Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/15/13 06:07 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Well, by its very nature the bombings are an act of terrorism, by whom and to what ends remains to be seen.

Actually the bombers have yet to be claimed by any terrorist organization. This could very well have been simply a sick duo that wanted to cause harm.

At 4/21/13 08:15 PM, Wolfe143 wrote:

At 4/15/13 06:07 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Well, by its very nature the bombings are an act of terrorism, by whom and to what ends remains to be seen.

Actually the bombers have yet to be claimed by any terrorist organization. This could very well have been simply a sick duo that wanted to cause harm.

Why does it have to be the actions of an organization to be considered terrorism?

At 4/20/13 10:52 PM, Korriken wrote: Perhaps, but you can find radicals anywhere.Ever seen a radical Buddhist? they do exist. and this news article could be perhaps the most ironic thing I've seen in a long time.

I know, they're especially nasty in Myanmar and Sri Lanka. And no it's not based off of religion, ethnicity is more accurate. Myanmar used to be majority Indian Muslim because when the British conquered Burma it was depopulated from the constant wars and so they encouraged migration from Bengal to fufill the need for cheap labor in the rice fields. The migration was simply astounding, for a time the then capital of Myanmar Yangon surpassed New York City in the number of immigrants moving in. The native Burmese along with the other people's who live there were terrified as their country was being pried from them in front of their eyes and so a general consensus of racism arose from them against these Muslim Indians (similar to right wing radicals who are terrified of the immigration of Latinos' into America). During WWII Japan took over Myanmar (not firmly, but nominally at least) and without the protection of the British Japanese and Burmese forces purged Indian Muslims from Myanmar which I think is a rather ignored ethnic cleansing considering how many would be feasibly required to leave to make the population of the Muslims go from a majority to around 4%. The current Muslims have to prove their families were there before the 1800's (i.e. before the British took over and when Muslim traders moved in who were acceptable) or else they're treated as aliens and denied citizenship since they're seen as foreigners. Now where was actual practices preached by religion involved in this? Nowhere, it's all ethnic tension and since religion has become a component of ethnicity it has become difficult to distinguish between ethnic tension and religious tension like say Pakistan v. India, they're the same people just different religions, but because of their religion they have become different people.

What you're thinking of is something like the Crusades or 9/11 where religious reasoning was used as the primary motive, in Myanmar that is not the case.

that's where your error is, you expect everyone to act the same in a group. perhaps they, as a group, are more secular, but that doesn't mean a portion of them can't be radicalized.

That's not my point. My point is that you're assuming all Muslim terrorists are the same and have the same motivations. This is ironic because you take an even larger group and assume they all act as radicals while I point out that the grouping is too large to make such a distinction especially in a place like Chechnya.

I don't see it that way. people don't act as groups. they act as individuals in a group. to say they're more secular is meaningless.

My point is the conclusion you made. You assume they're just Muslim and ignore their Chechen ethnicity as relevant assuming they're just as radical as OBL. My point is that you shouldn't ignore their Chechen ethnicity and in fact that should be good reason to not reach such terrible conclusions.

Muslims religion. check

Any evidence of Jihad though? That would be like assuming since McVeigh was a Christian that he committed an act of terror simply because he was Christian.

traditional American event. check
attack on traditional American event. check

Doesn't make it anti-American...

also, the day they set off the bombs is Patriot's Day, a patriotic holiday to commemorate the anniversary of the Battles of Lexington and Concord.

Did you seriously celebrate that?

what part about this isn't anti American?

As far as we know it's as anti-American as the Columbine Shooters or the Olympic Bombings.

Of COURSE it was condemned by Chechen leaders. I mean, I don't see them celebrating an attack on American soil.

Many people do however, it gives further reason to say that religion didn't have much to do with it since especially for Chechens it's directed at Russians not Americans.

Also, it would be kind of hard to Bin Laden to send any messages.

Really?

Were they Al Qaeda operatives? no one knows, yet. Odds are, they're members of some group, a smart one that is keeping quiet. Declaring responsibility for an attack garners attention, and not always the good kind.

No groups commit these acts of terror solely to draw attention to themselves. The PLO did the same thing after it bombed planes.

Given that they managed to build and set off these bombs showed they had some sort of training to learn exactly how to set the bombs up without blowing themselves to bits in the process.

