Democratic Congresswoman Shot @ public event

Truly disheartening news. :( I do hope that she will recover soon.

Did they get the guy who did it?

He needs to be dealt with...

It's one thing to protest against politics you don't like, and another to kill a politican.

Wasdie

"Reason for moderation: Intending solely to annoy and/or offend other users Action Taken: Delete Msg - You lost points for this moderation." Imagine my surprise to find my post deleted and this reason given. My original post was that this tragic incident was an instance of terrorism perpertrated by a political conservative. Now I'll give the administration here the benefit of the doubt that my lack of elaboration on the matter may have potentially given the impression I was merely causing trouble. I must assert however that I absolutely see this as an act of terrorism against progressive politics in America. This particular congresswoman has seen her offices vandalised numerous times, mysterious packages sent to her as well as a continual flow of hatemail. These horrible actions all took place because of her beliefs and desire to voice those views in the public arena and people who opposed her would do anything possible to attempt to silence her. If that is not terrorism, then what is? LordXelNaga

:lol: Vandalism, hatemail and sending mysterious packages is terrorism now? Damn, I thought the word was poorly defined before, but if vandalism and sending hatemail is terrorism, I guess any crime can be considered terrorism. A progressive politician was mugged? Terrorism! This is the silliest hyperbole I've seen in a while.

Also there's nothing connecting him to any conservative group or movement. Be honest, you want this to be motivated by conservatism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwB3o5L5XY0&feature=sub

I agree with him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwB3o5L5XY0&feature=sub

I agree with him.

Avian005

[QUOTE="LordXelNaga"]"Reason for moderation: Intending solely to annoy and/or offend other users Action Taken: Delete Msg - You lost points for this moderation." Imagine my surprise to find my post deleted and this reason given. My original post was that this tragic incident was an instance of terrorism perpertrated by a political conservative. Now I'll give the administration here the benefit of the doubt that my lack of elaboration on the matter may have potentially given the impression I was merely causing trouble. I must assert however that I absolutely see this as an act of terrorism against progressive politics in America. This particular congresswoman has seen her offices vandalised numerous times, mysterious packages sent to her as well as a continual flow of hatemail. These horrible actions all took place because of her beliefs and desire to voice those views in the public arena and people who opposed her would do anything possible to attempt to silence her. If that is not terrorism, then what is? Rhazakna

:lol: Vandalism, hatemail and sending mysterious packages is terrorism now? Damn, I thought the word was poorly defined before, but if vandalism and sending hatemail is terrorism, I guess any crime can be considered terrorism. A progressive politician was mugged? Terrorism! This is the silliest hyperbole I've seen in a while.

Also there's nothing connecting him to any conservative group or movement. Be honest, you want this to be motivated by conservatism.

[QUOTE="Avian005"]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwB3o5L5XY0&feature=sub

I agree with him.

darkfox101

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]

[QUOTE="LordXelNaga"]"Reason for moderation: Intending solely to annoy and/or offend other users Action Taken: Delete Msg - You lost points for this moderation." Imagine my surprise to find my post deleted and this reason given. My original post was that this tragic incident was an instance of terrorism perpertrated by a political conservative. Now I'll give the administration here the benefit of the doubt that my lack of elaboration on the matter may have potentially given the impression I was merely causing trouble. I must assert however that I absolutely see this as an act of terrorism against progressive politics in America. This particular congresswoman has seen her offices vandalised numerous times, mysterious packages sent to her as well as a continual flow of hatemail. These horrible actions all took place because of her beliefs and desire to voice those views in the public arena and people who opposed her would do anything possible to attempt to silence her. If that is not terrorism, then what is? LordXelNaga

:lol: Vandalism, hatemail and sending mysterious packages is terrorism now? Damn, I thought the word was poorly defined before, but if vandalism and sending hatemail is terrorism, I guess any crime can be considered terrorism. A progressive politician was mugged? Terrorism! This is the silliest hyperbole I've seen in a while.

