Terrorist Attack! (Jan 8th, 2011) no thread, coz it was not by Muslims?

A 22 year old white guy shot a democratic congresswoman in Arizona in the head yesterday as well as 8 other innocent people including a 9 year old girl more.. http://www.npr.org/2011/01/09/132764367/congresswoman-shot-in-arizona

[video=youtube;zGza3QctQrM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGza3QctQrM&feature=autofb[/video]

 

Terrorists come from all walks of life.

But, Muslim terrorists, (although they should not terrorize) are magnified more than other groups, and we both know why.

 

"The concept of terrorism may itself be controversial as it is often used by state authorities to delegitimize political or other opponents,[8] and potentially legitimize the state's own use of armed force against opponents (such use of force may itself be described as "terror" by opponents of the state)"

If a muslim man had done it it would have been terrorism. When a US pilot / soldier does it then its somehow not terrorism. There is a huge double standard it all depends on if the casualties are from the USA or not. If the casualties are not from the USA or their NATO buddies then no matter how long the bombings and war goes on its never ever terrorism LOL no matter how many 100.000-s civilians die if they are not from the USA its not terrorism it does not count and nobody will be held responsible. But on the other hand if there is just one single victim and he is from the USA then its terrorism.

 

CNN says that the congresswoman isn't dead, but undergoing treatment.

 

Terrorism by definition should involve more than 1 person.

 

Bingo - a lunatic acting out of stupidity isn't a terrorist . Someone that has been radicalized or that acts for a cause is a terrorist .

 

Congresswoman maybe an opposition to the Nazi style immigration law of Arizona.

 

Thats true, that was probably the prime reason she was shot. This incident could have been avoided were they not handing out firearms as a "right".

 

This guy was rejected for joining the US Army and kicked out of college for not being deemed sane. He had a drug addiction. He has previously been arrested and had what police called "a mental issue".

...despite all of this, he could walk freely into a Gun store to buy a lethal weapon to end 6 innocent lives.

Gun control in America is about as successful as birth control in Texas.

 

Oh and Vebtools, you want to know why his religion is irrelevant? It's because this (to my knowledge) wasn't a religious motivated attack. It was either politically motivated or just an act of a madman - or both.

Muslim terrorists are (in most cases) motivated by their religion, hence why it is played on as a key factor.

 

Your not referring to little willy who likes playing xbox are you.

 

They're collecting info of his social networking pages. Jared Loughner's favorite books listed on his Myspace profile:
1. Mein Kampf
2. The Communist Manifesto
3. The Wizard of Oz

A few quotes from him...

"If I define terrorist then a terrorist is a person who employs terror or terrorism, especially as a political weapon. If you call me a terrorist then the argument to call me a terrorist is Ad hominem. You call me a terrorist. Thus, the argument to call me a terrorist is Ad hominem."
-- Jared Loughner

"Reading the second United States Constitution, I can't trust the current government because of the ratifications; The government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling the grammar."
-- Jared Loughner

Source: NYPost

I guess this is one of his YouTube videos. You don't really see him until a minute into it. He burns an American flag.

[video=youtube;IDiq06K5ZA4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDiq06K5ZA4[/video]

They said Jared Loughner posted this with the video:

 

So, by your definition, the US should be screaming terrorism because the victims of this act were US citizens? Isn't that exactly what Vebtools is implying has not happened in his opening post?

Yah, he's a certified nut job. The text of his farewell note on Youtube:

Nope. She supported Arizona's immigration stance. As a Democrat, Giffords fell in far to the right of quite a few Republicans.

More news that will make you and Helvetii sad. Those who knew him called him a leftist.

Reading his little manifesto, I'd say this his actions had a lot more to do with mental instability than political ideology. Dumb asses like Arizona State Senator Linda Lopez who immediately tried to politicize the event should have waited till they had a bit of background information before opening their yaps. Amazing how that crap can backfire on you.

 

Wow. That is a crazy note. It's tragic.

 

Nonsense. More of twisting words, lies and propaganda. Its so typical of you.

Arizona is now known around the world for enacting an extreme immigration law in response to the federal government’s failure to act. This law does nothing to secure our border.

This law will do nothing to make the communities I represent safer from smugglers and the dangerous spill-over effects of border violence.

These changes, however, fail to address the concerns of local law enforcement officials about the cost and practicality of enforcing this policy. The changes also do nothing to address the concerns that the law could jeopardize the rights of American citizens. In addition, the potentially devastating impact this law could have on Arizona’s economy just as we are beginning to emerge from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression is a reality that must be avoided at all costs.

University of Arizona President Robert Shelton noted on Thursday that because of the state’s new immigration law, the families of a number of out-of-state students have informed the university that they are changing their plans and will be sending their children to universities in other states. Sadly, all them are honors students. I agree with President Shelton when he says these withdrawals should distress anyone who cares about attracting the best and brightest students to Arizona.

The point made by President Shelton highlights what might be the most egregious aspect of Arizona’s new immigration law: its divisiveness

This law stands in direct contradiction to our past and, as a result, threatens our future.

http://giffords.house.gov/2010/04/u...on-law-and-the-need-to-secure-our-borde.shtml

Dumb asses who immediately tried to politicize the event should have waited till they had a bit of background information before opening their yaps. Amazing how that crap can backfire on you!

 

Giffords supported Arizona's immigration stance, in as far as she has made it a priority to fight illegal immigration. Apparently, she did not support 1070, not sure exactly how she felt about the slightly modified version 2162. However, Giffords definitely supports stopping illegal immigration and stronger border security, but apparently has a different plan on how this can be achieved. She has suggested radar, drones, and electronic surveillance, and has a multitude of ideas on building a stronger defense at the border. She has complained, like many people in Arizona, about the federal government failure in protecting the border. So, in other words, I don't think anyone would have shot her because they were angry about illegal immigration. As has been repeated in this thread, I think Jared Loughner is just severely mentally ill.

 

Everyone in the world supports stance against illegal immigration. I don't think I have seen anyone who publicly supports illegal immigration.

And still he could get a firearm legally and end innocent lives.

 

Everyone knows that. That is why the Republicans are so desperate to establish a Nazi style on policing. Next step The SS.


The next California TV commercial by Arnold Shwarzennegger
Viva California ! Bienvenido ! Here We Speak English !

 

In the Constitution, the right to bear arms is a Second Amendment right. It is something most Americans hold dear, and I absolutely support that right. However, in certain cases, that right can be denied, such as in certain documented cases of severe mental illness. If you have a 36-540, you need a 13-925 to get a gun again.

 

Nope. This is not the point.
Point is that in this last act, there's just no logical connection that one may draw, and prove, from a certain ideology to this act. Even if the murderer was, say, vegetarian: his belief in "vegetarianism" was not the logical pathway that lead him to commit murder. In other words, if he was not vegetarian, he would still commit the act.

This is unlike the Islamic terrorism, where the written, literal, simple wording of the satanic and violent verses of the quran translate themselves on 1-to-1 basis to murderous acts. The terrorists are certain that Allah will personally reward them for their actions. In other words, had they not been devout muslims, they would have not been terrorists.