Multiple People Shot in Manhattan: Sources

a reply to: JBurns

Wasnt the police that stopped him was a bus when he ran in to it trying to get through an intersection.

a reply to: introvert

So if vetting people doesn't work, we step on people's first amendment rights?

if it can be determined that the speech that is used to radicalize individuals will lead to imminent violence or incite violence it's isn't free speech and not protected.

a wiki quote cause it's fast, bold mine.

In 2011, the Supreme Court issued their ruling on Snyder v. Phelps, which concerned the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest with signs found offensive by many Americans. The issue presented was whether the 1st Amendment protected the expressions written on the signs. In an 8–1 decision the court sided with Fred Phelps, the head of Westboro Baptist Church, thereby confirming their historically strong protection of freedom of speech, so long as it doesn't promote imminent violence. The Court explained, "speech deals with matters of public concern when it can 'be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community' or when it 'is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public."[8]
Supreme Court case law

and April of this year, this is a opinion piece that cites what the judge said.

In this most recent case, the Judge rejected Trump’s claim that he wasn’t ‘really’ inciting violence against protestors despite the simple fact that he issued an “order, command, and instruction” to his followers. As the Judge remarked, they were “commands” that provided “plenty of evidence the protestors injuries” were the “direct and proximate” result of Trump’s words inciting violence against protestors.
Opinion: Judge Rules Trump Inciting Violence Against Protesters is Not Protected Speech

so if imam/ cleric/ khatib stands up in the mosque and says that it is your duty to defend allah from the infidels by any means, like renting a truck and running over people it is not protected.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Oh, really?

Really. All those things may point to a general idea and way of acting but not to a specific organisation.

Fair enough. I spoke in the vernacular.

Unfortunately, I don't speak "vernacular", only bad English.

a reply to: face23785

I know we're on the same 'side'... but I'm telling you I can shoot the tires out of a moving car without much trouble, and I haven't been to a shooting range in decades. I learned by shooting possums, snakes, skunks, and wild dogs. It's not as hard as you make it sound; I don't even consider myself an accomplished shooter, because I know so many much more capable than I am. I know people who can use a .22 to scratch a gnat's butt while it's riding on a fly's back at 100 paces.

Also, while a bullet would lose much of its energy penetrating the side door metal, it could still enter the drivers compartment. A nick on the leg might not kill, but it'll durn sure startle. A bullet on a windshield will put a hole in it and crack the whole darned thing, decreasing visibility. From the back, it's a bad feeling hearing that rear window shatter and feeling glass shards flying everywhere.

Even a leak in the radiator will stop the vehicle after a few minutes... far preferable to not stopping it at all.

My point is that it is indeed possible, even practical, to stop a vehicle with a modest-caliber firearm in the hands of someone capable of using it well.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Oh, really?

Really. All those things may point to a general idea and way of acting but not to a specific organisation.

Fair enough. I spoke in the vernacular.

Unfortunately, I don't speak "vernacular", only bad English.

A few pages ago I linked to a report that the terrorist left a note pledging allegiance to ISIS. It's an ISIS attack.

a reply to: face23785

If you don't see a difference between the implications of an isolated foreign guy making an attack in the US, inspired by ISIS, and those for an attack organised by ISIS inside the US, I suppose I have nothing more to say about this.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: DBCowboy

They don't care about dying in public, private, or anywhere else. But they DO love their relatives and close friends. I started after another terrorist attack describing how to dissuade the wann-be's...

So you think killing their families would keep them from doing their thing, don't you think that would cause them to ramp up their attacks considering they have nothing left to lose?

You don't START by killing the families. You START by punishing those closest to the terrorist in a way that would make the next terrorist think twice.

It still would not work, you would see more people rising up to the challenge, more home grown terrorism would rise up against the government, your idea would turn the USA into a war zone.

You may be right... more would die due to our active reprisals. It's probably best just to accept a few murders each year from Radical Islamists.

So many are killed here in Chicago every week, that they don't even make the news any more. It's ACCEPTABLE to the population.

The entire U.S. can be conditioned with an "Oh Well.." attitude after enough small terror attacks, like we saw today in NYC.

Yeah that's exactly what I meant.

Stop being so extreme, nobody is suggesting that we have an oh well attitude on this but going after people that have nothing to do with the attacks is not the answer.