Also there's nothing connecting him to any conservative group or movement. Be honest, you want this to be motivated by conservatism.

So smacking a liberal politician because you want them to shut up is also terrorism, right? Spitting on a liberal politician you want to shut up, terrorism, yes? Spitting on someone is assault, as far as I know. It's good to know that people's thoughts are now the main thing separating giving someone a slap and an act of terror. Better not think the wrong thing while commiting a crime, you coulld end up a terrorist!

[QUOTE="LordXelNaga"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"]

:lol: Vandalism, hatemail and sending mysterious packages is terrorism now? Damn, I thought the word was poorly defined before, but if vandalism and sending hatemail is terrorism, I guess any crime can be considered terrorism. A progressive politician was mugged? Terrorism! This is the silliest hyperbole I've seen in a while.

Also there's nothing connecting him to any conservative group or movement. Be honest, you want this to be motivated by conservatism.

Rhazakna

So smacking a liberal politician because you want them to shut up is also terrorism, right? Spitting on a liberal politician you want to shut up, terrorism, yes? Spitting on someone is assault, as far as I know. It's good to know that people's thoughts are now the main thing separating giving someone a slap and an act of terror. Better not think the wrong thing while commiting a crime, you coulld end up a terrorist!

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]

[QUOTE="LordXelNaga"]It's about the intention. These are despicable acts done for the sake of terrorising a person into backing down from their values. If a progressive politician was mugged, it isn't automatically terrorism. If a progressive politician was mugged because he/she was progressive for the intent of forcing that politician to be silent, then that is definitely terrorism. LordXelNaga

So smacking a liberal politician because you want them to shut up is also terrorism, right? Spitting on a liberal politician you want to shut up, terrorism, yes? Spitting on someone is assault, as far as I know. It's good to know that people's thoughts are now the main thing separating giving someone a slap and an act of terror. Better not think the wrong thing while commiting a crime, you coulld end up a terrorist!

Yep, one of the many flaws in our system (at least in this context). You have something as already nebulous as terrorism (one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, after all), then start mixing in people's intent (which is inevitably something that cannot be determined by a third party). What you get people like you who think if you slap someone while thinking the wrong thing, you're a terrorist.

I mean, if that's the case, the US is rife with homegrown terrorists. I remember a Muslim group said that someone who stole a Quran and threw it at the door of a Mosque is guilty of a hate crime. I thought that was silly, but you take it to another level.

[QUOTE="LordXelNaga"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"]

So smacking a liberal politician because you want them to shut up is also terrorism, right? Spitting on a liberal politician you want to shut up, terrorism, yes? Spitting on someone is assault, as far as I know. It's good to know that people's thoughts are now the main thing separating giving someone a slap and an act of terror. Better not think the wrong thing while commiting a crime, you coulld end up a terrorist!

Rhazakna

Yep, one of the many flaws in our system (at least in this context). You have something as already nebulous as terrorism (one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, after all), then start mixing in people's intent (which is inevitably something that cannot be determined by a third party). What you get people like you who think if you slap someone while thinking the wrong thing, you're a terrorist.

I mean, if that's the case, the US is rife with homegrown terrorists. I remember a Muslim group said that someone who stole a Quran and threw it at the door of a Mosque is guilty of a hate crime. I thought that was silly, but you take it to another level.

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]

[QUOTE="LordXelNaga"] Like it or not, what people's intentions are form part of what defines what they have done. Intent is what legally separates manslaughter and murder. Intent is why juveniles are treated differently to adults in the justice system because it is believed that they do not have a proper understanding of things. LordXelNaga

Yep, one of the many flaws in our system (at least in this context). You have something as already nebulous as terrorism (one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, after all), then start mixing in people's intent (which is inevitably something that cannot be determined by a third party). What you get people like you who think if you slap someone while thinking the wrong thing, you're a terrorist.

I mean, if that's the case, the US is rife with homegrown terrorists. I remember a Muslim group said that someone who stole a Quran and threw it at the door of a Mosque is guilty of a hate crime. I thought that was silly, but you take it to another level.

