Right-wing vs. Left-wing Clashes [MOD NOTE POST #1]

pitifulgod

It simply is not the same... One involves objections to a state's domestic foreign policy. You could totally argue it as hate if anti semetic tropes etc were used etc. Put it into a court room as hate speech and it simply would not be recognised as hate speech.

The logical progression of your argument would be to not recognise any form of hate crimes btw.

johnnyskeleton

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

If twitter links aren,t to be posted, I hope 1 youtube link is alright

Mod note:

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are genuinely uncertain about the rules. Theres no problem with links, in fact they are encouraged if they support your argument. But link drumps, news dumps, twitter dumps etc where there is no original content of the posters own is not permitted.

If the link is a video, please provide a summary in your post for posters on mobile devices. Again, you must provide your own views in the post, and not just rely on a link and a description of that link.

The link and point you are making must relate to the thread and must further the debate in some shape or form.

In evolving situations as have occurred in relation to this topic, we might not be able to sanction every link dump to breaking news, twitters etc. But that doesnt mean that the rules dont apply or that link dumps should be encouraged.

Please read the charter instead of commenting on it in thread in future.

Akrasia

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Because I don,t believe in or accept the concept of hate speech aka thought crime, ( 1 ) untruths/lies about someone can damage a persons reputation which  I think should be a punishable offence, ( 2 ) inciting violence you re advocating to physically harm someone else  which  I think should be a punishable offence.

You think it's wrong to say untruths about individuals, but if someone spreads lies about a group of people and damage their reputation, that's ok?

Eg, "John Doe is a rapist" = Slander
"Muslim immigrants are all rapists" = ???

There are Websites and organisations that devote all their time to spreading lies about whatever group they hate. They know they're lies, but they also know that a certain percentage of people will believe them and will become racist or become more motivated to take racist actions against them.

The Legend Of Kira

pitifulgod wrote: »

It simply is not the same... One involves objections to a state's domestic foreign policy. You could totally argue it as hate if anti semetic tropes etc were used etc. Put it into a court room as hate speech and it simply would not be recognised as hate speech.

The logical progression of your argument would be to not recognise any form of hate crimes btw.

The problem is you are wrong there, it has being recognized as hate speech in France already, see the links.

http://www.thetower.org/2479-french-high-court-bds-is-a-form-of-illegal-hate-speech/

http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/337679/french-bds-activists-lose-hate-speech-appeal/

Once you have hate speech laws its about how the courts will Interpret things if a court case is brought.

The Legend Of Kira

Akrasia wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Because I don,t believe in or accept the concept of hate speech aka thought crime, ( 1 ) untruths/lies about someone can damage a persons reputation which  I think should be a punishable offence, ( 2 ) inciting violence you re advocating to physically harm someone else  which  I think should be a punishable offence.

You think it's wrong to say untruths about individuals, but if someone spreads lies about a group of people and damage their reputation, that's ok?

Eg, "John Doe is a rapist" =  Slander
"Muslim immigrants are all rapists" = ???

There are Websites and organisations that devote all their time to spreading lies about whatever group they hate. They know they're lies, but they also know that a certain percentage of people will believe them and will become racist or become more motivated to take racist actions against them.

If someone says one group are all rapists = libel, when news is reported about events like Cologne new years eve 2015, its not hate speech nor libel to point out when people engage in wrongdoing regardless of what group they are a member of/belong to .

pitifulgod

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

The problem is you are wrong there, it has being recognized as hate speech in France already, see the links.

http://www.thetower.org/2479-french-high-court-bds-is-a-form-of-illegal-hate-speech/

http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/337679/french-bds-activists-lose-hate-speech-appeal/

Once you have hate speech laws its about how the courts will Interpret things if a court case is brought.

Quick check on French law is that their hate crime law is far broader than standard hate crime laws and includes a mention of "national groups". So it only applies to one piece of hate crime legislation in one country. Not applicable to Ireland for example. So more of a matter of wording with legislation which applies to every piece of legislation.

