Explosions At Boston Marathon

[Chrysia]

The most recent news does link him to militant muslims in the northern caucasus though. I think you're simply in denial.

Bakis is not speaking to this particular case in this instance, but to terrorism cases at large.

People are saying that the overwhelming majority of terrorists are Muslim extremists, and have been for 20+ years. The data publicly available simply does not support this, but they persist.

In this case, we don't know enough to be sure it was religiously motivated. We'll see what the police find in their home and what the younger brother says when he's capable of doing so.

[Themius]

Yes because your pulling that out of your arse. The last couple of attacks I remember were done by white non-Muslim people.

What attacks...

[Shennanigans]

BOth the Shady Hook and the movie theater incidents were not classified as terrorist attacks.

[eriseis]

Bakis is not speaking to this particular case in this instance, but to terrorism cases at large.

People are saying that the overwhelming majority of terrorists are Muslim extremists, and have been for 20+ years. The data publicly available simply does not support this, but they persist.

In this case, we don't know enough to be sure it was religiously motivated. We'll see what the police find in their home and what the younger brother says when he's capable of doing so.

Here's my problem with MMO-Champ. People think you can Google everything. Well, you can't. Advanced research, you know, real data and investigations that do produce helpful knowledge for the world, is not obtainable through a quick Google search. Everyone here is pulling numbers out of their arse.

[Chrysia]

Here's my problem with MMO-Champ. People think you can Google everything. Well, you can't. Advanced research, you know, real data and investigations that do produce helpful knowledge for the world, is not obtainable through a quick Google search. Everyone here is pulling numbers out of their arse.

And that's fine, but you can't make the claim "most terrorists in the last 20 years are Muslim extremists" without numbers. If you don't have those numbers, and the only numbers available to the public don't support that claim, you're talking straight out your ass, and will be treated as such.

[PickleballAce]

Confirmation bias can be a hard thing for some people to overcome.

[Bakis]

The most recent news does link him to militant muslims in the northern caucasus though. I think you're simply in denial.

I think you cant read. Read again what I replied to then reply with something relevant.

So you're going to deny that most of our recent attacks are by Muslims, okay...

[Deleted]

I fail to see what makes this so different than other mass killings that happen (quite regularly) in the US.
There was no widespread discussion about the guy who shot up the theater to be an "enemy combatant" or "partially strip him of his rights".

Was it:
-that they used bombs instead of guns?
-that they decided to run instead of going to the police?
-that he has only been a US citizen for one year making him somehow a 2nd class citizen?
-that they are linked to islam?

There is no indication that they are part of a 'terror cell'. It's not like they used 'high tech' or special techniques. Any person who paid attention to high school chemistry could have built those bombs.

I for one am disappointed in the US legal system. It seems to be heavily controlled by the media, politics and thus emotions. That is not a good thing. Law needs to be objective.

[KDSwain]

I fail to see what makes this so different than other mass killings that happen (quite regularly) in the US.
There was no widespread discussion about the guy who shot up the theater to be an "enemy combatant" or "partially strip him of his rights".

Was it:
-that they used bombs instead of guns?
-that they decided to run instead of going to the police?
-that he has only been a US citizen for one year making him somehow a 2nd class citizen?
-that they are linked to islam?

There is no indication that they are part of a 'terror cell'. It's not like they used 'high tech' or special techniques. Any person who paid attention to high school chemistry could have built those bombs.

I for one am disappointed in the US legal system. It seems to be heavily controlled by the media, politics and thus emotions. That is not a good thing. Law needs to be objective.

Obviously don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. Go back to your math homework.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/45...eeper-cell.htm

[N-7]

BOth the Shady Hook and the movie theater incidents were not classified as terrorist attacks.

They're still terror attacks just domestic ones. Mass murders, terror, and targeted against civilians. I honestly don't care what you, the media or government want to call them, they're still terrorist attack and denial won't change that.

P.S. You don't call mass murders "incidents."

[Themius]

They're still terror attacks just domestic ones. Mass murders, terror, and targeted against civilians. I honestly don't care what you, the media or government want to call them, they're still terrorist attack and denial won't change that.

P.S. You don't call mass murders "incidents."

a surprise attack involving the deliberate use of violence against civilians in the hope of attaining political or religious aims.

What was the goal of shandy hook and the aurora shooting.

I mean

"I don't care what you, media, or the government calls them"

Do you also not care what the dictionary says? If so why are we even talking about this if you refuse to accept meanings.

[N-7]

What was the goal of shandy hook and the aurora shooting.

Kill people and incite terror? Otherwise why would someone go in there? What was the reason behind the Boston bombing? to spread Islam and kill infidels?

"Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion." and In the international community, however, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal lawdefinition.[1][2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

---------- Post added 2013-04-21 at 06:41 PM ----------

Do you also not care what the dictionary says? If so why are we even talking about this if you refuse to accept meanings.

