Jump to content

Thread O Mass Shootings


Ke1t

Recommended Posts


The San Bernardino shooting linked to IS http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35006404

 

The most chilling parts are where the article claims that the couple appear to be 'self radicalized' and that they may have simply been motivated by IS not acting directly to carry out a list of commands.

 

The mind reels.

 

 

The most frightening aspect of that isn't that a couple of bams decided to shoot up a special needs centre based upon some idiotic and misguided belief that... well, fuck knows what belief demands the murder of other people... but that government will use these exact incidents to push their draconian bullshit on the rest of us under the guise of 'security'.

Link to comment

 

 

The most frightening aspect of that isn't that a couple of bams decided to shoot up a special needs centre based upon some idiotic and misguided belief that... well, fuck knows what belief demands the murder of other people... but that government will use these exact incidents to push their draconian bullshit on the rest of us under the guise of 'security'.

The Patriot Act has been extended.

 

Could you give a further example of "their draconian bullshit" please?

Link to comment

The Patriot Act has been extended.

 

Could you give a further example of "their draconian bullshit" please?

 

...okay?

 

  • Encouragement of terrorism (section 1): Prohibits the publishing of "a statement that is likely to be understood by some or all of the members of the public to whom it is published as a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to them to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences." Indirect encouragement statements include every statement which glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or offences; and is a statement from which those members of the public could reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified is being glorified as conduct that should be emulated by them in existing circumstances."[3] In England and Wales, a person guilty of this offence is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years, or to a fine, or to both, or, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months, or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both. In Scotland and Northern Ireland, a person guilty of this offence is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years, or to a fine, or to both, or, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both.[/b]

 

 

Effectively, should you have something to say on a message board about any terrorist attack, past, present, or future... and should that something be less than a condemnation... you could potentially go to jail for 7 years for offering 'encouragement and inducement' to 'terrorists'. And it doesn't even have to be overt, fuck, it doesn't even have to actually be glorifying anything, since it states "a statement that is likely to be understood by some or all of the members of the public [/b] So, potentially, it only takes one person to think, "Hey, he's not patriotic! I've a problem with what he said!" for the author of that piece to be at risk of prosecution under anti-terror laws.

 

This is very specific, since you asked for specific.

Link to comment

The San Bernardino shooting linked to IS http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35006404

 

The most chilling parts are where the article claims that the couple appear to be 'self radicalized' and that they may have simply been motivated by IS not acting directly to carry out a list of commands.

 

The mind reels.

Very loosely tied to ISIS as you point out. A bit like me head butting a hun a couple of months ago in the name of the famous.

Link to comment

Thank you for the above.

 

You appear to have posted an example of a British act of Parliament.

 

It was my understanding that you lived in America and I was asking you for an example, other than what is contained in the Patriot Act as an example of; 'their [referring the the American legislatures] draconian bullshit' either in response to IS or mass shootings.

 

I've also read about Edward Snowden and the NSA.

 

Thank you in advance.

 

With reference to what you have posted I can't agree that 'some or all of the members of the public' could be interpreted as a single person.

Link to comment

1. Thank you for the above.

 

2. You appear to have posted an example of a British act of Parliament.

 

3. It was my understanding that you lived in America and I was asking you for an example, other than what is contained in the Patriot Act as an example of; 'their [referring the the American legislatures] draconian bullshit' either in response to IS or mass shootings.

 

4. I've also read about Edward Snowden and the NSA.

 

5. Thank you in advance.

 

6. With reference to what you have posted I can't agree that 'some or all of the members of the public' could be interpreted as a single person.

 

1. You're welcome

 

2. I did

 

3. It's part of the UKs 2006 Terror Act. As a dual citizen of the US and UK I've a vested interest in both the US and UK. You possibly didn't know that, so no need to apologise, of course. You'll know going forward.

 

Not entirely sure why you want one particular example, but how about the 2014 CFATS Act that potentially turns simple trespass at transportation, water supply, chemical, or energy faciliies into a 'terrorist' act, and subjects the individual to the articles of the Patriot Act (2)? So a civil infraction now has the potentiality to turn one into a percieved 'terrorist threat'?