Sweetemotion

So after all the statues are gone what next?

Paintings, books, street names. What then after that? because there always has to be something.

This is just insane, what is wrong with these people? Most of the videos I've seen of Antifa et el, are just a bunch of little spoiled white kids who want everything in life paid for by the tax payer. What's going to happen when they are the tax payer with their useless gender studies phd and other useless degrees. There is even a Beyonce professor at Rutgers University wishing someone would just shoot Trump. I mean c'mon a Beyonce professor??? Pure madness.

pitifulgod

The statue of General Lee is being moved to a museum so hardly forgotten. Also it was literally erected during the 20s as part of Jim Crowe era politics. It was very much so a jab at black Americans. Moving things to a more suitable location does occur. Queen Victoria used stand outside of Leinster House, it now stands in Sydney.

Sweetemotion

pitifulgod wrote: »

The statue of General Lee is being moved to a museum so hardly forgotten. Also it was literally erected during the 20s as part of Jim Crowe era politics. It was very much so a jab at black Americans. Moving things to a more suitable location does occur. Queen Victoria used stand outside of Leinster House, it now stands in Sydney.

Do you think after these lunatics have moved all the statues they think might offend people are going to stop at that?

pitifulgod

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Do you think after these lunatics have moved all the statues they think might offend people are going to stop at that?

The local government took a vote to remove the statue, your rant implies the destruction of history. In fact, it's still remembered in a museum. You consider the moving of a statue into a museum to be the work of lunatics? Locals for the most part had no objection to moving it with the exception of the white supremacist who arranged the rally.....

Sweetemotion

pitifulgod wrote: »

The local government took a vote to remove the statue, your rant implies the destruction of history. In fact, it's still remembered in a museum. You consider the moving of a statue into a museum to be the work of lunatics? Locals for the most part had no objection to moving it with the exception of the white supremacist who arranged the rally.....

They are lunatics as for white supremacists is that really a big movement in America? I think not but it's a good boogeyman.

Brian?

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Do you think after these lunatics have moved all the statues they think might offend people are going to stop at that?

You think the Charlottesville city council are lunatics?

Sweetemotion

Brian? wrote: »

You think the Charlottesville city council are lunatics?

I think Charlottesville city council have been pressured by these lunatics.

Here is a video of what one Charlottesville police officer thinks of these lunatics and I think he is spot on.

Sweetemotion

Sorry the link isn't from CNN but the video speaks for its self.

pitifulgod

Sweetemotion wrote: »

They are lunatics as for white supremacists is that really a big movement in America? I think not but it's a good boogeyman.

The rally over the statue was by white supremacists, it's very much so relevant. Nobody in the area had issues with moving the statue. The lunatics were the white supremacists...

marcus001

Sweetemotion wrote: »

I think Charlottesville city council have been pressured by these lunatics.

Here is a video of what one Charlottesville police officer thinks of these lunatics and I think he is spot on.

This is a very interesting video about the mindset of the ideologically possessed. You can clearly see it on display in that video you posted.

https://youtu.be/JBCtX9lmsGQ

Its interesting at the end of the video where that woman says "can't walk put of the park by yourself, huh?" to a man twice her size with a rifle on his shoulder.

It actually explains why a lot of them join these type of mobs. It gives them a feeling of power they wouldn't ordinarily have. When in life would a woman get to bully and intimidate a man like that? Never, unless you join some group which puts you in a position to hector and harass people from behind a police cordon.

Sweetemotion

pitifulgod wrote: »

The rally over the statue was by white supremacists, it's very much so relevant. Nobody in the area had issues with moving the statue. The lunatics were the white supremacists...

How do you know that nobody in the area had no issues with the removal?

The city council voted after being pressured not the people. In anyway what if a minority of people wanted to keep the statue. Shouldn't they be allowed too? after the left wants the same right for minorities.

pitifulgod

Sweetemotion wrote: »

How do you know that nobody in the area had no issues with the removal?

