What's The Difference Between Terrorism & Crime?

[EricTheMan]

...What's average about blowing up abortion clinics, or ripping pre-schoolers to shreds with high-powered rifles?

I'd like to know.

Or ripping kids apart before they've had a change to be born?

I know how much you guys think the topic of abortion is somehow a "magic bullet" in any conversation, but its really starting to get old.

Tell MarcATL, as he brought it up.

 

[Yurt]

miranda rights have zero to do with your OP

the rest is just made up hogwash

 

[MarcATL]

The rabid right wing are quick to toss their blesses, beloved and sacred Constitution out the door whenever the word "terrorism" is thrown into the mix.

Although we are AWASH in crime, violent crime and gun-crime.

Seriously...what's the difference?

The terrorists guns were UNREGISTERED!

Second, guns don't commit crimes, people do.

There's your difference, you silly moonbat.

So let me get this straight...

According to you, the difference is, that terrorism occurs when the guns are unregistered and that when it's a matter of people killing people, not guns.

Is that about right?

 

[tinydancer]

Why?

A simple criminal has a motive to profit by. Correct? Financially.

A terrorist wishes to inflict damage physically as humanely possible by their actions.

It's a no brainer. Well to sane individuals.

Do you support "hate crime" legislation?

I'm torn on that for true. Had a situation up here where a man Ernst Zundel was prosecuted for being anti Israel and anti Jew.

I don't think he should have been. Neither did B'nai Brith.

If one makes legislation that way, you would would never know the evil flower in your garden would you?

So I am torn by this. I understand the logic behind it; but it also drives so many underground.

And then they hide. I really don't know what to say.

 

[MarcATL]

miranda rights have zero to do with your OP

the rest is just made up hogwash

WoW!!!

 

[Harry Dresden]

Why?

A simple criminal has a motive to profit by. Correct? Financially.

A terrorist wishes to inflict damage physically as humanely possible by their actions.

It's a no brainer. Well to sane individuals.

Do you support "hate crime" legislation?

i dont......i support zero tolerance for violent crimes.....long prison sentences starting at 25 years minimum and it goes up depending on the severity of the act and you serve every dam minute of it,no time off for good behavior bullshit.....you serve every minute....

 

[hortysir]

Terrorism is Truthmatters' spelling, grammar and punctuation.

A crime is how broad and biased the OP brush is

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Or ripping kids apart before they've had a change to be born?

I know how much you guys think the topic of abortion is somehow a "magic bullet" in any conversation, but its really starting to get old.

Tell MarcATL, as he brought it up.

No, he did not.

He brought up abortion clinic bombings, not abortion.

 

[tinydancer]

You've got to be freaking me.

CBC (you know left wing tax payer funded television and radio up here) actually did a program on how the Taliban and AQ teach terrorists to stand in a bus to exert the maximum carnage humanely possible.

Surely you jest that you don't understand the difference.

OK, so this should be super-easy for you.

Explain the difference please.

Thanks.

Nice and easy.

A criminal does not have a political or religious agenda.

A terrorist does.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

Marc, the end result in each case (whether a mass shooting or act of terrorism) is virtually the same. Many people dead, others maimed or crippled, property damaged or destroyed. None of the instances of mass murder in our history, whether they be recent, 20th, or 19th century are understandable by those who logically reason. The major difference lies in the motivation between the crimes.

Columbine, Newtown, Virginia Tech, Phoenix and other mass shootings were the work of unbalanced individuals without a political motivation. These individuals used a vehicle to make them 'visible' to society when they felt that they were not. Their acts were purely criminal without a motivation that lies in the political realm. Due to their 'unbalanced' or psychotic thinking process, they wanted to become 'immortal.' A good way to do it? Kill as many as possible as fast as possible. Remember the guy who climbed the tower at the University of Texas (Whitman)? An ex-marine sniper who did not have access to what today is commonly referred to as an "assault rifle." But he killed more than the guy who shot Gabby Giffords one shot at a time.

The attack on the World Trade Center (both instances), the Boston Bombing and the Oklahoma City bombing were purely motivated by political reasons. An attempt (however ignorant) to influence the political will of this nation. It could be argued that these individuals were not mentally challenged and used a method of calling attention to their 'causes' that has been used throughout history. The Israeli's (or Zionists) used it very effectively in the late 40's against the Palestinians and the British. It was responsible for the creation of the state of Israel and the British leaving the area.

