Shootings and Knifings


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, deicer said:

I believe the second example I posted covered your question of what right and left news agencies do.

Your analogy doesn't fit in this scenario because it isn't hunting.

It is terror and revenge in most cases of mass shootings.

As for labelling after the incident, it happens.  What I am discussing is why it is mainly 'terrorist' if it is a person of colour, and 'lone wolf' if it isn't.

 

You said "recent".  The article you linked from discusses events from over a decade ago.  Are you suggesting that there have been no significant changes in the MSM in the last decade?  No fragmentation, no consolidation, no shift in editorial standards?  Ridiculous.  Furthermore, that article refers only to Islam and Muslims not "people-of colour" so any conclusion it may reach is useless as far as your claim goes.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Back to carding and minimum 5 years in jail if caught with a gun! 

Magic 94.9 Web Poll Do you think banning handguns in Canada would curb gun violence? Yes     (1.23%)

Am I missing something ? The baggage retrieval area in most airports can be accessed by anyone in the general public, especially in the US. So anyone in the general public could have walked in, and in

Posted Images

14 minutes ago, seeker said:

You said "recent".  The article you linked from discusses events from over a decade ago.  Are you suggesting that there have been no significant changes in the MSM in the last decade?  No fragmentation, no consolidation, no shift in editorial standards?  Ridiculous.  Furthermore, that article refers only to Islam and Muslims not "people-of colour" so any conclusion it may reach is useless as far as your claim goes.

 

 

E8DA14F9-0EC9-471A-96DE-7AF0CE91CD9D.jpeg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, here is the NATO definition of terrorism:

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against individuals or property in an attempt to coerce or intimidate governments or societies to achieve political, religious or ideological objectives.

There are others but they are mostly variations on that theme. If it isn't a deliberate effort to intimidate the government (or society at large) for political, religious or ideological objectives (or change) then it isn't terrorism by definition.

Hate crimes are different due to the motivation and (often limited) objective. Blowing up FORD trucks simply because you got fired isn't terrorism even though it might terrorize FORD drivers.

A closer examination of motives behind the last 9 months of violent protest might be worthy of consideration on its own merits. 

From what I've seen, the motive for modifying the definition is usually self serving and narrative based.

We have previously discussed this at length right here on the forum... it is what it was then and (still) is what it is now. 

 

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wolfhunter said:

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against individuals or property in an attempt to coerce or intimidate governments or societies to achieve political, religious or ideological objectives.

Pretty much sums up BLM in a nut shell...yet the new ”woke” VP, supports it...Interesting,

 https://www.lawofficer.com/kamala-harris-supported-minneapolis-freedom-fund-bailed-out-dangerous-criminals-along-with-protesters/

Edited by Jaydee
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jaydee said:

yet the new ”woke” VP, supports it...Interesting,

The simpler, but not completely accurate definition is the one I tend to favour:

If group A is mad at group B and they attack group C to make a point..... they are either terrorists or liberals.

None of this is complicated.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm beginning to think that all of this race baiting is a form of terrorism as well... it certainly has political and ideological objectives and it serves as an inducement to violence. Those choosing to play the tribalism game should consider that the next step in the escalation model is reprisal attacks by other tribes.

Nothing good comes of this and you won't like it. Stop creating tribes.... did I mention you won't like it?   

By expanding the traditional definition of terrorism, theses hateful fools may eventually find themselves on the wrong side of it. The media is now creating the sort devisions and polarization that serve as inducement to tribalism and all the bad things that flow from it. I don't think you will like it.  

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6243239610001#sp=show-clips

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just take note that you should fear the White American Born and Bred Male and not the immigrant Muslim or any other immigrant.

Most of the largest attacks on americans are by americans.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, boestar said:

Just take note that you should fear....

..... where this is headed.

.....  the trajectory and speed of advance.

..... the fact two sitting US senators publicly refuse to confirm nominees based on skin colour (in violation of the law)

The test of a good idea is always (IMO) standing it on its head and noting that the core principals of its foundation remain intact. If they don't it's time for a rethink. When relative privation becomes the justification for its failure to do so, it may be time to reevaluate what you fear.