The city council voted after being pressured not the people. In anyway what if a minority of people wanted to keep the statue. Shouldn't they be allowed too? after the left wants the same right for minorities.

The local area is known to be rather liberal in general, the one local attendant at the rally was a white supremacist. It seems more like you are the one who is outraged for the sake of it. Do you also object to the founders of the state removing a Queen Victoria statue from outside of Leinster House? Were they also lunatic? You seem pretty unconcerned by the actual nature of the rally...

InTheTrees

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Sorry the link isn't from CNN but the video speaks for its self.

No, it isnt is it?

The video is made by VFN "Very Fake News".

And they arent very good actors.

Sweetemotion

pitifulgod wrote: »

The local area is known to be rather liberal in general, the one local attendant at the rally was a white supremacist. It seems more like you are the one who is outraged for the sake of it. Do you also object to the founders of the state removing a Queen Victoria statue from outside of Leinster House? Were they also lunatic? You seem pretty unconcerned by the actual nature of the rally...

The problem here is. You and I both know this going to stop at statues it's going to be something else that offends and something else after that and so. There will be no end because these people ooze being offended it's all they live for and all they have.

Sweetemotion

InTheTrees wrote: »

No, it isnt is it?

The video is made by VFN "Very Fake News".

And they arent very good actors.

Prove that. I knew the source would be criticised because you have nothing else.

Danzy

Year Zero mentality.

20Cent

InTheTrees wrote: »

No, it isnt is it?

The video is made by VFN "Very Fake News".

And they arent very good actors.

The amount of hatred generated by alt right factions trolling each other is remarkable. The are a load a fake antifa facebook and twitter accounts ****posting and other right wingers are getting all rilled up about it.

People are being injured because they believe troll accounts.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/01/patriot-shoots-himself-in-leg-at-gettysburg.html

InTheTrees

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Prove that. I knew the source would be criticised because you have nothing else.

Prove it? The graphic is right there on the screen.

"Very Fake News"

And really just watch them, they're clearly faking it.

Sweetemotion

InTheTrees wrote: »

Prove it? The graphic is right there on the screen.

"Very Fake News"

And really just watch them, they're clearly faking it.

Ah c'mon now. You're smarter than that. Don't play stupid.

The Legend Of Kira

pitifulgod wrote: »

It simply is not the same... One involves objections to a state's domestic foreign policy. You could totally argue it as hate if anti semetic tropes etc were used etc. Put it into a court room as hate speech and it simply would not be recognised as hate speech.

The logical progression of your argument would be to not recognise any form of hate crimes btw.

""The logical progression of your argument would be to not recognise any form of hate crimes btw. ""

I should of replied to this part earlier on,, I didn,t use the term/phrase " hate crime " in my posts, I was referring to the concept of " hate speech " as another form of thoughtcrime, but since you brought up the term " hatecrime " I shall reply & elaborate.

" Hatecrime " I do accept exists & should be recognized as a punishable offence under the law some cases I will refer to.

"" ALAMEDA — A synagogue in Alameda was vandalized this week in what some worry could be a reaction to the violence in Charlottesville and its aftermath. ""

"" Carl Johnson, 25, had just moved to Rochdale, Greater Manchester, and went into local pub to meet new people before he was attacked on the street on his way home ""

http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/08/18/synagogue-vandalized-in-alameda-in-wake-of-charlottesville/

[font=PT Serif, Times, sans-serif]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/gay-man-carl-johnson-homophobic-attack-pub-rochdale-manchester-hate-crime-lgbt-a7898136.html[/font]

[font=PT Serif, Times, sans-serif]Cases such as these where places of worship are attacked + when someone is physically attacked because of their sexual orientation , should be classed as + recognized as hatecrimes that carries legal punishment .[/font]

Whereas with the concept of hate speech,  expression of opinions no matter how offensive or distasteful someone finds it, is just that an expression of an opinion, speech is merely the expression of a thought it is not an action, if we are to say people should be legally punished under the law for expression of opinions someone finds offensive under the guise of " hate speech " we are punishing someone of the expression of his/her thoughts, which is nothing other then thoughcrime by another name.
12
nagogue on edge after vandalism in Alameda

marcus001

InTheTrees wrote: »

Prove it? The graphic is right there on the screen.