You can download bomb schematics over the internet, hell you can even learn how to hack computers over the internet. It doesn't mean they had training by some Al-Qaeda operative.

Anyone can make something as simple as a soda bottle bomb and use a long fireworks fuse to set it off, but the bombs used in Boston were far more sophisticated. It had a remote detonator as well as enough force to blow apart a pressure cooker, not something some ordinary fool off the street can make without the know-how. Even with instructions building a bomb is dangerous.

Right, i've heard of really dumb kids who download schematics over the internet, build the bomb then blow their fingers off.

Also, given how relaxed they were after the fact indicates that this wasn't some 'let's blow stuff up' whim. They were mentally prepared to see the carnage unfold.

RELAXED? ARE YOU RETARDED? THEY FUCKING RAN AND GOT INTO A FIREFIGHT WITH POLICE AT A UNIVERSITY AND THEN THE YOUNGER BROTHER FLED TO A BOAT BLEEDING TO DEATH. THEY WERE SURE AS HELL NOT RELAXED.

At 4/21/13 09:34 PM, Warforger wrote: RELAXED? ARE YOU RETARDED? THEY FUCKING RAN AND GOT INTO A FIREFIGHT WITH POLICE AT A UNIVERSITY AND THEN THE YOUNGER BROTHER FLED TO A BOAT BLEEDING TO DEATH. THEY WERE SURE AS HELL NOT RELAXED.

To be completely fair I think he was referring to the marathon bombing, not the following events that transpired. They were definitely acting nonchalant in all the thousands of pictures and videos.

At 4/21/13 03:33 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

Under very big stretches of the definitions.

No...not at all.

* The Aurora shooter identified with the Joker from Batman...specifically the Alan Moore Joker where the guy goes from outlandish mobster to a socio/psychopathic terrorist.

And? If I idolized Osama Bin Laden and then shot up a 7-11 that doesn't make me a terrorist, .... Mere idolization does not equate to an intent to cause widespread fear. ... The lack of a specific intent to cause fear or intimidation is missing as of right now.

Only about half right.

If you idolize UBL and shoot-up a 7-11, no that does not mean you're a terrorist. However, if you do it in the name of UBL in support of his goals...then you very much are a terrorist.

Secondly, everything from his dress down to the weapon he chose are about intimidation and fear.

That's like claim the use of firecrackers in an attack would change it to terrorism. While it technically fits under the statute, it clear does not classify as a "weapon of mass destruction" as a grenade, bomb, serin gas, anthrax, or snuke would.

Again...wrong.

Firecrackers do not have a physical effect on the victims. His use of incapacitants was meant to cause a harmful physiological change in his victims to cause pain and suffering in and of themselves...and make them easier to shoot.

So sorry...this is an absolutely false equivalency.

This is perhaps the closest thing to terrorism, however as it was targetted at law enforcement (the likely people to try to enter his hoe after such an attack) it becomes less and less torrorism as in the domestic (non-international) the police are not civilians, and the targetting of civilians is a major element of terrorism.

Again...wrong. Absolutely wrong.

1) The notion that targeting law enforcement or the military is different for the purpose of calling something terrorism...is completely off-base. Since terrorism is (most commonly) a politically motivated act and these groups are the most prominent symbols of government...they are often the most targeted group. Under this definiton Oklahoma City would not be terrorism since McVeigh was targeting the FBI/BATFe. Likewise, the Pentagon on 9/11 wouldn't qualify because it was a military target.

2) You are wrong at the core, even if the targeting point were correct. It was indiscrimate targeting. It was just as likely that his neighbors and/or landlord would enter his apartment. In fact one woman claimed she almost entered the apartment...but something stopped her (gut feeling). And even if it were the cops who entered...he designed it in such a way as to kill many of his neighbors.

This is still an extremely weak case for terrorism, as it still only appears that terror (going beyond the direct victims) was a byproduct and not a motive for the attack, his use of 'chemical' weapons was hardly enough enough (and the bar is very low) and his use of explosives wasn't targetted at civilians.

No...very strong case for terrorism. The weakness is trying to call it something other than it is.