Stop listening Hannity and his guests, it might do you some good.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: face23785

I know we're on the same 'side'... but I'm telling you I can shoot the tires out of a moving car without much trouble, and I haven't been to a shooting range in decades. I learned by shooting possums, snakes, skunks, and wild dogs. It's not as hard as you make it sound; I don't even consider myself an accomplished shooter, because I know so many much more capable than I am. I know people who can use a .22 to scratch a gnat's butt while it's riding on a fly's back at 100 paces.

Also, while a bullet would lose much of its energy penetrating the side door metal, it could still enter the drivers compartment. A nick on the leg might not kill, but it'll durn sure startle. A bullet on a windshield will put a hole in it and crack the whole darned thing, decreasing visibility. From the back, it's a bad feeling hearing that rear window shatter and feeling glass shards flying everywhere.

Even a leak in the radiator will stop the vehicle after a few minutes... far preferable to not stopping it at all.

My point is that it is indeed possible, even practical, to stop a vehicle with a modest-caliber firearm in the hands of someone capable of using it well.

TheRedneck

I have no doubt any of that is possible, I just don't think it's practical for the average concealed carrier. I could be wrong. I live in PA. Certain parts of the state are not very gun friendly, so even if you can get a permit there's not a lot of places you can go to practice. I know a fair number of people who carry a gun but don't hit the range nearly often enough. They can probably still hit an attacker at typical self defense ranges, but I wouldn't want to see them try to shoot the tires on a car. If you can, that's great.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: face23785

If you don't see a difference between the implications of an isolated foreign guy making an attack in the US, inspired by ISIS, and those for an attack organised by ISIS inside the US, I suppose I have nothing more to say about this.

So when is it an ISIS attack? Is there an academy you have to graduate? It was a guy who used ISIS-directed tactics and pledged allegiance to ISIS, committed the acts on their behalf. It's an ISIS attack, sorry. Welcome to the real world.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: TheRedneck

Ok. How do we approach the vetting process if we learn these sorts of people are radicalized here at home in the US?

I guess it depends where he was being radicalized.

The mosques have to be the first place to start and the jihadi sites on the internet.

So if vetting people doesn't work, we step on people's first amendment rights?

Not necessarily, Face book seems to be popular for venting their ideas.

The isis online ragazine, you tube vids, or wherever they go on the internet.

We all are being watched anyway. They can focus in on your internet browsing, right?

The mosques should be surveilled by human assets.

Otherwise, what's left?

Give up? Live with it because that's the price of freedom?

originally posted by: Ohanka
The Islamic State has collapsed militarily to offensives by the Syrian and Iraqi Armies. Once they are defeated they'll go underground and switch their efforts to radicalisation in the West and Russia and focus on terror attacks like these.

This is gonna get worse before it gets better.

What some countries already noticed is that all the people from countries outside Iraq and Syria that went there to fight on ISIS' side are returning to their countries, but with the knowledge of how to fight an unconventional war.

I suppose that's why Trump used "return" on his tweet, as I'm sure the US intelligence (and the President) have an idea of how many Americans went "on vacation" to Syria in these last years.

a reply to: ArMaP

All those things may point to a general idea and way of acting but not to a specific organisation.

Again, I don't care what specific group is involved or what that group chooses to call themselves. That's completely irrelevant to me. All I care about is guilt and association. If a person is wearing a MAGA cap, I can make certain conclusions... he/she probably supports some of the actions of our current administration, for instance. If I see someone driving erratically, I can safely assume that the driver is impaired either by alcohol, drugs, or perhaps by distraction or fatigue.

Likewise, when someone commits an act of mass violence against a random set of targets and openly acknowledges an extremist religious perspective in the midst of the commission, I can safely say that person is a extremist religious terrorist. Placing that acknowledgement in Arabic identifies them as Arabic, or probably Muslim. Coupled with the number of extremist Muslim terrorists we have experienced globally in recent years, that ties them to a movement that promotes violence and is therefore antithetical to a civilized society.

The name of the group to which they are tied is about as relevant as the price of pinto beans in Beijing.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: face23785
It was a guy who used ISIS-directed tactics and pledged allegiance to ISIS, committed the acts on their behalf. It's an ISIS attack, sorry. Welcome to the real world.

I see a difference between an attack by one (as far as we know now) guy acting in the country in which he has lived for 7 years and an attack by a foreign organization, as that would imply that that foreign organization was acting inside the country.