"Very Fake News"

And really just watch them, they're clearly faking it.

I think "Very Fake News" is an ironic play on Trump's insult at CNN. Its not a site like the Onion.

And they're not "clearly faking it". What kind of conspiracist are you. Do you think the cop is in on it too?

Here's the first video I found in that channel.
https://youtu.be/YxfKRGfiAYI

How does a channel with only 12k subscribers afford so many actors?

20Cent

InTheTrees wrote: »

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Sorry the link isn't from CNN but the video speaks for its self.

No, it isnt is it?

The video is made by VFN "Very Fake News".

And they arent very good actors.

He was right.
"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters," Trump said at a campaign rally.

Fortunatly the believers are dwindling rapidly.

marcus001

20Cent wrote: »

He was right.
"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters," Trump said at a campaign rally.

Fortunatly the believers are dwindling rapidly.

What does Trump have to do with this?

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Can we move on from this video please?

Akrasia

marcus001 wrote: »

This is a very interesting video about the mindset of the ideologically possessed. You can clearly see it on display in that video you posted.

https://youtu.be/JBCtX9lmsGQ

Its interesting at the end of the video where that woman says "can't walk put of the park by yourself, huh?" to a man twice her size with a rifle on his shoulder.

It actually explains why a lot of them join these type of mobs. It gives them a feeling of power they wouldn't ordinarily have. When in life would a woman get to bully and intimidate a man like that? Never, unless you join some group which puts you in a position to hector and harass people from behind a police cordon.

I'll never understand why the police allow people to come to these protests carrying weapons. I know there are open carry laws, but surely the police have some discretion to decide when carrying gun constitutes threatening behaviour or presents a threat to public safety.

Freedom of speech should not include the right to go to an incendiary protest carrying an assault rifle. You can complain about the people shouting 'go home' to the guy standing still and saluting and say that they're bullying him, and intimidating him, but he was the guy who chose to bring a massive gun with him. It's supposed to be a show of force. It doesn't quite work out when you're the only one who actually turned up though.

Anyone who goes to a 'peaceful protest' with a gun or knives of baseball bat should have those weapons confiscated by the police.

Brian?

Sweetemotion wrote: »

How do you know that nobody in the area had no issues with the removal?

The city council voted after being pressured not the people. In anyway what if a minority of people wanted to keep the statue. Shouldn't they be allowed too? after the left wants the same right for minorities.

How do you know the city council were "pressured"? Could be hey perhaps have been
Lobbied and agreed it was the right thing to do?

marcus001

Akrasia wrote: »

I'll never understand why the police allow people to come to these protests carrying weapons. I know there are open carry laws, but surely the police have some discretion to decide when carrying gun constitutes threatening behaviour or presents a threat to public safety.

Freedom of speech should not include the right to go to an incendiary protest carrying an assault rifle. You can complain about the people shouting 'go home' to the guy standing still and saluting and say that they're bullying him, and intimidating him, but he was the guy who chose to bring a massive gun with him. It's supposed to be a show of force. It doesn't quite work out when you're the only one who actually turned up though.

Anyone who goes to a 'peaceful protest' with a gun or knives of baseball bat should have those weapons confiscated by the police.

Yeah I'm tempted to agree but you never know really. If he didn't have that gun and there were no cameras are we sure he would have walked out unscathed?

If a man standing and saluting a monument in a public park is considered "incendiary" to you, you may be a extremist.

Brian?

marcus001 wrote: »

Yeah I'm tempted to agree but you never know really. If he didn't have that gun and there were no cameras are we sure he would have walked out unscathed?

If a man standing and saluting a monument in a public park is considered "incendiary" to you, you may be a extremist.

