another terrorist attack kills 17

[brinstar]

terrorist stalks and kills 9 children, 4 women, and 4 men, injures another 4 children and 2 adults, and then burns some of the corpses

why

[Arlos]

As we all know, I'm not generally a fan of the death penalty, but in some egregious cases like this one, especially when there's absolutely no question as to who is responsible, my objections vanish.

Hang him.

-Arlos

[Harrison]

Death penalty yes, but terrorist? Come on.

You're just trying to incite hate now.

[Tikker]

.

[Spazz]

DOnt choo know if they american they a mad man you gotsa be a raghead to be a terrorist

[Zanchief]

He's a terrorist through and through.

[Ganzo]

People who are in the combat zones and are under the constant stress, have been known to go crazy and kill random civilians. This has happened in every war, so it is not at all surprising; the only difference is that now it hits the front page. How is what this guy did any different from US government\armed forces bombing civilians and killing thousands in the collateral damage, like it has been done in Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan?

[Tikker]

.

[Ganzo]

Oh it's not that different. Most Americans are terrorists

I hope you're trolling

[Harrison]

This thread disgusts me in about 20 different ways

[Spazz]

Most Americans are terrorists

Fuck is that sposed to mean muthafucka

[brinstar]

This thread disgusts me in about 20 different ways

let's hear 'em



but first, let's tackle a bigger issue: what exactly IS terrorism anymore?

remember when Iraq War 2.0 kicked off and they used "Shock and Awe"? this is from the actual doctrine:

Shock and Awe impact on psychological, perceptual, and physical levels. At one level, destroying an adversary's military force leaving the enemy impotent and vulnerable may provide the necessary Shock and Awe. At another level, the certainty of this outcome may cause an adversary to accept our terms well short of conflict. In the great middle ground, the appropriate balance of Shock and Awe must cause the perception and anticipation of certain defeat and the threat and fear of action that may shut down all or part of the adversary's society or render his ability to fight useless short of complete physical destruction.

let's repeat that: cause the perception and anticipation of certain defeat and the threat and fear of action.

how is that not terrorism?

[Spazz]

I agree that shit was terrorism and I didnt even watch it due to how disgusted it made me feel in my stomach. All I could think of is how much money we wer wasting, how many people that had to be killing, and how fucking retarded the whole thing was.

That said that shit doesnt make me a fuckin terrorist. I as well as a fuck ton of sane people who was ignored were totally against that shit. If Aamericans are terrorists than all jews and mooslims most def are as well. Thats a retarded statement and im not gonna play im kind of offended and could see myself even as liberal as i am getting into a heated conversation if this was said to my face. Im not shy homie lets have this out about most americans being terrorists.Also doesnt that little country that your from all ways go along with whatever in the fuck we are doing? WOuldnt that make most Canadians terrorists as well?

[Ganzo]

This thread disgusts me in about 20 different ways

let's hear 'em



but first, let's tackle a bigger issue: what exactly IS terrorism anymore?

remember when Iraq War 2.0 kicked off and they used "Shock and Awe"? this is from the actual doctrine:

Shock and Awe impact on psychological, perceptual, and physical levels. At one level, destroying an adversary's military force leaving the enemy impotent and vulnerable may provide the necessary Shock and Awe. At another level, the certainty of this outcome may cause an adversary to accept our terms well short of conflict. In the great middle ground, the appropriate balance of Shock and Awe must cause the perception and anticipation of certain defeat and the threat and fear of action that may shut down all or part of the adversary's society or render his ability to fight useless short of complete physical destruction.

let's repeat that: cause the perception and anticipation of certain defeat and the threat and fear of action.

how is that not terrorism?

Well Brin, that is at the core of this issue. Some time after WWII media renamed guerrilla warfare into terrorism. Traditionally terrorism was a term for a citizen of a country using violent actions against his own government and nothing else. Modern media somehow convinced public into believing that when Western countries attack other countries or send small spec ops teams to assassinate foreign leaders, than this is peace keeping or liberating or preventative operations; but when other countries do that to the western world it is terrorism.

You can only be at peace or at war with another country, but modern media created this silly notion that the only way to be at war is by using massive armies. In this fake reality US sends massive army against tiny forces of Iraq or Afghanistan, smashes them and declares victory claiming that the war is over. All the guerrilla warfare that continues on after this, is relabeled into insurgency and terrorism.

It is silly to expect others to follow the rules that we've made up, especially when those rules heavily favor US with it's massive armed forces.

[Tikker]

.

[Ganzo]

That's exactly what i'm saying



huge portion of the world perceives americans as the terrorists, just like when over here you hear Libyan, or taliban, or whatever you think terrorist

Tikker, assuming that we view the US Armed Forces as terrorists and knowing that less than 1% of all Americans are in the US Armed Forces, what is your justification in claiming that other 99% of Americans are terrorists?

