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

Not terrorism, just some moron who wanted to be famous, and was too coward to take his own life...

 

If he had taken his own life then you would be saying "he took the cowards way out...".

Yes he's a moron but at least the family of the victims can witness his persecution.

Still I agree, a moron he is. Criminally insane. It's not the first time we've seen people like him and it sure as hell won't be the last.

 

I say he is a coward for not taken his own life, because he the nerve to kill some unarmed people, but was too pussy to raise a gun to the cops that were armed, they would have lit his ass up...

 

She is pretty blatant about her position on the modified law, and the reasons for that position in the link Helvetii provided. Its worth a read. The reason Helvetii didn''t put his clippings from the link inside quotes probably has to do with the fact he hacked the thing up so badly in an effort to prop up his argument. Giffords blasted the federal government and the Obama admin for their failure to do the job, and her issues with ab1070 had to do with the cost of enforcing it and the financial cost of the divisiveness of strongly worded legislation. Giffords was also a fierce defendant of the 2nd amendment. I'm glad it looks like she will make a recovery, so she can speak out against the idiots who, after finding out this guy isn't a right winger, have moved on to gun control.

[Edit] Another interesting tidbit on Loughner. In the recent 2010 elections where the Tea Party rallied conservatives across the nation to throw Democrats from power in the House of Reps, as well as take 6 senate seats, Loughner didn't even vote. To be fair, most of the Democratic base didn't show up this last November. Even more interesting, he did show up and vote in 2006 and 2008 which were big Democrat sweep years.

 

On the bright side, it looks like no one wants to claim him, left or right. LOL. In that article you posted it says he's registered as an independent, that makes sense. Reading his social network profile and statements, my speculation is that he probably couldn't really be accurately categorized at either end of the spectrum. One consistency is that in all his videos he does appear mentally ill, here is Loughner's YouTube channel.

Watch this video:

[video=youtube;PnNx0WThoF0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnNx0WThoF0[/video]

On a side note:

While searching for additional information on Loughner, I found one of his supporters on the Wikileak Facebook page. Kind of frightening. Check this out.

* HE SHOT AND SHOT AND SHOT BECAUSE HE COULDN'T STAND YOU ANY MORE...SO HE SHOT AND SHOT AND SHOT !!!!

* FREE Jared Lee Loughner NOW !!!!

To be fair, I'm not saying Wikileaks supporters agree in any way with this lunatic. I'm just saying, that's where he happens to be posting (Bastian Avser) (Bostjan Avsec). He's ranting and raving about "JewAmerica". Giffords is Jewish, so I suppose that's why he's a Loughner fan? It's strange. With the evidence available, it's not clear as to whether Loughner shares his views. One thing they do have in common, is both appear to be completely out of their minds.

 

Americans getting insane. I wonder why ?

 

Filipinos getting insane. I wonder why?

 

That's normal in the Philippines. It's an everyday life.

 

So shell we assume you're insane because that's what normal is in the Philippines ?

 

More evidence he was one sick puppy. I thought the most telling bit of information so far was an interview done with a close friend.

I think we've seen this movie before.
[video=youtube;aim7N6oTJJQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aim7N6oTJJQ[/video]

Yah, the freaks are coming out of the woodwork. Quite a few shills making noise in an effort to line his politics up with whoever they dislike, and a few others who actually think the guy did something right. Its a bit of a sick comedy.

 

I've read about the prior contact, and the letter from Giffords thanking him for attending the 2007 event, kept with an envelope marked "assassination". What kind of answer would Loughner have expected for the question, "What is government if words have no meaning?" It's really sad, and yes, the freaks are coming out of the woodwork. Westboro announced yesterday that they will picket the funeral of the 9 year old girl that was murdered, Christina Green. After that announcement yesterday, Arizona lawmakers said they will rush legislation through today making it illegal for them to get within 300 ft of her funeral. The little girl is a catholic, and reportedly, Westboro even had her church address listed on their website. I've tried to confirm, but it seems their website has gone down. The police force in the area has promised a heavy presence at all the funerals. Even though it will be illegal for Westboro to get close, angels have promised to block the view of them for people attending the funeral. In addition, residents are organizing to surround the funeral in somewhat of a candlelight vigil, a silent show of support at the funeral on Thursday.

 

I assume OP wants a new thread for every terrorist attack across the world

 

No, he just wants a new thread for the ones that involve white people...

 

You and I can sit all day discussing what should constitute the proper definition of terrorism and still reach nowhere. There are various definitions of the word invented by people to delegitimize others and legitimize their activities.

For me personally, terrorism is an act of violence by a group of individuals to accomplish political, ideological or religious ends.

 

Your definition of terrorism appears extremely broad. I've struggled with this definition myself. Besides political and religious, ideology is all encompassing as it's defined as "a set of ideas that constitutes one's goals, expectations, and actions." The Animal Liberation Front considers that same definition, and allows that in consideration of animals. Which means anyone who is engaged in, or supports the meat industry is involved in terrorism.

 

Not really, ALF's rough ideology is protection of animals and prevention on animal cruelty so if they engage in violence against meat shop owners to accomplish their ideology then it IS terrorism on the other hand if some person has an ideology that all goats should be killed and then goes around killing goats where ever he sees them to accomplish his ideology then it is also terrorism though not necessarily punishable by law.

 

What your describing is an ideology that would be a better description of the American Humane Association. The American Humane Association believes in the protection of animals, prevention of cruelty to animals, and ensuring that farm animals are raised humanely. In contrast, the ALF's position is not necessarily that people should be nice to animals before/while they kill them, it's that they shouldn't kill them at all. At least to me, that's seems to be a big difference.

Animal Liberation Front believes in taking all necessary precautions against hurting any animal, human and non-human. If they were involved in direct action against the hypothetical meat shop owner with the scenario above, it would probably go something like this:
1. Take pictures of the deplorable conditions the animals are forced to endure to be released to the media at a later time.
2. Rescue (steal) all the animals from the meat shop owners.
3. Damage as much property as possible on the way out.
"violence against meat shop owners" would depend on your definition of violence and whether you believe inflicting economic damage and property destruction would be considered as terrorism, the FBI does and has labeled the ALF as a terrorist threat. What do you think?

I had to re-read this a few times. I don't want to put words in your mouth. To make sure I'm understanding this completely. Are you saying - you would classify it as a terrorist act if someone went around killing every goat they could find. BUT, if a meat shop owner kills them all in private, in an organized fashion, in the confines of a building out of view, then it's just a business and not terrorism?

The point is not necessarily in regards to Animal Liberation Front, but simply that I believe your definition of terrorism is way too broad.

Btw- How do you define "group of individuals?" I'm assuming you wouldn't exempt government from any acts of terrorism? By your definition,

that would mean ANY country ever engaged in an act of war for any reason would be considered as terrorists, no?

 

I think OP wants you to recognize that terrorists are in all groups, and Christian, Atheist and all other terrorism done by various groups is not highlighted as much as that of the small amount of Muslim terrorism.

 

Save your breath !

 

[video=youtube;D9ZF_wog1JE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9ZF_wog1JE[/video]

Is all the violent rhetoric to blame?