OT...Getting Sick of this Spit

[SHOXAAC]

I don't understand why you think that's relevant. It's a timeline. You can choose literally any point of time to stop on there that you want.

If you go back to the rise of ISIL, my point still stands. If you go back to the rise of Al Qaeda, my point still stands. If you go back to the falling of the Twin Towers, my point still stands. If you go back to the early 80s, my point still stands.

And my point was that generalizing a mass shooting on US soil as inevitably being a terrorist attack related to extreme Islam is incorrect. That's very rarely been the case. I don't care what point along the timeline you choose to stop at, because unless you stop at 12/3/2015, extreme Islamic terrorism will never be close to the majority in that situation.

I'm not sure why you're generalizing my argument, which was directed at one person making an overly broad point, to things that I never stated. He made a point. I disagreed with it. And now you are adding more and more things that were not part of his point or my counter-point to somehow disagree with something I didn't say. I'm not responding to the thread as a whole. That's why the quote function exists. He made a comment, I disagreed with it, and he accepted my reasoning. You aren't agreeing with his initial point, or disagreeing with my point, so I don't know why we're still talking about this.

We're not any more. Sorry.

[MoValley John]

Mass shooting is a bullsshit term. The vast majority, the very vast majority of "mass shootings" are gang drivebys with a specific target or intent.

[Rlh04d]

Stockpiling weapons= intent.
Bringing multiple weapons, including bombs, to the party= intent.
Changing into body armor and bringing an additional shooter, not employed by your employer= intent.
Communicating with known terror organizations= intent.

Pretty cut and dry.

Honest question: Did you actually read my posts?

[Rlh04d]

Mass shooting is a bullsshit term. The vast majority, the very vast majority of "mass shootings" are gang drivebys with a specific target or intent.

As best I can tell, not one of the incidents I used to make my point included gang activity.

[MoValley John]

Honest question: Did you actually read my posts?

Yeah, I read it. You are saying they were terrorists, but you are also clouding what happened by using the Obama "workplace violence" explaination. All indications are that there was nothing that occurred at the party to set this guy off. He went to the party, staked it out, left, picked up his wife, dropped off the kid, changed into body armor, grabbed guns, bullets and bombs, and went and shot up an easy target. He booby trapped his house and filmed it to document his terrorist activity.

Workplace violence shouldn't even be a consideration.

[Rlh04d]

Yeah, I read it. You are saying they were terrorists, but you are also clouding what happened by using the Obama "workplace violence" explaination. All indications are that there was nothing that occurred at the party to set this guy off. He went to the party, staked it out, left, picked up his wife, dropped off the kid, changed into body armor, grabbed guns, bullets and bombs, and went and shot up an easy target. He booby trapped his house and filmed it to document his terrorist activity.

Workplace violence shouldn't even be a consideration.

My hypothesis, in every post I made on this subject, was that they were clearly terrorists motivated by extreme Muslim agendas. I'm not sure where you think there's a connection to President Obama's explanation there. In literally every post I called them terrorists.

The only difference in our points here is that I am wondering if THIS was actually the event they planned for. If you think it is, then fine, we're mildly disagreeing on that point. Not enough to make your "this is all bullshit" response rational, though. The only part where we disagree is that I'm not convinced they planned for this event specifically. They clearly were planning for something else -- so the only question is whether they planned for BOTH, because they were definitely planning on ANOTHER. Dying at that party was never part of their plan.

Do you disagree that they were planning a further terrorist attack?

[MoValley John]

As best I can tell, not one of the incidents I used to make my point included gang activity.

I was posting a point. It had nothing to do with anything you posted. It carried over from a point I tried to make on the politics forum. I don't know why, when I didn't quote you, you thought the post was about you.

[MoValley John]

My hypothesis, in every post I made on this subject, was that they were clearly terrorists motivated by extreme Muslim agendas. I'm not sure where you think there's a connection to President Obama's explanation there. In literally every post I called them terrorists.

The only difference in our points here is that I am wondering if THIS was actually the event they planned for. If you think it is, then fine, we're mildly disagreeing on that point. Not enough to make your "this is all bullshit" response rational, though. The only part where we disagree is that I'm not convinced they planned for this event specifically. They clearly were planning for something else -- so the only question is whether they planned for BOTH, because they were definitely planning on ANOTHER. Dying at that party was never part of their plan.

Do you disagree that they were planning a further terrorist attack?

I think they were planning several different targets, it's what terrorists do. They found an easy, unguarded target, with lots of people, and took it. Knocking out a lot of people, even at a stadium, is very difficult. Making multiple strikes is even more difficult. Having a bunch of people at a banquet is easy. They took the easy target.

[Rlh04d]

I was posting a point. It had nothing to do with anything you posted. It carried over from a point I tried to make on the politics forum. I don't know why, when I didn't quote you, you thought the post was about you.

Number of times the phrase "mass shooting" was used in this thread by anyone but me, before your post: 1.
Number of times the phrase "mass shooting" was used in this thread by me: 3.

That's a weak deflection.

[Rlh04d]

I think they were planning several different targets, it's what terrorists do. They found an easy, unguarded target, with lots of people, and took it. Knocking out a lot of people, even at a stadium, is very difficult. Making multiple strikes is even more difficult. Having a bunch of people at a banquet is easy. They took the easy target.

And I disagree.

And there we are.

You haven't said a thing that has proved anything I said wrong. You're welcome to your OPINION that they weren't planning further attacks.

[MoValley John]

And I disagree.

And there we are.

You haven't said a thing that has proved anything I said wrong. You're welcome to your OPINION that they weren't planning further attacks.

And you are entitled to yours. You are no more right or wrong than I, they are opunions.

[MoValley John]

As far as terrorists go, I was at my wife's "holiday" party tonight. She works with a few more than 5,000 close friends. Their party was at the Durham Museum in Omaha. The difference between this party and the one in San Bernadino was the armed security at the entrance and the hidden security stationed in the party. No long guns, no terrorists, no workplace violence rook place. Of any shenanigans were attemp5ed, they would have been snuffed out.

[MoValley John]

20151206_195950.jpg

No terrorists, no workplace violence shooters. Amazing how a few armed police officers at the entrance to the old Union Station can make you feel safe as ****.

[MoValley John]

20151206_200040.jpg the chocolate fountains, white chocolate, milk chocolate and dark chocolate were delicious. And even though there were a few thousand people there, plus, there are always a few digruntled employees, no workplace violence.

[WuDrWu]

Which fountain do you dip the prairie dog chunks into?