Stabbings and explosions

[Angrboda]

I just woke up to the news of the stabbing (I assume the OP meant this one) of 8 at a mall in St. Cloud, MN. 

http://kstp.com/news/st-cloud-police-cro...007/?cat=1

I saw this on the news last night. It's scary when it happens so close to home.

[c172]

I thought I'd leave it a while and try not to be he first to mention it,I didn't want to further pigeonhole myself as the guy who moans about Islam but there seems to have been a few stabbings and explosions gone on in America that are suspected to be Muslim related.

Anyone see it in the news?

I wonder if the two things are related.

Thankfully no deaths amazingly, except for the terrorist  thankfully they shot down the Islamic terrorist.

I just woke up to the news of the stabbing (I assume the OP meant this one) of 8 at a mall in St. Cloud, MN. 

http://kstp.com/news/st-cloud-police-cro...007/?cat=1

And now ISIS is said to be claiming reponsibility for the Minnesota stabbing, FWIW. 

https://twitter.com/i/moments/777530777756168193

[Minimalist]

I heard about the explosion in New York, reported to be "intentional" but they're not sure if it's "terrorism".

I'm not sure how that would work, myself. Seems by definition that an anonymous bomb is intended to incite terror in folks.

Apparently the motivation for killing people is far more important than the deaths themselves in 'Murrica.

If it is some muslim guy then it is worthy of starting a war over.

If it is some white xtian militiaman with a hard-on for the government then he is just "mis-guided."

[A Theist]

I heard about the explosion in New York, reported to be "intentional" but they're not sure if it's "terrorism".

I'm not sure how that would work, myself. Seems by definition that an anonymous bomb is intended to incite terror in folks.

Apparently the motivation for killing people is far more important than the deaths themselves in 'Murrica.

If it is some muslim guy then it is worthy of starting a war over.

If it is some white xtian militiaman with a hard-on for the government then he is just "mis-guided."

Wonder if you'll be bashing the off duty Minnesota police officer in your "Fucking Cops" thread for shooting that poor knife wielding attacker.

[Minimalist]

I'd like to see the video.  If the guy was trying to surrender and the cop just shot him anyway then yeah.  I don't believe anything the cops say anymore.  Too many times the tapes have shown them to be liars.

Deal with it you nazi prick.

[A Theist]

I'd like to see the video.  If the guy was trying to surrender and the cop just shot him anyway then yeah.  I don't believe anything the cops say anymore.  Too many times the tapes have shown them to be liars.

Deal with it you nazi prick.

Figured as much from you, Josef. You commie fuck.

[Excited Penguin]

Of the eight victims, one was admitted to the hospital. Investigators say the injuries were not life threatening.

How does one sustain a nozh attack from a maniac and not have to be admitted to the hospital, let alone seven people? Looks like the bezoomny skitebird couldn't even pull off the old ultraviolence. Good thing the rozz got him.

[Joods]

That's why I said "not necessarily". Because, technically, there is more than one definition. For the most part, yes, it can be politically motivated, but terrorism can also be religiously motivated, sexually motivated and motivated in other ways.

Essentially, anytime a person or group of persons terrorize others, it is considered terrorism.

That's a bit far-fetched, though. Sexually motivated? No, in my mind it's either got something to do with involving a certain big number of people, a public area, significant damage to property or anything like that. And even then it wouldn't seem right to call it terrorism unless it involved some ideological motivation(like politics, religion and so on). Otherwise it would just be a normal crime/happening. I could instill fear in someone and "terrorize them", but that wouldn't be an act of terrorism, lol.

Then don't come to the US. We've got lots of laws you would argue with, namely the terroristic one I posted here. I don't make the laws, but if they are here, there must be a reason for that.

[Aegon]

That's why I said "not necessarily". Because, technically, there is more than one definition. For the most part, yes, it can be politically motivated, but terrorism can also be religiously motivated, sexually motivated and motivated in other ways.

Essentially, anytime a person or group of persons terrorize others, it is considered terrorism.

That's a bit far-fetched, though. Sexually motivated? No, in my mind it's either got something to do with involving a certain big number of people, a public area, significant damage to property or anything like that. And even then it wouldn't seem right to call it terrorism unless it involved some ideological motivation(like politics, religion and so on). Otherwise it would just be a normal crime/happening. I could instill fear in someone and "terrorize them", but that wouldn't be an act of terrorism, lol.

People have been debating the definition of "terrorism" for a long time. Most political scientists think that in order for something to be considered terrorism it has to be an act or threat of violence by non state actors against (mostly) non combatants for the purpose of achieving specific political goals.

[Aegon]

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

Terrorism is the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political goals. The fact that someone blew up a bomb intentionally doesn't tell anything about their motives for doing so, so we cannot establish whether it was terrorism or not as of yet.

Not necessarily. It depends upon the laws and how they are written in the country one resides in. Terrorism, whether foreign or domestic, is the act of causing terror or harm to a person or persons.

For example, the Pennsylvania Consolidated Code Of Statutes, Title 18 subsection 2706 defines it in the following way:
    § 2706.  Terroristic threats.
       (a)  Offense defined.--A person commits the crime of
    terroristic threats if the person communicates, either directly
    or indirectly, a threat to:
           (1)  commit any crime of violence with intent to
       terrorize another;
           (2)  cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly or
       facility of public transportation; or
           (3)  otherwise cause serious public inconvenience, or
       cause terror or serious public inconvenience with reckless
       disregard of the risk of causing such terror or
       inconvenience.

So you see, not all acts of terrorism are political in nature.

"Terroristic threats" is not "terrorism". "Terrorism" is an international academic term that I defined in the post above, "terroristic threats" are just a way that state courts can impose criminal liability. They have two distinct purposes; one is used to try and study and explain the phenomena of violent resistance, while the other exists solely for legal purposes.