 

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how you can solve a problem if you don't first identify it.

Read the brief article (below) to any 10 year old and ask them the following questions:

What do you think the people with the drugs and guns were going to do with them?

How many duck hunters do you think were among the 26 people arrested? 

https://www.torontosun.com/news/crime/5m-in-guns-drugs-seized-26-arrested-in-year-long-gta-probe

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to post
Share on other sites

Will Police start looking the other way in the future? Some good and some bad in this measure imo.

 

New York City ends qualified immunity for police officers

The measure passed as part of a broader overhaul of police practices

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nyc-ends-qualified-immunity-police-officers?fbclid=IwAR0JACmUmOsCYofUyxTO60X4fNBuu5OAFsI8lmRb6R7qf2mf4w7cpA5TjQg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Should be fun to watch.... FIDO comes instantly to mind.

Qualified immunity balances the need to hold police accountable when they exercise the power granted to them (by us) with the need to shield them from harassment and liability when performing those duties (on our behalf) as long as it's done in a reasonable manner. 

Tasering heavily pregnant women and cardiac patients in hospital rooms isn't fu%$#@! reasonable. This isn't hard, even dumb grunts get it.

So..... it's really a question of reasonableness and it seems liberals can't fathom that. Far better to weed out the bad COPs rather than hamstringing the entire operation. If it's like any other occupation, everyone already knows who the bad apples are.... that process can be best defined as leadership. The problem (IMO) is that leadership is another concept liberals seem unable to fathom.

Simple things aren't always easy.... but sometimes they are. Leadership is both the issue and the problem. Tackling that is simple, but given the proclivities of the voting public, it's clearly not easy.

 

 

 

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2021 at 9:27 AM, Wolfhunter said:

So..... it's really a question of reasonableness and it seems liberals can't fathom that. Far better to weed out the bad COPs rather than hamstringing the entire operation

In most policies, Liberals would rather drag populations down to the lowest common denominator rather than give everyone a target to reach up to since that would require hard work and sacrifice to get ahead based on your own level of dedication without government hand outs....something totally foreign to them. If they can’t leach, they are beached.

Edited by Jaydee
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The person who did this has a record, is well known to police yet his identity hasn't been released. Part of me wants this to be a white guy with mental health issues so that my faith in the media and government suppression of information (that doesn't suit them) is proven unfounded. 

After searching for updates on this story though, the other part of me is preparing for another round of disappointment. 

If this was a white guy with a gun, his picture would be everywhere resplendent with the weapon he used, a detailed description of it, and there would be calls for sterner gun control. 

I desperately want to be wrong about this, it's way past time that liberals stopped being predictable. 

https://nationalpost.com/news/canadian-press-newsalert-woman-killed-six-injured-in-stabbing-in-north-vancouver

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...

While I'm on a roll about poorly kept secrets that everyone knew about (another thread).... here's one of my favs. 

Try and act surprised:

https://www.torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-evidence-shows-mounties-kept-a-copy-of-the-gun-registry

Regardless of your position on the core issue, consider that multiple police agencies, including crown prosecutors at all levels, were actively involved in subverting the very laws they are sworn to uphold and enforce.

Had any legal gun owner done anything remotely similar (in terms of deliberate unlawful behaviour), it would have resulted in immediate confiscation of any/all firearms in their possession. That confiscation would have occurred the day after there was reasonable grounds to assume that an offence had taken place. 

Remember that "well you register your dog" argument that was so popular at the time. It was intended to invoke the notion that anyone in opposition to the registry was a conspiracy theorist. It was a transparent deflection and a lie. And everyone with a shred of experience with firearms knew it.

Similar arguments (in kind) are currently in play right now...... this time though they are aimed at YOU and it's my turn not to care. Y'all see how this works? Nothing good comes from it. You didn't care when the most basic rights of smokers were being trampled.... you were unable to look ahead and see how it would hurt you. When the same arguments (from the anti-smoking lobby) were used to ban smoke from (and use of) your fireplace, you expected smokers to care about your plight.  

 

 

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.