[ClakarEQ]

Death Penalty no, that isn’t right, eye for an eye is old school, let it go.

Life in prison with no parole, yes.

Terrorist, well I don’t know about that. What makes it different is that it was a random act of violence, I would imagine it didn't matter where, just that this guy snapped, he didn't do it out of anything other than the thirst for killing due to mind snap.

Now I didn't keep close tabs on this article so if he killed because he thought they were Muslim, afghan, etc., then yeah, he's as much a terrorist as the 911 pilots were

FWIW
I think Tikkers comments are coming from the flip side of what that region tends to think of "us". I would bet a lot of them equate Americans as terrorist as much as a lot of us equate muslims with terrorist. Now you personally don't feel that way, sure, but as I've said before, the folks that hit this board are the minority of our populace, so you need to go dumb to really think these things.

[Tikker]

.

[brinstar]

What makes it different is that it was a random act of violence, I would imagine it didn't matter where, just that this guy snapped, he didn't do it out of anything other than the thirst for killing due to mind snap.

see you're giving him the benefit of the doubt

maybe it really was just the soul-crushing psychological effects of four tours of duty and being wounded in combat that caused him to snap (which is another topic that needs to be addressed, imo)

or maybe he decided he'd had enough of playing by the rules and decided to target unarmed civilians (including fucking CHILDREN) in an attempt to "shock and awe" the insurgents into either giving up or attacking head on

or maybe he decided muslim kids had to die

point is, his motivation is a mystery right now (and maybe forever) so it's foolish and irrationally nationalist to assume it wasn't an actual act of terror but rather a "mind snap" as you call it

[Spazz]

same reason americans are scared of everyone wtih brown skin and/or a turban

Blanket statements. Most people in this country dont have beef with brown people. Those who do tend to make a lot of noise though. Also you keep saying americans as if your country isnt guilty of going along with us on our adventures. Isnt it a canadian who holds the record on longest shot with a sniper rifle done while in iraq ?

[Kaemon]

Using Tikker's rationale, since Canada assisted in both Iraq wars and Afghanistan conflict, it is safe to assume that Canadian's are terrorists also.

Fuck Canada.

[Zanchief]

Using Tikker's rationale, since Canada assisted in both Iraq wars and Afghanistan conflict, it is safe to assume that Canadian's are terrorists also.

News to me. Might want to open a newspaper there shortbus.

[ClakarEQ]

What makes it different is that it was a random act of violence, I would imagine it didn't matter where, just that this guy snapped, he didn't do it out of anything other than the thirst for killing due to mind snap.

see you're giving him the benefit of the doubt

maybe it really was just the soul-crushing psychological effects of four tours of duty and being wounded in combat that caused him to snap (which is another topic that needs to be addressed, imo)

or maybe he decided he'd had enough of playing by the rules and decided to target unarmed civilians (including fucking CHILDREN) in an attempt to "shock and awe" the insurgents into either giving up or attacking head on

or maybe he decided muslim kids had to die

point is, his motivation is a mystery right now (and maybe forever) so it's foolish and irrationally nationalist to assume it wasn't an actual act of terror but rather a "mind snap" as you call it

All I'm saying is that under many peoples opinions, any act of violence can be called "terrorist". If it happened here and he killed a bunch of jews because he was living in jewtown, does that make it different? What if he was living in whiteyville, and killed a bunch of whites, does THAT make it different? Did he just want to kill and all that was there are afgan and muslim folk or did he want to kill MUSLIM folk?

I don't care personally, the dude should get locked up and never let out. I just don't know that I'd call it "terrorist", yet, is all.

EDIT
I don't get the "benefit of the doubt" comment, the dude is guilty, there is no doubt in my mind on that, the doubt comes in to play as to the why and who, if those are "why" because they were muslim, and "who" because they were muslim, THEN he's a terrorist. If it's not those "because" reasons, then I'd say it was a random act of crime.

EDIT x2
I could say you're NOT giving him the benefit of doubt, and that is unamerican (and way too common with "us" today). Our system is based on innocent until proven guilty. The guy is guilty, again no question, but why to assume it's driven only by terrorism is jumping to conclusions without all the facts, your comment is no different than mine, we're just on opposite sides so-to-speak.

[Kaemon]

Using Tikker's rationale, since Canada assisted in both Iraq wars and Afghanistan conflict, it is safe to assume that Canadian's are terrorists also.

News to me. Might want to open a newspaper there shortbus.

Canada was one of the first nations to condemn Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, and it quickly agreed to join the U.S.-led coalition. In August 1990, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney committed the Canadian Forces to deploy a Naval Task Group. The destroyers HMCS Terra Nova and HMCS Athabaskan joined the maritime interdiction force supported by the supply ship HMCS Protecteur. The Canadian Task Group led the coalition maritime logistics forces in the Persian Gulf. A fourth ship, HMCS Huron, arrived in-theater after hostilities had ceased and was the first allied ship to visit Kuwait.

