Idiot detonates worthless bomb in attempt to kill lots of people in NYC

[Loren Pechtel]

Nobody has found a political motivation for the Las Vegas shooter. Thus, nut case, not terrorism.

Yeah, it's safe to assume that his intent was not to terrorize anyone...

Let's just cut to the chase and declare that it's impossible for a white person to be a terrorist.

Obviously you don't know what "terrorism" means.

And white people certainly can be terrorists. Dylan Roof comes to mind.

 

[Elixir]

Nobody has found a political motivation for the Las Vegas shooter. Thus, nut case, not terrorism.

Yeah, it's safe to assume that his intent was not to terrorize anyone...

Let's just cut to the chase and declare that it's impossible for a white person to be a terrorist.

Obviously you don't know what "terrorism" means.

And white people certainly can be terrorists. Dylan Roof comes to mind.

Oh, I know the carefully crafted definition all right. I choose to go with the intent to terrorize.

 

[RavenSky]

Cliven Bundy's bunch... terrorists?

 

[Elixir]

Cliven Bundy's bunch... terrorists?

I wouldn't say so. Idiots, maybe. But mostly just misguided protectors of property they consider their own, even though it isn't. I don;t know that they were ever attempting to terrorize anyone.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Cliven Bundy's bunch... terrorists?

No. Who are they trying to terrorize?

However, I do think they're guilty of war crimes--specifically, the use of human shields. Those scumbags tend to keep their families in the line of fire.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I'm wondering if this is merely the first in an uptick of extremists attacks considering the great Trumpelthinskin's stance on Jerusalem last week.

The terrorist claimed he did it because of Gaza, not Jerusalem.
But even if he did it because of Jerusalem, it is a very bad idea to let foreign policy be dictated by what some pissant terrorist might do.

Oh yeah, time to add Indonesia to that Muslim ban I suppose.

Makes sense, since the terrorist is from Bangladesh ...

I'm not suggesting we allow such considerations influence foreign policy. What I'm suggesting is that it's ONE negative among MANY for a shift in policy that goes forward to serve NO purpose except to make certain far right idiots feel tough and evangelicals feel like they're standing by Jesus and ushering in his return. It's a policy shift with no positive purpose for the U.S., but lots of drawbacks, and it cannot even stand merely on principle, because it is recognizing something that is currently still in dispute. So, if it serves no positive purpose, but has many negative drawbacks, then it is, like most other things in this administration, a fucking stupid thing to do.