Ah come on. A man dressed in a Nazi uniform, giving a Nazi salute is "incendiary" to anyone with even a basic knowledge of the holocaust.

Nazis slaughter millions of innocent people in concentration camps, because no one stood up to them. Never again.

Akrasia

Brian? wrote: »

Ah come on. A man dressed in a Nazi uniform, giving a Nazi salute is "incendiary" to anyone with even a basic knowledge of the holocaust.

Nazis slaughter millions of innocent people in concentration camps, because no one stood up to them. Never again.

TBF, the man in the video I referred to wasn't dressed as a Nazi, he was holding a confederate flag and saluting using the normal military salute

But he was there specifically to make a political statement in sympathy with the white supremacists in Charlottesville, and the counter protesters shouting 'Terrorist go home' might have been invading his personal space, but they were just shouting, and he was the guy who brought a weapon to the protest.

But as per mod instructions, we're not really meant to be focusing on that particular video. There are lots and lots of other videos of heavily armed men in paramilitary uniforms waving nazi flags at supposedly peaceful protests.

Tony EH

Nobody comes out of that video looking well. Let's be honest here.

We have a cosplaying clown, with an AR-15 slung on his shoulder, looking for trouble.

And a load of idiots roaring their heads off at him, within an inch of his face, shouting absolute nonsense.

America...the rest of the world is laughing at you.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Oki doke, we'll leave it there so.

Billy86

So it seems more of Trump's more vocal, supporters once challenged have gone and lost their collective testicles up their stomach somewhere.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/act-cancel-america-first-rallies-largest-anti-muslim-group-counter-protesters-a7906836.html

The largest anti-Muslim group in the US is cancelling dozens of planned rallies having witnessed the number of anti-right wing protesters who gathered in Boston to demonstrate against white nationalists.

ACT for America was scheduled to hold 67 rallies in 36 states on September 9 to show its support for the “common sense America First” policies proposed by Donald Trump. The group claims the policies “prioritise real protection over political correctness, and celebrate American exceptionalism”.

But after thousands of people turned out to protest against white nationalism and white supremacy in Boston last weekend - a show of strength that led the organisers of the so-called free speech rally to cut short the event - ACT has said it is calling off its own rallies and will hold an online day of action instead.

...

The group did not immediately respond to inquiries. The Southern Poverty Law Centre, an Alabama-based research group that monitors extremism, said since ACT’s founding it had “grown into far and away the largest grassroots anti-Muslim group in America”.

It said that ACT had worked “to advance anti-Muslim legislation at the local and federal level while flooding the American public with wild hate speech demonising Muslims”.

The group quoted a comment made by Ms Gabriel in 2015, in which she said: “Europe will no longer be Europe by 2050. Europe has already become Eurabia. Europe is Eurabia right now.”

Typical bullying cowards, stoke and stoke and stoke the flames until a fire breaks out, then run for cover and look for other people to blame.

The Legend Of Kira

Billy86 wrote: »

So it seems more of Trump's more vocal, supporters once challenged have gone and lost their collective testicles up their stomach somewhere.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/act-cancel-america-first-rallies-largest-anti-muslim-group-counter-protesters-a7906836.html

The largest anti-Muslim group in the US is cancelling dozens of planned rallies having witnessed the number of anti-right wing protesters who gathered in Boston to demonstrate against white nationalists.

ACT for America was scheduled to hold 67 rallies in 36 states on September 9 to show its support for the “common sense America First” policies proposed by Donald Trump. The group claims the policies  “prioritise real protection over political correctness, and celebrate American exceptionalism”.

But after thousands of people turned out to protest against white nationalism and white supremacy in Boston last weekend - a show of strength that led the organisers of the so-called free speech rally to cut short the event - ACT has said it is calling off its own rallies and will hold an online day of action instead.

...

The group did not immediately respond to inquiries. The Southern Poverty Law Centre, an Alabama-based research group that monitors extremism, said since ACT’s founding it had “grown into far and away the largest grassroots anti-Muslim group in America”.

