Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 4/24/13 10:16 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:
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.

I never said I advocate not holding people accountable for things. I agree with the idea of holding people accountable for their actions. But I don't think killing them, or having the things that are done in prison done to them are good ways to hold them accountable for their actions.

---

At 4/24/13 10:26 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 4/24/13 10:16 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: 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.

no were saying he should be held accountable and be sentenced to death (from my understanding) or we just throw him in General Population and let the inmates beat him to death because there should be no way this asshole should get maximum security in a solitary wing.

just feed him to the general population.

Yup that's what I am advocating as well that's how the jail system works. If that guy is put into Gen Pop he will get fucked up and toyed with by the guards and inmates day in and day out everyday which will make him wish he was dead. That's if he is a goof. To be honest I don't even know the particulars of this Boston Bombing and so it's hard to say if this dude is a goof.

---

At 4/24/13 10:26 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:
no were saying he should be held accountable and be sentenced to death (from my understanding) or we just throw him in General Population and let the inmates beat him to death because there should be no way this asshole should get maximum security in a solitary wing.

just feed him to the general population.

I never suggested any of that.

---

At 4/24/13 10:31 PM, Mechicken wrote:

At 4/24/13 10:16 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:
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.

I never said I advocate not holding people accountable for things. I agree with the idea of holding people accountable for their actions. But I don't think killing them, or having the things that are done in prison done to them are good ways to hold them accountable for their actions.

True the Prison system does not actually correct people and I think that if someone has a chance to be corrected of their past behaviors no matter how heinous then that's what should be done but I don't want dirt bags living next door to me when they get out of the clink.

---

At 4/24/13 10:36 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:
True the Prison system does not actually correct people and I think that if someone has a chance to be corrected of their past behaviors no matter how heinous then that's what should be done but I don't want dirt bags living next door to me when they get out of the clink.

If they were actually corrected, and I hesitate to phrase it that way because of the nature of correcting people, then they would no longer be dirt bags.

---

At 4/24/13 10:52 PM, Mechicken wrote:

At 4/24/13 10:36 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:
True the Prison system does not actually correct people and I think that if someone has a chance to be corrected of their past behaviors no matter how heinous then that's what should be done but I don't want dirt bags living next door to me when they get out of the clink.

If they were actually corrected, and I hesitate to phrase it that way because of the nature of correcting people, then they would no longer be dirt bags.

Only the dirt bag would truly know if he will re offend. I don't want to take the chance in my community that a known convict might snap at any moment.

---

At 4/22/13 12:13 PM, Camarohusky wrote: 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.

I am not missing this nuance at all. In fact, I am saying that this is the case in the Aurora shooting, and you seem to be missing some key facts that show that Holmes had this intent.

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.

Not true at all.

1) What is mass destruction? It is the targeting of multiple people at the same time. A weapon of mass destruction is ONE that is capable of effecting a large group if people with just one shot. An AR-15 with a 100 rd drum is not a WMD because it requires 100 shots. Tear gas on the other hand is capable of effecting many people with just one canister.

2) To say that it is only capable of causing crying and coughing is to downplay its capabilities. An incapacitant works by constricting and otherwise reacting with the cardiovascular system...causing an extreme physical reaction. In most people the effects are painful and incapacitating...but temporary. In other people with underlying cardiovascular issues the results can be deadly.

3) He was using the incapacitants in order to make his other weapons more effective.

Again you miss the nuance above. ... It's the intent to spread the fear far beyond the actual crime. ... the evidence only shows that his intent to create fear was very isolated.

Still not missing the nuance.

Holmes is unique amongst mass shooters. He wore body armor, had a plan of escape (more on that in a minute), and did not kill himself when police arrived. Practically every other mass shooter is a suicide mission, why wasn't Holmes'? My gut instinct, and we'll see if this comes out in the trial or after the trial as we study the guy, is that he would have continued his terror campaign.

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

No...he did not target civilians. The target was federal agents.

Did he know about the civilians in the building? Yes. But they were, in his sick mind, collateral damage...and not what he was targeting.

In war the US military tries to minimize collateral damage. We strike key military targets when the least amount of people are present. For example, say there is a building where Dictator X is creating a biological weapon. We know it is operational from 6 am to 9pm. From 9pm to 6am there is only a janitor and security guard. So we blow it up at midnight killing the janitor and security guard. Are we targeting the janitor and security guard? No. We are targeting the building.