* His intent was to terrorize in the mode of the fictional Joker, the terrorist incarnation.
* His chemical weapons choice was selected so that he could inflict more pain and fear into his attack.
* The notion that something is targeted at police does not make it any less terroristic.
* That he was targeting cops is also erroneous. He was targeting whoever opened his door...but knowing that cops do not routinely clear a building for a noise complaint...he packed his apartment with enough explosives to take out his neighbors. So he was targeting civilians.

At 4/22/13 08:06 AM, TheMason wrote: Secondly, everything from his dress down to the weapon he chose are about intimidation and fear.

You're missing very key nuance distinguishing terrorism from every crime that naturally creates fear in the victims. Terrorism is more than just creating fear in those who are directly victimized by the act (i.e. those who are physically hurt, killed, or witness it firsthand). It's about the intent to create fear among a large group of people beyond the specific crime.

If you mug someon, you're creating fear in the person you attack, but that's about where it ends. In some cases the fear will spread beyond the crime to others around them but without the intent of the perpetrator.

Terrorism has the very specific intent of spreading fear beyond the direct victims, almost to the point where the direct victims themselves are actually secondary thoughts in the perpetrator's mind. That is the key to terrorist intent. The intent for fear to travel beyond the act itself.

That's like claim the use of firecrackers in an attack would change it to terrorism. While it technically fits under the statute, it clear does not classify as a "weapon of mass destruction" as a grenade, bomb, serin gas, anthrax, or snuke would.

Again...wrong.

Firecrackers do not have a physical effect on the victims. His use of incapacitants was meant to cause a harmful physiological change in his victims to cause pain and suffering in and of themselves...and make them easier to shoot.

So sorry...this is an absolutely false equivalency.

This is perhaps the closest thing to terrorism, however as it was targetted at law enforcement (the likely people to try to enter his hoe after such an attack) it becomes less and less torrorism as in the domestic (non-international) the police are not civilians, and the targetting of civilians is a major element of terrorism.

Again...wrong. Absolutely wrong.

1) The notion that targeting law enforcement or the military is different for the purpose of calling something terrorism...is completely off-base. Since terrorism is (most commonly) a politically motivated act and these groups are the most prominent symbols of government...they are often the most targeted group. Under this definiton Oklahoma City would not be terrorism since McVeigh was targeting the FBI/BATFe. Likewise, the Pentagon on 9/11 wouldn't qualify because it was a military target.

2) You are wrong at the core, even if the targeting point were correct. It was indiscrimate targeting. It was just as likely that his neighbors and/or landlord would enter his apartment. In fact one woman claimed she almost entered the apartment...but something stopped her (gut feeling). And even if it were the cops who entered...he designed it in such a way as to kill many of his neighbors.

This is still an extremely weak case for terrorism, as it still only appears that terror (going beyond the direct victims) was a byproduct and not a motive for the attack, his use of 'chemical' weapons was hardly enough enough (and the bar is very low) and his use of explosives wasn't targetted at civilians.

No...very strong case for terrorism. The weakness is trying to call it something other than it is.

* His intent was to terrorize in the mode of the fictional Joker, the terrorist incarnation.
* His chemical weapons choice was selected so that he could inflict more pain and fear into his attack.
* The notion that something is targeted at police does not make it any less terroristic.
* That he was targeting cops is also erroneous. He was targeting whoever opened his door...but knowing that cops do not routinely clear a building for a noise complaint...he packed his apartment with enough explosives to take out his neighbors. So he was targeting civilians.

Don't know what happened up there... Pressed enter to go to a new paragraph and it sent it. ^^^

At 4/22/13 08:06 AM, TheMason wrote: Again...wrong.
Firecrackers do not have a physical effect on the victims. His use of incapacitants was meant to cause a harmful physiological change in his victims to cause pain and suffering in and of themselves...and make them easier to shoot.
So sorry...this is an absolutely false equivalency.

No it's not. It's a practicality. And YES, firecrackers CAN cause harm to the victims, but the harm it causes can in no way be considered a weapon of mass destruction, same as tear gas. Mass crying and coughing is HARDLY by any definition of the words, a "weapon of mass destruction" needed to be a per se terrorist act.

Again you miss the nuance above. I will fully admit that he created fear among those he directly attacked, and he likely intended to create that fear. However fear among the direct victims is not what makes terrorism terrorism. It's the intent to spread the fear far beyond the actual crime. If he had sent letters to other theaters saying "you're next" then you might star getting into terrorism territory, but as of yet, the evidence only shows that his intent to create fear was very isolated.