WHAT?! Do you even remember what you posted? You said that her getting hatemail, mysterious packages and having her office vandalized were acts of terrorism. You then said that if a liberal politician was mugged by someone trying to silence them, that would be terrorism. Going by your logic then, any crime (against a politician, at least) can be terrorism, provided the motivation of the perpetrator was to silence them. I then took your logic to an extreme conclusion, if someone was trying to silence a politician, by your logic, slapping them could be an act of terrorism. Maybe I missed something, I am posting on a few threads at once.

I love when people throw around accusations of fallacious reasoning, when they don't understand what the fallacy is in the first place. Learn what a strawman is, because if you think that's what I did, you clearly don't know what it means. I took your logic to a silly conclusion, but one that was entirely consistent, given your argument.

I very much agree about Julian Assange, though

[QUOTE="LordXelNaga"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"]

Yep, one of the many flaws in our system (at least in this context). You have something as already nebulous as terrorism (one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, after all), then start mixing in people's intent (which is inevitably something that cannot be determined by a third party). What you get people like you who think if you slap someone while thinking the wrong thing, you're a terrorist.

I mean, if that's the case, the US is rife with homegrown terrorists. I remember a Muslim group said that someone who stole a Quran and threw it at the door of a Mosque is guilty of a hate crime. I thought that was silly, but you take it to another level.

Rhazakna

WHAT?! Do you even remember what you posted? You said that her getting hatemail, mysterious packages and having her office vandalized were acts of terrorism. You then said that if a liberal politician was mugged by someone trying to silence them, that would be terrorism. Going by your logic then, any crime (against a politician, at least) can be terrorism, provided the motivation of the perpetrator was to silence them. I then took your logic to an extreme conclusion, if someone was trying to silence a politician, by your logic, slapping them could be an act of terrorism. Maybe I missed something, I am posting on a few threads at once.

I love when people throw around accusations of fallacious reasoning, when they don't understand what the fallacy is in the first place. Learn what a strawman is, because if you think that's what I did, you clearly don't know what it means. I took your logic to a silly conclusion, but one that was entirely consistent, given your argument.

I very much agree about Julian Assange, though

No, my examples of the vandalism and hatemail (although the term "hatemail" doesn't properly encapsulate the fact that these letters have death threats) were not intended to be individually considered as terrorist acts. Rather I meant that as an altogether whole, it most certainly is not a small matter. It is a concerted campaign for the purpose of terrorizing a person/organisation. No, not every "crime" should potentially be considered an act of terrorism if done for the sake of forcing a person to abandon their ideals. Some things are considered within reason when it comes to protesting. Mugging someone (a very violent act), SHOOTING 18 PEOPLE, sending death threats through the postal services and smashing up the offices of a congresswoman are most certainly beyond what anyone would consider to be reasonable in an environment of public debate and protest. It certainly isn't on the scale of flying a jet into a building and killing thousands but it isn't far removed from car bombings like what we see happening in the middle east.LordXelNaga

So if the crime crosses your entirely arbitrary, subjective line, then it can be terrorism. Got it. Still though, there's nothing in what you said that would preclude slapping someone from being an act of terrorism (other than the fact that it doesn't cross your own personal line). A slap is certainly not "reasonable in an environment of public debate" (at least I should hope not). It's violent, it can cause serious damage if done in the right way. Why can death threats be considered terrorism, but not a slap? Why vandalism, but not an actual case of real assault? I'd rather have my office be repeatedly vandalized than to be slapped around all the time. And if death threats trying to silence people is terrorism, what about death threats over the internet?

Using your own standard for something as murky as terrorism is ok (everyone pretty much uses their own standard anyway, whether they admit that or not), but don't expect others to take your standard (especially when said standard doesn't seem very consistent).

It's sad. A politician gets shot and all anyone can do is constantly blame the other side and turn it into a partisan issue.