Same thing goes for McVeigh's logic.

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.

And you would be wrong.

Terrorists who are politically minded seek out targets that fit into three categories:
* Government
* Economic
* Military/Law Enforcement

Terrorism can be targeted against military and law enforcement personnel & agencies...that the target is military or LE in NO way disqualifies an act as being terrorist in nature. To assert otherwise is just plain wrong.

Believe it or not, it was not until after 9/11 that UBL issued a fatwa that said al-Qaida could target civilians. Up until the war in Iraq, al-Qaida believed that targeting civilians who were not engaged in actively supporting the US government was a sin.

So why was the WTC hit? Because it was, to al-Qaida's thinking, an economic target that directly supported US hegemony...and therefore just as responsible for killing Muslims as a soldier with a gun in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Somalia.

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.

Again...absolutely wrong.
It was not set as a trap for police. Think about it, it was an apartment complex that rented to college students. He set-up a timer to blare music in the middle of the night. From reports I've read, what he wanted to happen was his neighbors to open his door...set off the trap and level the building. He was targetting his neighbors! While he probably figured that it was equally likely the cops would be called as a neighbor opening the door...he still intended to kill his neighbors.

You're assumption that this would 'revenge' for apprehending him is also wrong. He planned his attack inside the theater to coincide with the destruction at his apartment because it would tie-up police and first responders at that scene which would allow him to get away. Secondly, if it was revenge...why the timer? The timer draws attention to his apartment and would be unusual behavior that would alert police to the trap. Instead, if it was revenge for arresting him...there would be no timer and no loud music because the cops would be coming there anyway...no need to draw attention.

So here is where the nuance you think I'm missing comes into play. He planned multiple attacks, and had he been successful in getting away we would have seen the entire Aurora, CO area on lock-down and terrified of this manic on the loose. He would have spread the terror past the victims of the theater and his apartment complex.

* 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.

You miss the point:
* The Joker he was portraying spread fear beyond his direct victims.
* Had he gotten away as planned, his use of homemade CW and explosives would have caused fear in the entire Aurora, Co area.

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).

Again...not true at all.

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.

Not at all.

* He timed his attack in the theater to coincide with the bomb in his apartment going off.
* If he wanted to trap the investigators...why set the timer off? Why draw them in when it was inevitable that they would investigate his apartment?

There is very little in the nature of his booby trapping that indicates it was a trap targeting law enforcement.

---

At 4/21/13 09:30 PM, Dawnslayer wrote:

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?

Generally speaking, terrorists are grouped. You rarely ever hear of "a lone terrorist" the media calls them a bomber, its always "a terrorist organization". In the eyes of the media, and thus many people who are swayed by them, terrorists do not act alone. This could very well be false, but it is rarely publicized. I was simply stating facts.

---

At 6/10/13 10:58 PM, Wolfe143 wrote: This could very well be false,

It's false. A terrorist is merely a person who commits terrorism. No organization needed, though it is extremely common for terrorists to belong or identify with terrorist organizations.

---

At 6/10/13 10:58 PM, Wolfe143 wrote: Generally speaking, terrorists are grouped.

Heard of Oklahoma City bombing? It killed nearly 200 and it was done by 2 people.

You rarely ever hear of "a lone terrorist" the media calls them a bomber, its always "a terrorist organization".

A person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims. This is from Merriam-Webster dictionary. People have been defining the term like this for long time. And you come along to re-define it?

I was simply stating facts.

Calling personal opinions as facts is like calling your mother a whore.

---

At 4/15/13 04:18 PM, LordJaric wrote: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/15/17764747-explosio ns-rock-finish-of-boston-marathon-2-killed-and-at-least-23-h urt-police-say?lite

Just going to repost what I post in the comments on the site.

Let's not jump to conclusions we don't know much about what happened so before we start the blame game and start screaming terrorist and point fingers between the republicans and democrats lets wait for more information. For all we know this was the act of a nut case, not a terrorist group.

What I hope doesn't happen is that AMericans don't get more rights taken away from them whether the bombers were outside terrorists or false flags. Nobody's ever gonna know anyway, so it's best to focus on the results of the fallout. Don't let more rights get taken trading security for liberty.

---

It was more muzzie terrorist. It will only get worst like in Europe as the Muslim Brotherhood gains influence