Just that.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Ohanka
The Islamic State has collapsed militarily to offensives by the Syrian and Iraqi Armies. Once they are defeated they'll go underground and switch their efforts to radicalisation in the West and Russia and focus on terror attacks like these.

This is gonna get worse before it gets better.

What some countries already noticed is that all the people from countries outside Iraq and Syria that went there to fight on ISIS' side are returning to their countries, but with the knowledge of how to fight an unconventional war.

I suppose that's why Trump used "return" on his tweet, as I'm sure the US intelligence (and the President) have an idea of how many Americans went "on vacation" to Syria in these last years.

This is how the UK is dealing with them. I saw this on Twitter yesterday. Somebody please tell me this is a satirical site?

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: face23785
It was a guy who used ISIS-directed tactics and pledged allegiance to ISIS, committed the acts on their behalf. It's an ISIS attack, sorry. Welcome to the real world.

I see a difference between an attack by one (as far as we know now) guy acting in the country in which he has lived for 7 years and an attack by a foreign organization, as that would imply that that foreign organization was acting inside the country.

Just that.

ISIS is not a foreign organization, it's a radical religious group. All you have to do to join is want to join. You don't have to travel anywhere, take a class. There is no Islamic State, it's just a name for propaganda purposes, just like the Nazis were the "National Socialists". They've been largely driven from what they consider their home territory. They're in dozens of countries, they're not a state actor.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: face23785

If you don't see a difference between the implications of an isolated foreign guy making an attack in the US, inspired by ISIS, and those for an attack organised by ISIS inside the US, I suppose I have nothing more to say about this.

I

I dont in Isis operations do they get a badge or employee ID? No difference between one guy or a group of guys who believe Isis propaganda. I hate to tell you radical Islam is at war with the west. The sooner the west truly realizes this the more lives will be saved.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Likewise, when someone commits an act of mass violence against a random set of targets and openly acknowledges an extremist religious perspective in the midst of the commission, I can safely say that person is a extremist religious terrorist.

I'm not saying it was (not) an extremist religious terrorist, it's obvious it was (unless it was made on purpose to look like that, but I'm not one of those people that think that everything is staged), but I see different organisations has having different reasons behind their actions. When you speak of a specific organization, to me, that looks like you are limiting the possibilities to that specific organisation, and that, at this point, is, at least, premature.

The name of the group to which they are tied is about as relevant as the price of pinto beans in Beijing.

Are the names "Democrat" and "Republican" irrelevant when we are talking about the actions of the US president? I see it the same way, knowing who is behind the action may give a different perspective to their actions.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: face23785

If you don't see a difference between the implications of an isolated foreign guy making an attack in the US, inspired by ISIS, and those for an attack organised by ISIS inside the US, I suppose I have nothing more to say about this.

I

I dont in Isis operations do they get a badge or employee ID? No difference between one guy or a group of guys who believe Isis propaganda. I hate to tell you radical Islam is at war with the west. The sooner the west truly realizes this the more lives will be saved.

Exactly. You don't have to go to Iraq or Syria to be part of ISIS, any more than you have to go to 1930s Germany to be a Nazi. It's an ideology, it's not a country or a military organization that you have to pass qualifications for.

Every time there is a mass killing in America, the right goes on full attack blaming the Muslims. When it turns out not to be a Muslim and is a right wing nut (as in Vegas), they turn to conspiracy theories or they try their best to link it to the left.

This time they were right but I have noticed they seem to take joy in proclaiming it was Muslims. They use one attack as proof that all Muslims are a threat and somehow seem to believe that the left will defend an extremist. The left has never defended extremists but have defended the Muslin community, the innocents who have nothing to do with extremists but the right seems to take that as defending all Muslims moderate or extremists.

Two terror attack in so many months, since Obama was blamed every time for terror attacks on American soil it is only right that Trump receives the same treatment.

originally posted by: face23785
ISIS is not a foreign organization, it's a radical religious group. All you have to do to join is want to join.

It was created outside the US, that's why I consider it a non-US organisation.

They've been largely driven from what they consider their home territory. They're in dozens of countries, they're not a state actor.

Is the fact they were based on that "home territory" that makes me consider them a non-US organisation. I'm sure they are "fans" everywhere, like any ideology, but what I have been trying to say is that I don't see them as acting as an organisation inside the US. If they are sufficiently at ease to organise attacks like this in the US then things are much worse in the US than I expected.