It said that ACT had worked “to advance anti-Muslim legislation at the local and federal level while flooding the American public with wild hate speech demonising Muslims”.

The group quoted a comment made by Ms Gabriel in 2015, in which she said: “Europe will no longer be Europe by 2050. Europe has already become Eurabia. Europe is Eurabia right now.”

Typical bullying cowards, stoke and stoke and stoke the flames until a fire breaks out, then run for cover and look for other people to blame.

I know Act for America are an Anti Islam group, they have positions & opinions that some people mightn,t agree with, but just because they have opinions some people disagree with doesn,t make them bullies, last time I checked Act for America doesn,t go around attacking people in the street they disagree with nor they riot in the streets when left wing speakers are invited to speak at colleges unlike some on the other side, ok so they oppose Islam , so what if they oppose Islam ? to do a comparison some groups actively oppose Scientology , no one calls such  groups that oppose Scientology as " racist " etc, why is it ok to oppose Scientology but somehow " racist " to oppose Islam ?

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Thread reopened. Please read the mod warning in post #1 if you haven't been following the other mod warnings.

Relevant posts moved over from the Trump thread.

The Legend Of Kira

Over the last few months some people have said its only " white supremacists " groups like Antifa target & attack etc, from this past weekend, here is an African American Trump supporter getting attacked & punched for the thoughtcrime of being a Trump supporter .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvsPv_NQSuk

https://bigleaguepolitics.com/video-black-trump-supporter-sucker-punched-holding-milo-book/

Sweetemotion

Man charged for trying to blow up Confederate statue.

Surely this would have been an act of domestic terrorism, god knows what damage he could of done.

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/HPD-HFD-FBI-on-scene-overnight-at-Rice-11946918.php#photo-13869373

Nody

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Man charged for trying to blow up Confederate statue.

Surely this would have been an act of domestic terrorism, god knows what damage he could of done.

I'm not sure it would; the reason being this:

The park ranger spotted him kneeling in the bushes by the 112-year-old Confederate statue, explosives in hand.

Was he trying to harm the statue? she asked.

Yes, he said. He didn't like the guy.

If he was trying to blow it up to cause harm, to swing opinion etc. it would be a much more clear cut case but simply for not "liking the guy" I'm not sure would be enough. The definition I'm referring to is:

The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

AnGaelach

Nody wrote: »

I'm not sure it would; the reason being this:
If he was trying to blow it up to cause harm, to swing opinion etc. it would be a much more clear cut case but simply for not "liking the guy" I'm not sure would be enough. The definition I'm referring to is:

Then it probably would qualify under those requirements, regardless of what he said. It was an act of intimidation against property to further social/political goals.

Nody

AnGaelach wrote: »

Then it probably would qualify under those requirements, regardless of what he said. It was an act of intimidation against property to further social/political goals.

The prosecutor disagrees so far at least:

Schneck, charged Monday with attempting to maliciously damage or destroy property, was ordered into federal custody pending a court hearing later this week. If convicted, he could face up to 40 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

Seeing how he's described:

School acquaintances described him as an awkward loner who struggled with social interactions.
"I can't even think of a single friend he had, to be perfectly honest," said one former classmate at Memorial High School, where he was known as "Ace" for his initials.

During their senior year of high school, the former classmate said, Schneck wrote a "manifesto" dedicated to some of the school's popular girls, decrying how their boyfriends treated them and saying he could have done better.

After high school graduation in 2010, the two lost touch and Schneck's classmate didn't hear news of him again until charges were filed against him several years ago.

"None of this is surprising," the former classmate said. "He seems a bit disconnected from reality."

I'd honestly not be surprised if he literally speaking simply did not like the guy and decided to blow it up for that reason. The guy has already been caught having several bombs etc. at home back in 2010. From the description I'd guess some three or four letter acronym would most likely apply where we have a highly intelligent yet socially inept person who don't know how to interact in society who simply decided to blow it up. Not because of pushing a social agenda but simply because he did not like the guy/the statue and thought it was ok to do (in his mind). He needs a mental evaluation to help deal with what ever are the root causes here and to be on a watch list for life due to his tendency to build bombs at home but that does not necessary make him a terrorist but a dangerous individual all the same.

