|
bounty44 -> RE: Shooting in California (12/4/2015 1:28:35 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: subrob1967
SoCal jihadist wife pledged allegiance to ISIS before massacre, Fox News confirms
Is anyone other than a Democrat really surprised by this?
Really? Must be true if FOX 'news' states it....
On the day this all took place, FOX 'news' was pushing this as terrorism even before any facts were apparent. The moment they knew the names, they simply assumed it was a Muslim attacking the nation; STILL, with no evidence to back that statement up.
speaking of evidence then comrade birdbrain, kindly show the evidence that fox actually did that.
quote:
After the Planned Parenthood attack in which a...
....White....Male....Conservative....Pro-NRA.....Pro-Lifer....armed to the teeth stormed the clinic and did many bad things to good people....
you are without a doubt the biggest moron on the forum. the only part im fully aware of is "male", as to everything else, unless you provide some evidence im going to suggest your observation flows from your unfortunate delusional world. but gee while you are at it, maybe you can make the guy a christian, anti-gay, sexist, and an islamophobe too while you are at it??
quote:
....FOX news needed a story to push upon the Low Information Voters. Someone has an un-English like name = Muslim Terrorist.
see my point above about evidence. people of all "information" levels are on both sides of the political spectrum and can be found watching a variety of news networks. to pretend otherwise---see also my point above about your being a moron. I suppose all those Obama voters and Hillary supporters who cannot tell the difference between Obama's/Hillary's positions and those of their opponents watch fox?
I suppose you preferred the CNN coverage where one of their commentators effectively said right off the bat, hey, this looks like the work of an anti-government militia?
quote:
The US Government has a very specific set of guidelines that determine if an act of violence is just a crime or terrorism. Because terrorism falls between crime and 'an act of war'. In fact, all three are different concepts. On the surface they all seem the same. But go down a few layers and there are big differences. A crime is simply breaking the law. The person does it not for political or territorial control/dominance. An act of war, is the opening salvo to push civilians away from their living spot, but the attackers are not doing it for petty crime. Petty crime to 'Act of War' is murder in the first.
An Act of terrorism in one in which locals are effected, but the aim of the attack extends beyond those attacked. Linguists have been grappling with defining terrorism. An we should be careful about labeling things to freely. Here is an article about the subject matter.
while its true that we do well to define the difference between normal crime and terrorism, rob essentially gave you evidence of the woman in questions connection to isis. what more might you want? or do you just like the intellectual masturbation?
while im here, linguists don't define acts or even words for that matter, they study language. and no, word definitions don't constitute language. the distinction between criminal acts and terrorism acts is a philosophical, not a linguistic one.
(thankfully you got out of that post without mucking up who and whom...but im sure you'll be right back at it as soon as those words are required)
|
|
|
|