 

4. - The Dept of Homeland Security might be more pertinent, since they're the department specifically set up to be in charge of 'safeguarding against terrorism'

 

5. You're welcome

 

6. 'Some' is probably deliberately vague on the part of the author, I would imagine. Would you agree that 3 out of 60,000,000 or 300,000,000 is 'some'?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Are mass shootings in the usa not so bad until they are acts of terrorism?

Are regular mass shootings somehow less serious?

Are regular mass shootings in the States not somehow acts of terror anyway?

 

Surely you know the rules by now?

 

If the perpetrator(s) is white and/or Christian it's the act of a crazy person, nothing to fear, move along...

 

If they are Muslims it is an act of terrorism, be afraid, be very afraid; they're coming to get you

Link to comment

 

Surely you know the rules by now?

 

If the perpetrator(s) is white and/or Christian it's the act of a crazy person, nothing to fear, move along...

 

If they are Muslims it is an act of terrorism, be afraid, be very afraid; they're coming to get you

Surely the motives of any killers should be explored? If it was a white guy targeting Muslims we'd want to investigate any links, motives, accomplices etc and surely it's fair to do the same for Muslims targeting others?

Link to comment

I wonder, of the 355 mass shootings in America this year... probably 356 now... how many of those shootings have involved radicalised muslims.

 

Probably not very many, given the media and politicians jumping on any 'muslimy' violence like a fat lad on a mock chop supper, and I can't recall very many muslim mass shootings or terror attacks being reported on US soil this year.

 

This leaves us to imagine that the vast majority, maybe well in excess of 300, are perpetrated by christians, given that 83% of Americans call themselves christian.

 

Religion, though.

Link to comment

 

 

Not entirely sure why you want one particular example, but how about the 2014 CFATS Act that potentially turns simple trespass at transportation, water supply, chemical, or energy faciliies into a 'terrorist' act, and subjects the individual to the articles of the Patriot Act (2)? So a civil infraction now has the potentiality to turn one into a percieved 'terrorist threat'?

 

 

For the purpose of discussion on a thread you have started and about a comment that you have made.

 

From what you have posted do you consider yourself in danger of deliberately or accidentally infringing this law and (potentially) being held up as a terrorist?

Link to comment

For the purpose of discussion on a thread you have started and about a comment that you have made.

 

From what you have posted do you consider yourself in danger of deliberately or accidentally infringing this law and (potentially) being held up as a terrorist?

 

This one in particular?

 

No.

 

Why is it relevant if I'm personally at risk or not?

Link to comment

"This one in particular?" I'm sorry, I don't understand this question.

 

"Why is it relevant if I'm personally at risk or not?"

If you, as a normal citizen feel at risk of severe punishment from what you would consider a slight (deliberate or accidental) offense then we would have a clear example of a law which could be described as draconian.

 

If on the other hand you believe that this law would not apply to you in your daily life then it may be fair to continue that people who wish to gain access to secure areas such as water supply, chemical, or energy facilities (provided that these are defined in clear legal terms) can be suspected has having specific motives to take said action and that the police should be able to investigate accordingly. I would not define this as draconian.

Link to comment

1. "This one in particular?" I'm sorry, I don't understand this question.

 

"Why is it relevant if I'm personally at risk or not?"

2. If you, as a normal citizen feel at risk of severe punishment from what you would consider a slight (deliberate or accidental) offense then we would have a clear example of a law which could be described as draconian.

 

3. If on the other hand you believe that this law would not apply to you in your daily life then it may be fair to continue that people who wish to gain access to secure areas such as water supply, chemical, or energy facilities (provided that these are defined in clear legal terms) can be suspected has having specific motives to take said action and that the police should be able to investigate accordingly. I would not define this as draconian.

 

1. You asked for a law I consider draconian. I gave you two. I wanted you to clarify if you were in fact referring to the second example when you asked if I feel threatened personally since your question was a vague "from what you have posted",

 

2. Whether or not I'm personally at risk of arrest has no bearing on whether or not a law can be described as, draconian.