Under this definiton Oklahoma City would not be terrorism since McVeigh was targeting the FBI/BATFe.

His attack did target Federal Agents, yes. But (here's the key) it also intentionally targetted civilians as well.

Likewise, the Pentagon on 9/11 wouldn't qualify because it was a military target.

If it were merely an attack on the Pentagon and not a part of a coordinated attack on civilians as well, I'd agree. However, the 9/11 Pentagon attack was not a stand alone incident, rather it was part of a larger attack which intentionally targetted civilians.

2) You are wrong at the core, even if the targeting point were correct. It was indiscrimate targeting. It was just as likely that his neighbors and/or landlord would enter his apartment. In fact one woman claimed she almost entered the apartment...but something stopped her (gut feeling). And even if it were the cops who entered...he designed it in such a way as to kill many of his neighbors.

Like I said this is the closest part to terrorism. Something about it does not strike as terrorism though (perhaps it's the timing). As he had already perpetrated his non-terrorist act, the boobytrapped apartment appears to be more of a trap for police than for civilians, and seems to be more a punishment for capturing/killing him than an act of terrorism. It fits many of the elements, but I have a very hard time seeing this (the apartment booby trapping) actually classified, prosecuted, and convicted as terrorism.

* His intent was to terrorize in the mode of the fictional Joker, the terrorist incarnation.
* His chemical weapons choice was selected so that he could inflict more pain and fear into his attack.

Fear of the direct victims is 100% irrelevant to the determination of terrorism.

* The notion that something is targeted at police does not make it any less terroristic.

A key part of terrorism is civilians. Attacking police officers on duty does not count as an attack on civilians (unless the actor is part of a foreign organization).

* That he was targeting cops is also erroneous. He was targeting whoever opened his door...but knowing that cops do not routinely clear a building for a noise complaint...he packed his apartment with enough explosives to take out his neighbors. So he was targeting civilians.

We don't know who he was targetting. He hasn't said. However, the nature of his boobytrapping while he went off on the attack indicates it was a trap for the ensuing/inevitable investigation.

according to the brother, there is no terror group links (that he knows of)

if this is true, this could be more disturbing than if he did have one. He basically just showed other Jihadist wannabes that it CAN be done.

hopefully they also see how he was shot like a stray dog.

At 4/23/13 12:35 AM, Korriken wrote: according to the brother, there is no terror group links (that he knows of)

So you've learned a lesson about immediately jumping to those conclusions in the future?

if this is true, this could be more disturbing than if he did have one.

Um, if he's saying there's no link. The FBI hasn't released anything, and no groups have stepped up to claim them or any responsibility for what they did, seems to me it's true until new evidence says it isn't.

He basically just showed other Jihadist wannabes that it CAN be done.

Again, has it been claimed this was motivated by radical Islam? Because I've still seen nothing really released about a motive yet...you were wrong in your speculations so far, and yet you still want to cling to this one...

At 4/23/13 09:13 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Again, has it been claimed this was motivated by radical Islam? Because I've still seen nothing really released about a motive yet...you were wrong in your speculations so far, and yet you still want to cling to this one...

I actually have heard that he said he was motiated by his religion. Also, that his brother (the ringleader) followed Al Awaki and some other Chechen Islamic militant.

At 4/23/13 09:13 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 4/23/13 12:35 AM, Korriken wrote: according to the brother, there is no terror group links (that he knows of)

So you've learned a lesson about immediately jumping to those conclusions in the future?

just because he said it doesn't make it true. we'll see.

Um, if he's saying there's no link. The FBI hasn't released anything, and no groups have stepped up to claim them or any responsibility for what they did, seems to me it's true until new evidence says it isn't.

It was once also true that if you left some hay in the corner of the barn it would spawn mice... well, until people found out that's not how it works.

Again, has it been claimed this was motivated by radical Islam? Because I've still seen nothing really released about a motive yet...you were wrong in your speculations so far, and yet you still want to cling to this one...

well the brother said he wanted to 'defend islam' from attack so I would imagine it has something to do with Islam.

After 9/11 if people can't see what the American Government is willing to do to get the people behind the War Machine then nothing will wake them up.

At 4/24/13 03:12 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Good news he could face the death penalty!

