SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - The all purpose terrorism thread featuring plenty of allah akbar

Page 21 of 244

Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - The all purpose terrorism thread featuring plenty of allah akbar (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=222852)

nikimcbee

12-02-15 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August (Post 2363217)

Well call it what you want but there were at least three attackers involved so this is no crazed gunman scenario. I suppose that workplace violence is still a possible motive but so far it doesn't sound like it to me. Terrorism has definitely not been ruled out yet.

The anti gun media is currently in full court press though.

Can't waste a good tragedy. I look at this as job security for the media.:shifty:

Aktungbby

12-02-15 10:26 PM

IF P; then Q; if Q; then then R BBY

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon (Post 2363166)

Pretty much, the last time some idiot with a gun shot up a church full of black people I called it terrorism, and then had to spend the next six pages defending my decision to do so. This thread was started with the 'all purpose' in order that all terrorist incidents would be placed in it, I then had to defend my decision to do this for about three pages since people were under the impression that if it wasn't done by a Muslim then it's not terrorism. Therefore, I have been acknowledging that I am aware that something has occurred, just in case someone decides to attack me on the fact that I'm not reporting on non-Muslim terrorist based incidents despite calling this a 'All purpose terrorism thread' but I am not making any comment beyond that because that will lead to people attacking me on trying to say that the event in San Bernadino is terrorism.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. :yeah:

It follows then from pure logic: that you have already written the six pages of defense..feel free to call this terrorism and then simply quote yourself in the prewritten defense!:yeah: NO IMHO: THIS IS MASS MURDER AND THAT IS TERRORISM!

Rockstar

12-02-15 11:00 PM

No, this is terrorism as defined by 'Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code.'

Quote:

18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorism”:

"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
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
Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*
"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear 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
Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:

Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).
* FISA defines "international terrorism" in a nearly identical way, replacing "primarily" outside the U.S. with "totally" outside the U.S. 50 U.S.C. § 1801(c).

Anything else is just, well, from an emotionally unstable dream world.

August

12-03-15 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockstar (Post 2363223)

No, this is terrorism as defined by 'Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code.'

Quote:

Yadda yadda yadda

Anything else is just, well, from an emotionally unstable dream world.

Dude, US Code is not the worlds official definition of anything. The Germans and the British not being subject to it are therefore entitled to have their own official definitions that are no less valid than ours.

Aktungbby

12-03-15 12:20 AM

Quote:

Appear 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
Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

Precisely & close enough: This act thus qualifies.(i) Civilians were certainly coerced;(ii) San Bernadino, a government, is responding to intimidation of it's employees; the employees of the assaulted party were department employees (their conduct affected) and I've no doubt there will be(iii) measures taken within the territorial jurisdiction of the US to further tighten security...but that's been ongoing since Oklahoma City.

eddie

12-03-15 01:55 AM

They have identified the 2 dead shooters as Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik. They don't know if this Syed was Tashfeens girlfriend or wife. As long as those 2 are dead, who cares if they were married or not! No word on the guy who is in custody.

Oberon

12-03-15 04:02 AM

Well, the names are going to make a few people jump to the big T, but the Beeb has said that:

Quote:

Police said they had "no information on motivation," but Farook had earlier left the work event after an angry incident. He returned with Malik, both heavily armed, to carry out the massacre.

So the motive is unclear, but the effect is pretty devastating.

Of course, the question is how much emphasis should be put on the motive? Should we focus more on the motive than the act? Is workplace revenge or dispute any less an act than Islamic terrorism?
Some things to think about while we wait for news on the motive.

Schroeder

12-03-15 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockstar (Post 2363223)

No, this is terrorism as defined by 'Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code.'

Anything else is just, well, from an emotionally unstable dream world.

And this is domestic terrorism as defined by the Patriot Act:

Quote:

SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.
(a) DOMESTIC
TERRORISM
DEFINED
.
—
Section 2331 of title 18,
United States Code, is amended
—
(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking
by assassination
or kidnapping
and inserting
by mass destruction, assassina-
tion, or kidnapping

(2) in paragraph (3), by striking
and
(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end
and inserting
and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
(5) the term
domestic terrorism
means activities that

(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.

(b) CONFORMING
AMENDMENT
.
Section 3077(1) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

(1)

act of terrorism

means an act of domestic or inter-
national terrorism as defined in section 2331;
.

Sorry for the bad format but I had to take that from a PDF http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-10...-107publ56.pdf
It can be found on page 106.

Oberon

12-03-15 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schroeder (Post 2363272)

And this is domestic terrorism as defined by the Patriot Act:
Sorry for the bad format but I had to take that from a PDF http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-10...-107publ56.pdf
It can be found on page 106.

I think the sticking point is whether the i, ii, iii of B are 'and' or 'or', because so far as we know, this attack was not intended to influence or affect the policies of the US government, however it was certainly intended by its very nature to intimidate a civilian population.

ikalugin

12-03-15 09:08 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5dBklU78T8
Total threat of terrorism, comparing threat of terrorism to threat of nazis, ect ect.

Oberon

12-03-15 09:52 AM

The Great Patriotic War II :hmmm:

ikalugin

12-03-15 10:06 AM

Most of the adress is on the internal matters. The Erdogan bash was for the warm up, so people do not fall asleep (and still - some did).

Onkel Neal

12-03-15 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon (Post 2363254)

Well, the names are going to make a few people jump to the big T,
.

Well, you sure were the first to post about this in the "all purpose terrorism" thread. :smug:

Quote:

Originally Posted by eddie (Post 2363245)

They have identified the 2 dead shooters as Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik. They don't know if this Syed was Tashfeens girlfriend or wife. As long as those 2 are dead, who cares if they were married or not! No word on the guy who is in custody.

Yeah, turns out it was terrorism, they got it right this time.

Rockstar

12-03-15 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August (Post 2363231)

Dude, not once did Oberon when he started the thread about the church shooting which happened in the U.S. consider the lawful definition of terrorism. And I doubt he considered it when he initially commented on the recent incident in the U.S. But even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awile, appears he was right when he insinuated an act of terrorism happened in San Bernardino a few posts earlier.

eddie

12-03-15 10:36 AM

Found this interesting-

"Investigators Thursday were trying to learn why the couple left behind their baby daughter and went on the rampage — the nation's deadliest mass shooting since the Newtown, Connecticut, school tragedy three years ago that left 26 children and adults dead"

"Farook was born in the U.S. to a Pakistani family and had been a San Bernardino County employee for five years, according to authorities. San Bernardino Police Chief Jarrod Burguan said he had no information on Malik's background. Relatives said Farook had traveled to Saudi Arabia to meet his wife."

Seems Farook's attitude changed after he got back from Saudi Arabia?

http://news.yahoo.com/14-dead-17-wou...81816288.html#

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:05 AM.

Page 21 of 244

« First

121

Last »

Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page