Christy42

Nody wrote: »

The prosecutor disagrees so far at least:
Seeing how he's described:
I'd honestly not be surprised if he literally speaking simply did not like the guy and decided to blow it up for that reason. The guy has already been caught having several bombs etc. at home back in 2010. From the description I'd guess some three or four letter acronym would most likely apply where we have a highly intelligent yet socially inept person who don't know how to interact in society who simply decided to blow it up. Not because of pushing a social agenda but simply because he did not like the guy/the statue and thought it was ok to do (in his mind). He needs a mental evaluation to help deal with what ever are the root causes here and to be on a watch list for life due to his tendency to build bombs at home but that does not necessary make him a terrorist but a dangerous individual all the same.

I would still default something like this to terrorism.

It does raise some interesting questions about terminology though.

If you kill the president because he is the president it is an assissination but what if you kill him because he slept with your wife or a personal gripe. Is it then murder?

Billy86

Christy42 wrote: »

I would still default something like this to terrorism.

It does raise some interesting questions about terminology though.

If you kill the president because he is the president it is an assissination but what if you kill him because he slept with your wife or a personal gripe. Is it then murder?

I would agree with this as terrorism most likely, but for the the president one would likely put it down to murder. Let's say for example if Trump and Jared Kushner got involved in some big fight because the latter cheated on the former's daughter while the former just wants to get into his daughter's pants, and it ended in Kushner stabbing or shooting Trump, who died. It's not a political motive so I wouldn't put it down as terrorism.

Does anyone know what he didn't 'like' about Lee though? Because most of what we know about the man would be based in politics.

Nody

Christy42 wrote: »

I would still default something like this to terrorism.

It does raise some interesting questions about terminology though.

The definition of terrorism is the political aspect of it; it's what makes it a step worse than the base crime itself in the same way hate speech is a step worse than an insult because of the added on judgement due to the style.

If you kill the president because he is the president it is an assissination but what if you kill him because he slept with your wife or a personal gripe. Is it then murder?

Bad example I'm afraid; murder over homicide would come from the preparation and intention of doing bodily harm. A better example would be if I kill someone by hitting them with a car (Barcelona for example) the context of why I hit them with the car would play in. If I did it intentionally to cause fear it's terrorism, if I did it with intent to kill the guy sleeping with my wife it's murder, if I did it because I had sunshine in my eyes it's likely classified as homicide or even manslaughter.

Same outcome in terms of causing death(s) with the same tool (a car) but due to the reasoning, preparation and overall goal with the action different angles for prosecution.

Christy42

Nody wrote: »

The definition of terrorism is the political aspect of it; it's what makes it a step worse than the base crime itself in the same way hate speech is a step worse than an insult because of the added on judgement due to the style.

Bad example I'm afraid; murder over homicide would come from the preparation and intention of doing bodily harm. A better example would be if I kill someone by hitting them with a car (Barcelona for example) the context of why I hit them with the car would play in. If I did it intentionally to cause fear it's terrorism, if I did it with intent to kill the guy sleeping with my wife it's murder, if I did it because I had sunshine in my eyes it's likely classified as homicide or even manslaughter.

Same outcome in terms of causing death(s) with the same tool (a car) but due to the reasoning, preparation and overall goal with the action different angles for prosecution.

Yeah upon reflection the example was not that great or relevant.

Still it is hard to see the dislike of a historical figure bot being political in some way.

Nody

Christy42 wrote: »

Still it is hard to see the dislike of a historical figure bot being political in some way.

We're lacking information here so this is 100% speculation but seeing the personality type it could be a dislike of the stone, the shape, association of being rejected at the statue etc. rather than the person shown at the statue. This is where the whole political (and mental) aspect comes into play in the judgement of the reason which we have basically a one liner to go by only