 

3. It may be fair to suppose someone trespassing on private or government property has a motive, however for the previous 300 years or so trespass has been a civil matter, generally dealt with either at a county or a State level, meaning it's local law enforcement's job to apprehend and (if at all necessary) prosecute the offense.. Making it a matter for the Department of Homeland Security automatically makes what could be simple trespass a Federal matter. Federal crimes are considered far more serious and are punished far more severely than State prosecuted crimes. Not only that, it becomes an anti-terror investigation, since this is what DHS does.

 

For a simple case of trespass, elevating said 'crime' to a Federal, anti-Terror level is ludicrous, hence 'draconian'. You are possibly unaware of the difference between State and Federal offenses, hence you believing that this act would simply involve the police... and you further don't specify which police, so I assume you're also unaware that there are various levels of not only Federal but local law enforcement. Unfortunately being arrested by DHS agents isn't the same as being arrested by local law enforcement who may size up the situation, issue a ticket, and that's the end of the matter aside from paying a fine or making a court appearance.

 

Immediately elevating what is almost certainly going to be a relatively innocent case of trespass (since as far as I'm aware 'terrorists' haven't yetshown much interest in wandering around cement factories)to one which involves Federal investigation and subsequent sentencing absolutely meets the definition of draconian.

 

dra·co·ni·an
drəˈkōnēən/
adjective
  1. (of laws or their application) excessively harsh and severe.
Link to comment

'For a simple case of trespass, elevating said 'crime' to a Federal, anti-Terror level is ludicrous, hence 'draconian'.'

 

If it is a simple case why would it be escalated as you suggest?

 

'2. Whether or not I'm personally at risk of arrest has no bearing on whether or not a law can be described as, draconian.'

 

I disagree with this. I think that laws do in part determine how we behave. If you feel threatened by a law you will moderate your behavior or challenge that law (through civil unrest for example) accordingly. Laws can therefore be perceived as draconian based on there eventualities.

 

You are correct in that I am unaware of the differences between state and federal law - so I thank you for mentioning that there is a difference.

Link to comment

'For a simple case of trespass, elevating said 'crime' to a Federal, anti-Terror level is ludicrous, hence 'draconian'.'

 

1. If it is a simple case why would it be escalated as you suggest?

 

Whether or not I'm personally at risk of arrest has no bearing on whether or not a law can be described as, draconian.'

 

2. I disagree with this. I think that laws do in part determine how we behave. If you feel threatened by a law you will moderate your behavior or challenge that law (through civil unrest for example) accordingly. Laws can therefore be perceived as draconian based on there eventualities.

 

3. You are correct in that I am unaware of the differences between state and federal law - so I thank you for mentioning that there is a difference.

 

1. Because involving the DHS means it is, by default, a Federal investigation. This law makes DHS responsible for 'safeguarding' these facilities, not local law enforcement. There's no actual 'escalation', because it's already a Federal matter according to this law.

 

 

2. Studies have shown that the severity of associated punishment, have little bearing on whether people commit a crime or not. If threat of severe punishment discouraged crime then logically the harshest penalty, the Death penalty, would be the most obvious place to look for signs of deterrence. Studies routinely show this not to be the case.

Link to comment

 

1. Because involving the DHS means it is, by default, a Federal investigation. This law makes DHS responsible for 'safeguarding' these facilities, not local law enforcement. There's no actual 'escalation', because it's already a Federal matter according to this law.

 

 

2. Studies have shown that the severity of associated punishment, have little bearing on whether people commit a crime or not. If threat of severe punishment discouraged crime then logically the harshest penalty, the Death penalty, would be the most obvious place to look for signs of deterrence. Studies routinely show this not to be the case.

Reading that, I can agree with it.

 

Thank you for your views.

Link to comment

I wonder, of the 355 mass shootings in America this year... probably 356 now... how many of those shootings have involved radicalised muslims.