There is something seriously wrong in American politics.

although i disagree with democrat's vplitics, may the congressmen and the other victims RIP. violence is the wrong way.

taterfrickintot

It's amazing, given the lack of information that someone would try to make this obviously crazy guy into a political partisan acting out on his rage against an ideology he disagrees with.

Intellectual laziness at its finest.

WTH is happening to the US :|GazaAli

[QUOTE="GazaAli"]WTH is happening to the US :|-Big_Red-

It's amazing, given the lack of information that someone would try to make this obviously crazy guy into a political partisan acting out on his rage against an ideology he disagrees with.

Intellectual laziness at its finest.

JustusCF

the funny thing is gifford was for gun ownership in the past

the funny thing is gifford was for gun ownership in the past

HFkami

"Reason for moderation: Intending solely to annoy and/or offend other users Action Taken: Delete Msg - You lost points for this moderation." Imagine my surprise to find my post deleted and this reason given. My original post was that this tragic incident was an instance of terrorism perpertrated by a political conservative. Now I'll give the administration here the benefit of the doubt that my lack of elaboration on the matter may have potentially given the impression I was merely causing trouble. I must assert however that I absolutely see this as an act of terrorism against progressive politics in America. This particular congresswoman has seen her offices vandalised numerous times, mysterious packages sent to her as well as a continual flow of hatemail. These horrible actions all took place because of her beliefs and desire to voice those views in the public arena and people who opposed her would do anything possible to attempt to silence her. If that is not terrorism, then what is? LordXelNaga

There's absolutely nothing to suggest this was "an attack on progressive politics", and everything thus far suggests that this man was simply bats****. It certainly isn't an act of terrorism, no matter how much you may want it to be.

[QUOTE="LordXelNaga"]"Reason for moderation: Intending solely to annoy and/or offend other users Action Taken: Delete Msg - You lost points for this moderation." Imagine my surprise to find my post deleted and this reason given. My original post was that this tragic incident was an instance of terrorism perpertrated by a political conservative. Now I'll give the administration here the benefit of the doubt that my lack of elaboration on the matter may have potentially given the impression I was merely causing trouble. I must assert however that I absolutely see this as an act of terrorism against progressive politics in America. This particular congresswoman has seen her offices vandalised numerous times, mysterious packages sent to her as well as a continual flow of hatemail. These horrible actions all took place because of her beliefs and desire to voice those views in the public arena and people who opposed her would do anything possible to attempt to silence her. If that is not terrorism, then what is? worlock77

There's absolutely nothing to suggest this was "an attack on progressive politics", and everything thus far suggests that this man was simply bats****. It certainly isn't an act of terrorism, no matter how much you may want it to be.

Well, according to a report here

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1345386/Gabrielle-Giffords-shot-Congresswoman-fighting-life-Arizona-gunman-identified-Jared-Loughner.html

He declares 'I define terrorist.', so it appears in his mind he was an terrorist.

It also is reported he was 'anti-government', not against a particular party. It looks like it leans toward he would have shot ANY political figure in that town, but more specifically Judge John Roll.

I think the saddest part is almost no one cares or is talking about the several people who got killed (one of which was a kid, I believe?)

All talk and coverage is about the congresswoman. The other people just don't matter.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="LordXelNaga"]"Reason for moderation: Intending solely to annoy and/or offend other users Action Taken: Delete Msg - You lost points for this moderation." Imagine my surprise to find my post deleted and this reason given. My original post was that this tragic incident was an instance of terrorism perpertrated by a political conservative. Now I'll give the administration here the benefit of the doubt that my lack of elaboration on the matter may have potentially given the impression I was merely causing trouble. I must assert however that I absolutely see this as an act of terrorism against progressive politics in America. This particular congresswoman has seen her offices vandalised numerous times, mysterious packages sent to her as well as a continual flow of hatemail. These horrible actions all took place because of her beliefs and desire to voice those views in the public arena and people who opposed her would do anything possible to attempt to silence her. If that is not terrorism, then what is? flazzle

There's absolutely nothing to suggest this was "an attack on progressive politics", and everything thus far suggests that this man was simply bats****. It certainly isn't an act of terrorism, no matter how much you may want it to be.

