whether it’s a man with mental problems, or a person driven by ideology that might also have (but not necessarily) mental problems?
whys one a terrorist and the other not?
terrorism
ˈtɛrərɪzəm
noun
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
Suffering from a mental issue and shooting people = not terrorism
Being told to kill infidels = terrorism
2 Likes
You just proved your definition is inadequate.
(Don’t bother, I know, religion-and-state bla bla bla. Not everyone thinks that way.)
Yes, some people believe Islam is only a religion. Some people also believe the Earth is flat.
thats one definition of terrorism if you stick with the US war on terror campaign. Regardless, it’s amazing how NY was immediately called a terror attack and how quickly trump got up about it as evidence to for his political agenda and the worst shooting in US history doesn’t even want to talk about it. What a joke.
I told you not to bother, man. 
I refer you back to the nihilism thread. 
It’s THE definition of terrorism…
there are no universally accepted definition for terrorism. This is a definition of terrorism and I’m not saying its wrong, but that doesn’t mean it’s THE only definition of it.
I’m not disputing that this is a terror attack, but the hypocrisy is real. And how the leaders, especially trump reacts to both incidents so radically different is a joke. Won’t even push or even talk about gun reform. But right after the apologies tweet, says he’s going to stick with extreme vetting. I’m not even saying more vetting is wrong. It’s just sickening how politics in the US is now and the state of the country. I don’t plan on going back for a long long time.
Under current United States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which: “(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended – (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”[2] [3]
If intimidation of civilians is political, you might as well say everything is political, or nothing is political, so nothing means anything, and so on, and we go back to nihilism… 
Ok, so by the definition of terrorism that is on wikipedia and that is followed by the US government, killing infidels for religious/political reasons is terrorism, while shooting people as a result of mental illness is not.
The two are very different scenarios, unless you want to say that following a specific religion/ideology is the equivalent of a mental illness, in which case I’d be very glad to discuss the topic even further!
That’s not what it (US law) says.
Terrorism is defined in Title 22 Chapter 38 U.S. Code § 2656f as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents."A textbook definition of terrorism includes the following:
It is the use of violence or threat of violence in the pursuit of political aims, religious, or ideological change.
It can only be committed by non-state actors or undercover personnel serving on the behalf of their respective governments.
It reaches more than the immediate target victims and is also directed at targets consisting of a larger spectrum of society.
It is both mala prohibita (i.e., crime that is made illegal by legislation) and mala in se (i.e., crime that is inherently immoral or wrong).
again, i’m not disputing the NY as a terror attack. But however this is rather a critic of how one is labeled so quickly and reacted upon from politicians all the way to the top to your boy trump. The other is just brushed under as ehh, it’s a freak incident by a troubled lone wolf. Nothing we can do about it. In fact, NY right after the condolences, ok we are going to push for more extreme vetting. The other, we get this is not the time to talk about it and grieve. Ridiculous.
You think the NY guy got to go to burger king as well? It insane if you can’t see the striking pattern in differences between the peoples and the reaction from politicians.
You’re ignoring the domestic terrorism definition (in the Patriot Act) I just quoted.