 

Probably not very many, given the media and politicians jumping on any 'muslimy' violence like a fat lad on a mock chop supper, and I can't recall very many muslim mass shootings or terror attacks being reported on US soil this year.

 

This leaves us to imagine that the vast majority, maybe well in excess of 300, are perpetrated by christians, given that 83% of Americans call themselves christian.

 

Religion, though.

After Obama asked the US media to consider the amount of US deaths caused by terrorism compared to those caused by guns in October after the Colorado mass shooting a couple of places obliged.

They had slightly differing exact numbers but a lot of that was down to where they got their numbers from but the numbers were roughly along the lines of since 2001 the number of terrorist deaths on US soil was 93 ( I"ve included last week's 14 deaths) and the number of gun related deaths was just over the 300,000 mark. This number includes suicides however for the years 2002- 2013 and it appears that without suicides the number would be around 140,000.

 

Going back to the terrorist numbers of the 93 deaths, 45 have been recorded as jihadist attacks and the remaining 48 as non jihadist attacks.

Link to comment

This particular shooting strikes me as unusual. Mr and Mrs ISIS don't say a wheesht to anyone for years and year, drop the bairn round granny's and go postal.

 

Hours later the media is let in to their apartment where all sorts of ISIS propaganda, guns, bullets and shit can be picked up and poked at by Fox News et al. The CSI lot certainly processed that location in a hurry :sherlock:

 

A cynic such as myself would say the feds have used this to the max to justify some, as yet unknown, change in law or further justification to bomb brown people in brownpeopleland.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

After Obama asked the US media to consider the amount of US deaths caused by terrorism compared to those caused by guns in October after the Colorado mass shooting a couple of places obliged.

They had slightly differing exact numbers but a lot of that was down to where they got their numbers from but the numbers were roughly along the lines of since 2001 the number of terrorist deaths on US soil was 93 ( I"ve included last week's 14 deaths) and the number of gun related deaths was just over the 300,000 mark. This number includes suicides however for the years 2002- 2013 and it appears that without suicides the number would be around 140,000.

 

Going back to the terrorist numbers of the 93 deaths, 45 have been recorded as jihadist attacks and the remaining 48 as non jihadist attacks.

 

That's more or less what I expected...

 

The muslim extremist 'threat' is the sexy threat, or at the very least the one that Americans feart most. The news outlets are like vultures just waiting for a brown folks with a muslimy name to do some bad shit, and when it does they're all over it.

 

They've tried to downplay the Right Wing terror attacks, though. The guy who shot up the Planned Parenthood was a Right Wing nutjob who, like most Right Wing Nutjobs, believed the lies pushed by Carly Fiorina and FOX News, even to the extent that police quoted him as repeating verbatim the "Baby Parts" lie FOX had been circulating in the weeks leading up to the massacre. Almost as sickening was Fiorina and FOX then blaming the LEFT for the guy going apeshit.

 

Meanwhile you have groups like the Minutemen and the 'Patriot' groups who literally wander around shopping mall and suburbs armed with assault rifles, looking for non-white christians to intimidatre.

 

This is why Trump is doing so well. The Right is ignorant, frightened, bigoted and uneducated. Trump feeds into their fear and bigotry.. so when he calls Mexicans 'rapists', and tells outright lies, the Right laps it up, even if they're dimly aware that they're being lied to they don't care... they like the racist, bigoted shite he comes out with because it mirrors and validates their own ignorance.

 

You just need to listen to the rhetoric from the right... it's like a NAZIs wet dream.... full of what they're going to do to us 'Libtards' and 'bleeding hearts' when they get the chance.

Link to comment
  • 6 months later...

Should probably stick this in here just by way of keeping it current and updated.

 

Last updated: June 13, 2016 1:13 am

49 dead in Orlando gay nightclub massacre

 

The anguished city of Orlando was struggling to come to terms with its status as the site of the worst mass shooting in modern US history on Sunday night as it emerged that the man who authorities say attacked a gay dance club was interviewed by investigators in 2013.

 

Full Story

 

mateen.jpg

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...