No one that I am aware of on the right is saying that we shouldn't/couldn't spend resources to combat crime. As a matter of fact, we want to ENFORCE the laws that are already on the books. The two maggots at Columbine broke over 50 laws that were enforceable. What we are saying is that if you aren't going to enforce current laws, then why in heavens name, does it make sense to pass even more when you won't enforce the laws you already have? Do you think that a back ground check would have stopped Adam Lanza? They were his mothers weapons and her background was spotless. He killed her and then took the weapons to Sandy Hook. The US Justice department is NOT enforcing those that try to purchase a weapon and FAIL or get caught lying on applications.

Remember that the Miranda warning is a Supreme Court decision. NOT a law. The Public Safety exception to that ruling is also from the Supreme Court. You want to make the right happy? Those that need to be executed should get a couple of appeals and then sentence should be carried out. If someone is standing on the street corner screaming at passing cars, then they should get a mental evaluation and if necessary, they should be committed to an institution. You can thank the ACLU for putting them on the street...

 

[MarcATL]

You've got to be freaking me.

CBC (you know left wing tax payer funded television and radio up here) actually did a program on how the Taliban and AQ teach terrorists to stand in a bus to exert the maximum carnage humanely possible.

Surely you jest that you don't understand the difference.

OK, so this should be super-easy for you.

Explain the difference please.

Thanks.

Nice and easy.

A criminal does not have a political or religious agenda.

A terrorist does.

Ahhhh...it's back to "the why" now is it? The motive/s. The reason behind their actions.

I thought RWers were fond of saying it doesn't matter why they did what they did, just that they did what they did.

So the abortion clinic bombers don't have a political or religious agenda? Really!?!?!?

See how you guys are twisting yourselves into pretzels?

 

[Antares]

Sorry Malcolm, your Boi King is has not Mirandized your friend Tsarnaev.

The rabid right wing are quick to toss their blesses, beloved and sacred Constitution out the door whenever the word "terrorism" is thrown into the mix.

"Hang him/them."
"Kill them."
"Put them in military tribunals."
"No Miranda rights."
"Throw the book at them."
Every resource they can think of, financial and otherwise, must be used and spent to stop it although it's occurance is in the decimals of percentage.

Yet, when you replace "terrorism" with crime, namely gun crime, they do a 180...
"We can't spend any resources on it."
"Criminals will be criminals."
"We can't stop all the crime."
"The Constitution is sacred, cannot touch their blessed 2nd Amerndment."
"We can't legislate violence away."

Although we are AWASH in crime, violent crime and gun-crime.

What's the difference of a so-called terrorist blowing up an NYC building or Boston building and a rabid RW nutjob blowing up an abortion clinic or walking into a church in session and blowing the brains out of one if it's members in broad daylight? What's the difference between those acts and a crazed gun-happy nutjob walking into a pre-school and blowing our little ones to shreds?

What's more terrifying than massacring our little children?

Seriously...what's the difference?

 

[MarcATL]

Marc, the end result in each case (whether a mass shooting or act of terrorism) is virtually the same. Many people dead, others maimed or crippled, property damaged or destroyed. None of the instances of mass murder in our history, whether they be recent, 20th, or 19th century are understandable by those who logically reason. The major difference lies in the motivation between the crimes.

Columbine, Newtown, Virginia Tech, Phoenix and other mass shootings were the work of unbalanced individuals without a political motivation. These individuals used a vehicle to make them 'visible' to society when they felt that they were not. Their acts were purely criminal without a motivation that lies in the political realm. Due to their 'unbalanced' or psychotic thinking process, they wanted to become 'immortal.' A good way to do it? Kill as many as possible as fast as possible. Remember the guy who climbed the tower at the University of Texas (Whitman)? An ex-marine sniper who did not have access to what today is commonly referred to as an "assault rifle." But he killed more than the guy who shot Gabby Giffords one shot at a time.

The attack on the World Trade Center (both instances), the Boston Bombing and the Oklahoma City bombing were purely motivated by political reasons. An attempt (however ignorant) to influence the political will of this nation. It could be argued that these individuals were not mentally challenged and used a method of calling attention to their 'causes' that has been used throughout history. The Israeli's (or Zionists) used it very effectively in the late 40's against the Palestinians and the British. It was responsible for the creation of the state of Israel and the British leaving the area.

