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

So if this is about getting his kid back and mad that he was labeled a 'terrorist' and his response is to go and attack the police department, it should be considered a terrorist attack right?

The police say they found 2 additional explosives in the van and they are considering detonating them with a water charge.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
So if this is about getting his kid back and mad that he was labeled a 'terrorist' and his response is to go and attack the police department, it should be considered a terrorist attack right?

Sounds like (in this case) the police were correct in their prior assessment of him. Imagine that. They got something correct for a change...and didn't break into his home a shoot him to death for that suspicion? They let him wallow in his mental delusions and this was the result.

< sarcasm > Where are the anti-cop haters when you need them...but then, it could have been their plan all along to further curtail our collective rights < /sarcasm off >

Dallas chief says it doesn't appear to be terrorism as he did not appear on any watch list.

It's a good thing the people who do this kind of thing always suck at planning.

Why hit the Dallas PD headquarters where they're most likely to be equipped to deal with the problem? They had a .50 on hand to take care of the armored van and anyone with a bit of common sense should have expected that.

Why go to the actual headquarters and shoot at the building? If he wanted to cause casualties, he would have created an event to bait them in and opened fire/detonated explosives while they were grouped together and exposed in a parking lot somewhere.

I think a lot of people who carry out this sort of "attack" aren't trying very hard to kill anyone.

originally posted by: texasgirl
Dallas chief says it doesn't appear to be terrorism as he did not appear on any watch list.

I'm surprised they aren't calling this one "lone-wolf domestic terrorism" just based on the nature of the attack.

Realistically, it's just a guy with a grudge against the police.

a reply to: Answer

Well in a day in age where we call every attack a terrorist one, I don't see how this one could not be seen as such.

His goal was to incite terror, seemed like he did a good job of that.

a reply to: Answer

I agree. They're also saying the level of sophistication in planning, along with the making of bombs, seems to indicate he may have had help.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Was his goal to incite terror in the furtherance of political or social aims?

Or was he just being a dick?

Strongly leaning towards option 2.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
So if this is about getting his kid back and mad that he was labeled a 'terrorist' and his response is to go and attack the police department, it should be considered a terrorist attack right?

As per Google: terrorism: the use of violenece and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

This man did not have a beef with the government. He didn't attack innocent people with the goal of stifling their free speech. He had a beef with CPS / The police department that arrested him and he took it up with them. Notice how a bunch of innocent people aren't dead right now. This was man's goals were not political in nature, they were personal.

Also, on a sidenote. Not that anyone has brought it up from what I can see. I do not believe this man had automatic weapons. The rate of fire was simply to slow. So to all the anti gunners out there, this guy didn't have a machine gun, he just fired rapidly.

a reply to: chuck258
Anti gunners would say he had a gun.

originally posted by: chuck258
Also, on a sidenote. Not that anyone has brought it up from what I can see. I do not believe this man had automatic weapons. The rate of fire was simply to slow. So to all the anti gunners out there, this guy didn't have a machine gun, he just fired rapidly.

Then it must have been an "assault weapon"! OMG...

But seriously, I mentioned this earlier that the MSM's widespread use of automatic weapon had not been vetted and proven. It is not out of the realm of possibilities at that time it was a semi=auto with fast trigger finger.

I've been away for a bit and now see the armored van on fire. Was it detonated by police?

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Answer

Well in a day in age where we call every attack a terrorist one, I don't see how this one could not be seen as such.

His goal was to incite terror, seemed like he did a good job of that.

I wouldn't say that.

'Terrorists' attack civilian targets.

DPD isn't a civilian target per say.

The outcome was a forgone conclusion.

So when the guy killed to two cops it was a terrorist attack but this isn't?

Glad that we are staying consistent.

I would agree by the definition it isn't but that never gets used any more.

a reply to: Sremmos80

I hesitate to say this, for fear of being labeled racist. But, form the MSM's perspective, perhaps since the suspect in Dallas was not a radicalized religious zealot, they are not using the term? He did seem to want to cause terror int eh police department, but not for any socio-political reason either.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I think so... someone a few pages back posted some of his social media postings where he complained that Texas had too much government and some other stuff about his fathers military service.

The label terrorist has been applied for lesser.

a reply to: Kali74

I would argue that the label has been MISapplied for lesser.

I mean I guess one could argue that his acts were intended to influence the conduct of the government, but I personally don't see that. I think the act was to try and go out in a perceived blaze of glory.

I have no doubt this will be labelled as terrorism, but I think defining it as such is a reach.

a reply to: Shamrock6

His Disqus profile