Do you not care what the dictionary says also?

---------- Post added 2013-04-21 at 06:44 PM ----------

Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism "There is neither an academic nor an international legal consensus regarding the definition of the term "terrorism".[1][2] Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of "terrorism". Moreover, the international community has been slow to formulate a universally agreed upon, legally binding definition of this crime. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged.[3]"

And http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism World English Dictionaryterrorism (ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm)
— n
1. systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal
2. the act of terrorizing
3. the state of being terrorized

We both can play this game.

[Deleted]

Obviously don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. Go back to your math homework.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/45...eeper-cell.htm

Err yea this sounds increadibly likely:
A) They were part of an extremely professional sleeper cell that avoided detection by the FBI in 2011 when they were investigated.
B) They formed a terrorist sleeper cell in less than 2 years.

Suddenly the bombs and triggers are discribed as "advanced" and "sophisticated" when before reported to be "crude" and "simple".

And how do they even know there was a damn political or religious goal behind this? Because they were muslims?
So all muslim mass killers are terrorists whereas christian mass killers are just a bunch of crazy guys?
The beltway sniper was a muslim and a mass killer yet not a terrorist. Why?

This is just silly. What we obviously need is more emotional media fearmongering and less reason.

[Themius]

Kill people and incite terror? Otherwise why would someone go in there? What was the reason behind the Boston bombing? to spread Islam and kill infidels?

"Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion." and In the international community, however, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal lawdefinition.[1][2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

---------- Post added 2013-04-21 at 06:41 PM ----------


Do you not care what the dictionary says also?

---------- Post added 2013-04-21 at 06:44 PM ----------

Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism "There is neither an academic nor an international legal consensus regarding the definition of the term "terrorism".[1][2] Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of "terrorism". Moreover, the international community has been slow to formulate a universally agreed upon, legally binding definition of this crime. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged.[3]"

And http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism World English Dictionaryterrorism (ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm)
— n
1. systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal
2. the act of terrorizing
3. the state of being terrorized

We both can play this game.

Going by how we define terrorism since you know... it's our country... those two incidents weren't really considered terrorism. Now if the goal of this bombing wasn't to do with religious or political issues and simply just to kill people, then it may not be considered terrorism.

[N-7]

Going by how we define terrorism since you know... it's our country... those two incidents weren't really considered terrorism. Now if the goal of this bombing wasn't to do with religious or political issues and simply just to kill people, then it may not be considered terrorism.

Going by how your government hates our guts, I don't care how it biasedly defines it. We're in an international forum from different parts of the world if you cannot accept that I don't know why you're even here.

Also, if your government defines mass murders as "incidents," instead of what they truly are (hint domestic terrorism) and has a shady definition of enemy combatant outside of this country (defining any male as enemy combatant WTF). Then I don't think I want to take anything from them.

EDIT: I think we're going in circles since I've already told you that "I don't care what you, media, or the government calls them."

[Dispersedshadow]

Going by how we define terrorism since you know... it's our country... those two incidents weren't really considered terrorism. Now if the goal of this bombing wasn't to do with religious or political issues and simply just to kill people, then it may not be considered terrorism.

Just to add some clarity - the US legal definition doesn't include the requirement that the incident have "the hope of attaining political or religious aims":

(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

- source

[N-7]

Just to add some clarity - the US legal definition doesn't include the requirement that the incident have "the hope of attaining political or religious aims":

So, it is Themius pulling definitions out of his arse?

P.S. Thanks for the source.

[KDSwain]

The London marathon is running right now, if that gets hit then I am 100% sure they were part of a larger group, they would hit the UK as an example to other countries that ally with the USA.

Most likely not. Let this sit in American's minds for a bit then hit a completely different target in a different region of the US. It would only take 2-3 attacks to send this country out of control. We should look at what Israel has endured, because I fear that is coming here to the US.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Most likely not. Let this sit in American's minds for a bit then hit a completely different target in a different region of the US. It would only take 2-3 attacks to send this country out of control. We should look at what Israel has endured, because I fear that is coming here to the US.

Riight......totally not fearmongering here.

[KDSwain]

Yeah they don't have to do it right away, they just need to understand anything he admits before they read him his rights is inadmissible. If they don't think he's a state where he could understand, the stuff would be inadmissible anyways even if they had read him his rights when he was in a state he could understand them. Things said under such conditions aren't admissible because who knows if he's saying what he believe or some wild hysteria induced delusion.

This is very true. The hysteria seems to be on the "OMG THEY DIDNT READ HIS MIRANDA RIGHTS TO HIM ZOMG!!!!" crowd. They don't have to read your Miranda rights to you. If they don't, they can't use any information you give them against you. Obviously in this case they don't need the suspect to incriminate himself as they have more than enough evidence on him.