Suspect(s) in armoured vehicle in standoff after gunfire at Dallas Police Dept. HQ

originally posted by: quercusrex
a reply to: enlightenedservant
Didn't think Muslims were allowed to use or deal meth. So, no he'd just be labeled as a bad Muslim and a criminal.

Muslims aren't allowed to kill innocent people or other Muslims either. Doesn't stop Wahabis from doing it. And it doesn't stop ignorant, vengeful, or grieving Muslims from doing what they're not supposed to do, either. (disclaimer: I'm a Muslim that's staunchly against Wahabi extremism)

And think about it, Muslim nations have laws & criminal courts for the same reason everyone else does; because there will always be people who break laws. And have you not heard about the Afghan warlords & their control over the Afghan opium trade?

EDIT So as not to thread drift: You don't have to be "anti-American" to be a terrorist. A person who bombs an abortion clinic isn't anti-American, but it's still terrorism.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Except in Garland the two subjects made multiple references to jihad and either tried to or were in contact with ISIS. And ISIS tried to claim responsibility for the attack, going so far as to call these two "brothers." The supposition is that those two committed the act they did as some sort of "application" to ISIS.

Seems a wee bit different to me.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Except in Garland the two subjects made multiple references to jihad and either tried to or were in contact with ISIS. And ISIS tried to claim responsibility for the attack, going so far as to call these two "brothers." The supposition is that those two committed the act they did as some sort of "application" to ISIS.

Seems a wee bit different to me.

Then you're confusing "Wahabi jihad" with "terrorism". If an atheist blows up the Oklahoma City federal building, is it no longer "terrorism" since he was neither Muslim nor doing anything for religious purposes?

a reply to: enlightenedservant

However, in that case, it was a political act against the U.S> government, right? Therefore, it fits the definition of socio-political reasons in an attempt to affect change via terror and fear.

Still not the same...sorry.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

My god. Now you're trying to spin this as me saying only Muslims can commit acts of terrorism.

All because I don't agree that a guy getting into a shoot out with cops is a terrorist.

I'll say it one more time: an act of terrorism is an act of violence in the furtherance of social or political aims. Whether you're a freaking white atheist blowing up a building or a Somali Muslim is utterly and completely immaterial.

Just because YOU and the media seem to have forgotten what the actual definition of terrorism happens to be doesn't change what it actually IS. I could give a rat's hindparts how terrorism is defined anywhere other than the U.S. Code, since that's where I live. UK definition? Means diddly to me. UN definition? Same, even though it's pretty close to how the U.S. defines terrorism.

Spin that all you want, I'm not getting on the ride anymore.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: enlightenedservant

My god. Now you're trying to spin this as me saying only Muslims can commit acts of terrorism.

All because I don't agree that a guy getting into a shoot out with cops is a terrorist.

I'll say it one more time: an act of terrorism is an act of violence in the furtherance of social or political aims. Whether you're a freaking white atheist blowing up a building or a Somali Muslim is utterly and completely immaterial.

Just because YOU and the media seem to have forgotten what the actual definition of terrorism happens to be doesn't change what it actually IS. I could give a rat's hindparts how terrorism is defined anywhere other than the U.S. Code, since that's where I live. UK definition? Means diddly to me. UN definition? Same, even though it's pretty close to how the U.S. defines terrorism.

Spin that all you want, I'm not getting on the ride anymore.

Re-read what you said & what I replied to.

1. I said the 2 dudes in Garland were terrorists even though they did the same thing the guy in this story did.

2. You said they referred to jihad & ISIS, therefore it was different.

3. I said you were confusing "wahabi jihad" with terrorism & gave an example of an atheist terrorism act to show that jihad & terrorism isn't the same.

I didn't say you said only Muslims can do terrorism. Instead of having a kneejerk reaction, maybe you should calm down & read what is actually typed. I even said I agreed with the point on the actual definition of terrorism. However the working definition of terrorism is vastly different from the actual definition. And you say you only accept the US's definition of terrorism, even though the US govt's conditions for "terrorism" are completely different from the dictionary's definition that you keep referring to. That's why I brought up the people killed or imprisoned as "terrorists" by the US govt, even though they don't fit the actual definition either.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: enlightenedservant

However, in that case, it was a political act against the U.S> government, right? Therefore, it fits the definition of socio-political reasons in an attempt to affect change via terror and fear.

Still not the same...sorry.