Well, according to a report here

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1345386/Gabrielle-Giffords-shot-Congresswoman-fighting-life-Arizona-gunman-identified-Jared-Loughner.html

He declares 'I define terrorist.', so it appears in his mind he was an terrorist.

It also is reported he was 'anti-government', not against a particular party. It looks like it leans toward he would have shot ANY political figure in that town, but more specifically Judge John Roll.

Honestly I don't put much stock in anything the Daily Mail reports.

This is truly a tragedy. And while many claim this wasn't politically motivated. The congresswoman has been the target of threats and harassment in the past. The gunman also shoot her first, at point blank range like an execution before he turned on others. That tends to support the notion that this was politically motivated as as an anti-democrat attack. Or perhaps the gunman was just bonkers, and decided the politician dies first, and then the others? If you could believe that.Wiffle_Snuff

He was completely nuts and from what I gather out of his youtube stuff (Which BTW great detective work OT. You found that before the news outlets did) he was just anti-government all together.

He spouted a bunch of paranoid BS about mind control and creating a new currency to overthrow politicians.

The guy is most certainly a psych case and my money is on him being a paranoid schizophrenic.

There's hardly any political agenda at play here. I haven't bothered to read the pages of comments prior to this one, but I have no doubt the vast majority of replies are declaring this a result of either liberal or conservative policies. The 22 year old responsible for this is a Grade A nutjob who apparently had a fetish for literacy rates and thought he was a "conscious dreamer". He's more than likely a schizo, and his motives are about as politically motivated as John Hinckley Jr.'s.

Apparently he's not talking with FBI as he has invoked his Fifth Amendment right.

Six people dead so far and 13 injured,its sickening and very sad.A big pat on the back to the people who tackled him and ended it.

Apparently he's not talking with FBI as he has invoked his Fifth Amendment right.

ragek1ll589

I didn't even know we still had those.

[QUOTE="ragek1ll589"]

Apparently he's not talking with FBI as he has invoked his Fifth Amendment right.

Pixel-Pirate

I didn't even know we still had those.

Why wouldn't we?

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="ragek1ll589"]

Apparently he's not talking with FBI as he has invoked his Fifth Amendment right.

worlock77

I didn't even know we still had those.

Why wouldn't we?

I just remember reading a wiki article on it awhile back that made it sound like court rulings and precedence has basically made it so that it's incredibly easy to "voluntarily" give up your fifth amendment rights.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

I didn't even know we still had those.

Pixel-Pirate

Why wouldn't we?

I just remember reading a wiki article on it awhile back that made it sound like court rulings and precedence has basically made it so that it's incredibly easy to "voluntarily" give up your fifth amendment rights.

I'll be honest and say that I don't understand your meaning here.

Honestly I don't put much stock in anything the Daily Mail reports.

worlock77

What sources of news do you put much stock into?

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Honestly I don't put much stock in anything the Daily Mail reports.

flazzle

What sources of news do you put much stock into?

One's that aren't tabloids and haven't lost several libel suits.

[QUOTE="flazzle"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Honestly I don't put much stock in anything the Daily Mail reports.

What sources of news do you put much stock into?

One's that aren't tabloids and haven't lost several libel suits.

[QUOTE="flazzle"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Honestly I don't put much stock in anything the Daily Mail reports.

worlock77

What sources of news do you put much stock into?

One's that aren't tabloids and haven't lost several libel suits.

Like which ones?

I am not one the typically approves of public executions, but in this case I want to watch this person die a horrible death.ttobba07

well...won't be the first or last time this will happen.

Wow, how shocking the these goons have decided to go for a piece of the actionxaos

[QUOTE="ttobba07"]I am not one the typically approves of public executions, but in this case I want to watch this person die a horrible death.Silent_Bob32

Wow, how shocking the these goons have decided to go for a piece of the actionxaos