Following the UN authorized use of force against Iraq, the Canadian Forces deployed a CF-18 Hornet and Sikorsky CH-124 Sea King squadron with support personnel, as well as a field hospital to deal with casualties from the ground war. When the air war began, Canada's CF-18s were integrated into the coalition force and were tasked with providing air cover and attacking ground targets. This was the first time since the Korean War that the Canadian military had participated in offensive combat operations. The only CF-18 Hornet to record an official victory during the conflict was an aircraft involved in the beginning of the Battle of Bubiyan against the Iraqi Navy.[80]

The Canadian Commander in the Middle East was Commodore Ken Summers.

Canada – 2900 in Kandahar. Canadian Forces have been actively engaged in fighting the Taliban in the dangerous South and have suffered a high proportion of the allied casualties. The Canadian Forces are officially there to help train Afghan National Army and police, facilitate reconstruction, and provide security, but in 2006, with the situation in Kandahar Province turned increasingly violent, the Canadian Forces have participated in several operations and battles since the beginning of the war in Afghanistan in 2001. The Royal Canadian Air Force have a major presence in Afghanistan, including three CC-130 Hercules cargo planes, two CP-140 surveillance planes,[53] six CH-147 Chinook transport helicopters, six Mil Mi-8 leased for one year from Skylink Aviation, eight CH-146 Griffon utility helicopters and three CU-170 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV). The Canadian Army have increased their presence with main battle tanks, some ten Leopard C2 and twenty Leopard 2A6M CAN, approximately one hundred LAV III armoured vehicles and currently use six 155 mm M777 howitzers in Afghanistan. 157 Canadian soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan. As of 2011 all Canadian combat forces have withdrawn from Afghanistan[citation needed

Though no declaration of war was issued, the Governor General-in-Council did order the mobilization of a number of Canadian Forces personnel to serve actively in Iraq.[1] On 31 March 2003, it was reported in Maclean's that in the previous month Canadian officers, aboard three frigates and a destroyer, had been placed in command of the multinational naval group Task Force 151, which patrolled the Persian Gulf region. A further 30 Canadians worked at the US Central Command in Qatar, and 150 troops were on exchange with US and British forces in proximity to combat.[3] North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) stationed Canadian Air Force pilots also flew combat missions with the US Air Force E-3 Sentry, and exchange officers fought with US units. In all, 40 to 50 Canadian military members participated in the conflict.





General Walter Natynczyk, one of the Canadian officers who served in Iraq, then a Brigadier General
Because of this Canadian involvement in Iraq, the Ministers of the Crown at the time were criticised by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition as hypocritical, and demands were made for the return of these Canadian Forces personnel. The Prime Minister stated that the Canadian military was not involved in direct combat, while still fulfilling its commitment to NORAD. However, it was claimed by Janice Gross Stein and Eugene Lang in The Unexpected War that people from Canadian ministries were in Washington, D.C., openly vaunting Canada's participation in Iraq;[1] as Stein and Lang put it: "in an almost schizophrenic way, the government bragged publicly about its decision to stand aside from the war in Iraq because it violated core principles of multilateralism and support for the United Nations. At the same time, senior Canadian officials, military officers and politicians were currying favour in Washington, privately telling anyone in the State Department of the Pentagon who would listen that, by some measures, Canada's indirect contribution to the American war effort in Iraq– three ships and 100 exchange officers– exceeded that of all but three other countries that were formally part of the coalition."

Amongst the Canadian officers who were sent to Iraq were: Brigadier General Walter Natynczyk, who was later appointed Chief of the Defence Staff; Major General Peter Devlin, who served since 14 December 2006 as Multi-National Corps-Iraq Deputy Command General as part of his role as Deputy Commander of the US III Corps through an officer exchange program;[6] and General Nicolas Matern, a special forces officer and former commander of Canada's elite counter-terrorism unit, who in mid February 2008 began service as deputy to Lieutenant General Lloyd Austin.

I'm sorry, did you say something about reading the newspaper? It might not seem like a lot to you, but let me put this into a terrorist's analogy. You might not have been the guy the blew himself up and others around him....but you were the guy that helped put the jacket on and arm it.

So if you want to call United States Citizens terrorists, well so are the Canadians.

[Zanchief]

So if you want to call United States Citizens terrorists

I didn't and I think Tikker is out to lunch here, but so are you if you think we supported you in the iraq war (the big boy one, not the first one). We publicly condemned the war and only when it was "mission accomplished" did we step and help clean things up for you. You, of course, failed to mention that in your little google timeline. The war was over when he headed there as peace keepers only.

Back away slowly from this one my friend. You got caught with your pants down, happens to all of us, no need bending over and making things worse.