You do realize police are literally the enforcement arm of the US government, right? So how is attacking the people employed by taxpayers & created to enforce the laws of the US government not the same thing?

Well, Just back to thread after having to leave earlier this morning. Seems to have turned into a discussion on comparative religion and terrorism since I left. Anywhoo.

BREAKDOWN:

We appear to have had an individual that had a chequered history in regards to mental stability. Previous threats had been made against others focusing on government bodies. This would seem to stem from events in the past that obviously had a life changing effect on our suspect.

It happens unfortunately. Classic lone wolf against the system. Maybe refusal to accept his own responsibilities/failures lead to him spiralling into a state that made him believe his problems have been caused by outside influences. Rather than what will probably transpire to be his problems at root.

Dallas PD are lucky. This could have turned out a lot worse for them. Did find it interesting how the media spin changed as soon as his background/ethnicity was discovered. An almost palpable disappointment that this event couldn't be used to stir up further racial tension (from both sides).

Sad event that could have ended a lot worse. Highlights what most security bods will tell you. Lone wolves are potentially the most dangerous. Hard to track and hard to anticipate.

Stay safe.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

When it comes out that this guy had a political or social endgame, then you can say that what this guy and the two in Garland is the same.

Until then, they're not.

The reference to ISIS and jihad illustrates that there was in fact a political and social end game to the act taken in Garland. If you chose to interpret that as me being confused about jihad and terrorism, that's on you.

You don't need to try and clarify what terrorism is for me. I work off the actual definition of it. The legal one. Not yours. Not the media's. Not ATS'. The codified one. Which is also the one I keep referring to. If Google defines terrorism the same way the U.S. Code does, terrific.

a reply to: texasgirl

They took his child away? Was this originally a CPS case that went sour? What did this guy do to his kid to get the CPS after him and have his kid taken from him?

He probably let his kids play in their front yard and someone called the cops and had the children taken.

It happens.

a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

Pretty obvious that you're just trolling, seeing as 9 pages in it's been made abundantly clear nobody other than the suspect is even wounded, much less dead.

Obvious troll trolls obviously.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: enlightenedservant

When it comes out that this guy had a political or social endgame, then you can say that what this guy and the two in Garland is the same.

Until then, they're not.

The reference to ISIS and jihad illustrates that there was in fact a political and social end game to the act taken in Garland. If you chose to interpret that as me being confused about jihad and terrorism, that's on you.

You don't need to try and clarify what terrorism is for me. I work off the actual definition of it. The legal one. Not yours. Not the media's. Not ATS'. The codified one. Which is also the one I keep referring to. If Google defines terrorism the same way the U.S. Code does, terrific.

And yet the US govt treats any male of adult age in a war zone as a terrorist, even if they don't fit the definition you keep alluding to. And evens abducts, illegally imprisons, and tortures others they label "terrorists", when when they apparently don't fit that definition enough to even charge them as terrorists.

The main thing I've saying this whole time is that they should hold all people to the same standards.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Pretty obvious that you're just trolling, seeing as 9 pages in it's been made abundantly clear nobody other than the suspect is even wounded, much less dead.

Obvious troll trolls obviously.

Don't deflect with the troll fallacy just because you don't like what I'm saying. I haven't even made it beyond page 2, yet.

And, yes, cops arr terrorists and this behavior is going to become far more common. You can only bully people for so long.

a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

Citizens don't deserve to be mowed down without charge or trial, neither do cops.

a reply to: Kali74

Citizens don't deserve to be mowed down without charge or trial, neither do cops.

The human being voluntarily gives up his human rights when he takes a position of authority over another.

If you are abusing people because your position of power protects you, then the outlash is extremely warranted.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

And I agree with your main point.

But, as Kali and I mentioned earlier, I think the solution is to roll back who gets called a terrorist. Not apply to anybody and everybody, which is what you seem to want to do.

Same goal, different paths I guess. *shrug*

a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

Deflect? Seems pretty on point to me.

You popped in to espouse killing cops and cheering for cops to die.

Despite mounds of comments showing none had. Even at the very top of page two.

You're obviously just here to grandstand at this point.

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
a reply to: texasgirl

They took his child away? Was this originally a CPS case that went sour? What did this guy do to his kid to get the CPS after him and have his kid taken from him?

He probably let his kids play in their front yard and someone called the cops and had the children taken.

It happens.

No, they've pretty much established he has mental problems and tried to choke his mother. He has a criminal history and has threatened to shoot up schools and churches.