Page 1 of 1
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2015 5:39 pm
by Leisher
Terrorists are white men.
I'm not saying his point is completely wrong, but he's wrong about them being terrorists.
Most of the mass shooters in the U.S. are mentally disturbed and not acting on behalf of religious ideology in an effort to bend everyone to their will.
We'd have less of these if we still locked the crazies up.
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2015 5:42 pm
by Malcolm
Not one major attack? Bullshit.
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2015 6:31 pm
by GORDON
Timothy McVeigh is the left's go-to guy that sometimes white guys can be terrorists, too, and is usually offered as proof that Islam isn't a problem.
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2015 9:46 pm
by Malcolm
If "terrorist" means a brown dude that came from the Middle East and is attached to a militant group that's issued demands via YouTube, then I guess this fucker's technically correct. But since there isn't an internationally agreed upon definition of "terrorism" or "terrorist" anywhere, he's just retarded. This is mainly because one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. In order to draw a line, you'd need to define the terrorists as the dudes using coercion of some sort without proper course of law. But shit, then every violent crime everywhere is an act of terrorism just like they're hate crimes. On the flip side, I'd argue the two dumb-ass kids in Boston were terrorists. I doubt they ever signed up or had specific instruction from any Islamic extremist group. Where does one draw the line between common crime and an act of terror? Leaving a burning cross on someone's lawn is trepassing, vandalism, and maybe some fire code violation, but it's still terrorism. No one needs to die. On the other hand, I wouldn't call some spree killings an act of terror. Columbine springs to mind. That was just two twerps with fucked up brains and sociopathic tendencies.
Edited By Malcolm on 1448419787