Killing more people will not bring back the ones that have died nor will it fix the problem. A long term jail sentence is far more brutal than the quick and easy way out being death by injection.

At 4/24/13 03:48 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 4/24/13 03:46 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 4/24/13 03:12 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Good news he could face the death penalty!

Killing more people will not bring back the ones that have died nor will it fix the problem. A long term jail sentence is far more brutal than the quick and easy way out being death by injection.

maybe or putting him in General Population in San Quentin Prison (the baddest of the baddies go there) and see how long he lasts. let the inmates do the dirty work.

The system is very effective and the lines are made crystal clear and if you cross them lines your time in jail is made extremely difficult to say the least. Rapists, Murders "depending on circumstances" and especially pedophiles get as close to hell on earth when in jail. See it's the mind games that are worse treatment than anything plus the sexual and physical assaults thrown in but the mental trauma is the worst even if you are a solid guy doing solid time for solid crime. The place of a solid criminals in jail is to keep "pieces of shit" in a constant state of desperation and fear for you well being.

At 4/24/13 03:45 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: After 9/11 if people can't see what the American Government is willing to do to get the people behind the War Machine then nothing will wake them up.

What, you think we're going to go to war with Chechnya now?

At 4/24/13 05:33 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 4/24/13 03:45 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: After 9/11 if people can't see what the American Government is willing to do to get the people behind the War Machine then nothing will wake them up.

What, you think we're going to go to war with Chechnya now?

At this point it would quite honestly not surprise me if America declared War on itself to ensure "National Security".

At 4/24/13 06:21 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 4/24/13 05:33 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 4/24/13 03:45 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At this point it would quite honestly not surprise me if America declared War on itself to ensure "National Security".

How do they do that exactly? How exactly is a "war" ensure national security, when you missed the point entirely?

At 4/24/13 06:31 PM, orangebomb wrote:

How do they do that exactly? How exactly is a "war" ensure national security, when you missed the point entirely?

War is the best guise to remove rights and freedoms from the people. It has nothing to do with National Security really.

At 4/24/13 06:36 PM, Ceratisa wrote:

You understand the difference between jail and prison right? Because your rant really seems to suggest that you don't. Jail typically under a year or people awaiting trail etc

Prison convicted criminals serving more than a year.

Have you been to jail ?

At 4/24/13 03:46 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 4/24/13 03:12 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Good news he could face the death penalty!

Killing more people will not bring back the ones that have died nor will it fix the problem. A long term jail sentence is far more brutal than the quick and easy way out being death by injection.

You make it sound like brutality is the goal. A death sentence wont bring back the dead or fix the problem, but neither will putting him in jail. I don't think its right to wish for misfortune for this man as a forum of revenge under the guise of justice. I also don't think its right to kill him for revenge.

At 4/24/13 09:41 PM, Mechicken wrote:

You make it sound like brutality is the goal. A death sentence wont bring back the dead or fix the problem, but neither will putting him in jail. I don't think its right to wish for misfortune for this man as a forum of revenge under the guise of justice. I also don't think its right to kill him for revenge.

I don't think it has anything to do with revenge it has to do with paying a debt for a heinous and unspeakable crime.

At 4/24/13 09:44 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 4/24/13 09:41 PM, Mechicken wrote:

I don't think it has anything to do with revenge it has to do with paying a debt for a heinous and unspeakable crime.

Asking him to pay a debt for his crime is revenge.

At 4/24/13 10:04 PM, Ceratisa wrote:

At 4/24/13 06:42 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 4/24/13 06:36 PM, Ceratisa wrote:

You understand the difference between jail and prison right? Because your rant really seems to suggest that you don't. Jail typically under a year or people awaiting trail etc

Prison convicted criminals serving more than a year.

Have you been to jail ?

background legal system, prison and jail are very different and the distinction is important.

I guess that depends on where you live right ? If you have not been to prison, jail/ Remand then I would STFU !

At 4/24/13 10:06 PM, Mechicken wrote:

At 4/24/13 09:44 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 4/24/13 09:41 PM, Mechicken wrote:

I don't think it has anything to do with revenge it has to do with paying a debt for a heinous and unspeakable crime.

Asking him to pay a debt for his crime is revenge.

LOL so you advocate people not be held accountable for their actions ? We are adults and we must be responsible for all of our actions and held accountable.