No one that I am aware of on the right is saying that we shouldn't/couldn't spend resources to combat crime. As a matter of fact, we want to ENFORCE the laws that are already on the books. The two maggots at Columbine broke over 50 laws that were enforceable. What we are saying is that if you aren't going to enforce current laws, then why in heavens name, does it make sense to pass even more when you won't enforce the laws you already have? Do you think that a back ground check would have stopped Adam Lanza? They were his mothers weapons and her background was spotless. He killed her and then took the weapons to Sandy Hook. The US Justice department is NOT enforcing those that try to purchase a weapon and FAIL or get caught lying on applications.

Remember that the Miranda warning is a Supreme Court decision. NOT a law. The Public Safety exception to that ruling is also from the Supreme Court. You want to make the right happy? Those that need to be executed should get a couple of appeals and then sentence should be carried out. If someone is standing on the street corner screaming at passing cars, then they should get a mental evaluation and if necessary, they should be committed to an institution. You can thank the ACLU for putting them on the street...

Again...

The difference between what is a crime and what is considered terrorism boils down to motive, according to you, that is crimes are committed by "unbalanced individuals seeking immortality" and terrorism is committed by individuals with religious and/or political motives.

That's it right?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The rabid right wing are quick to toss their blesses, beloved and sacred Constitution out the door whenever the word "terrorism" is thrown into the mix.

"Hang him/them."
"Kill them."
"Put them in military tribunals."
"No Miranda rights."
"Throw the book at them."
Every resource they can think of, financial and otherwise, must be used and spent to stop it although it's occurance is in the decimals of percentage.

Yet, when you replace "terrorism" with crime, namely gun crime, they do a 180...
"We can't spend any resources on it."
"Criminals will be criminals."
"We can't stop all the crime."
"The Constitution is sacred, cannot touch their blessed 2nd Amerndment."
"We can't legislate violence away."

Although we are AWASH in crime, violent crime and gun-crime.

What's the difference of a so-called terrorist blowing up an NYC building or Boston building and a rabid RW nutjob blowing up an abortion clinic or walking into a church in session and blowing the brains out of one if it's members in broad daylight? What's the difference between those acts and a crazed gun-happy nutjob walking into a pre-school and blowing our little ones to shreds?

What's more terrifying than massacring our little children?

Seriously...what's the difference?

You forgot that the knee jerking rw's want to torture him but actually, there is a very important difference.

While the rw's want this guy treated like an enemy combatant, no Mirandizing and therefore, no death penalty, the Dems (President Obama) are approaching this from a legal pov so he doesn't get off on a technicality. And, yes, it could happen.

They can change that if it becomes advantageous but its iportant not to go off half cocked like the damn Rs are doing.

If they cannot prove "terrorism", he could get life in prison with us paying the bill. Without the proof of "terrorism", he cannot get the death penalty.

The stupid and rabid among us (like idiots Peter King and Lindsey Graham) are running around screaming that the sky is falling.

Just be very glad that calmer heads (President Obama) will prevail.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Sorry Malcolm, your Boi King is has not Mirandized your friend Tsarnaev.

The rabid right wing are quick to toss their blesses, beloved and sacred Constitution out the door whenever the word "terrorism" is thrown into the mix.

"Hang him/them."
"Kill them."
"Put them in military tribunals."
"No Miranda rights."
"Throw the book at them."
Every resource they can think of, financial and otherwise, must be used and spent to stop it although it's occurance is in the decimals of percentage.

Yet, when you replace "terrorism" with crime, namely gun crime, they do a 180...
"We can't spend any resources on it."
"Criminals will be criminals."
"We can't stop all the crime."
"The Constitution is sacred, cannot touch their blessed 2nd Amerndment."
"We can't legislate violence away."

Although we are AWASH in crime, violent crime and gun-crime.

What's the difference of a so-called terrorist blowing up an NYC building or Boston building and a rabid RW nutjob blowing up an abortion clinic or walking into a church in session and blowing the brains out of one if it's members in broad daylight? What's the difference between those acts and a crazed gun-happy nutjob walking into a pre-school and blowing our little ones to shreds?

What's more terrifying than massacring our little children?

Seriously...what's the difference?

Do you understand why?

Do you understand that he will be Mirandized?

I wish the idiots on the right could suspend their Hate Obama Shit for just a few minutes and actually THINK about the legalities of this case.

Ain't gonna happen though.

 

[MarcATL]

The rabid right wing are quick to toss their blesses, beloved and sacred Constitution out the door whenever the word "terrorism" is thrown into the mix.

"Hang him/them."
"Kill them."
"Put them in military tribunals."
"No Miranda rights."
"Throw the book at them."
Every resource they can think of, financial and otherwise, must be used and spent to stop it although it's occurance is in the decimals of percentage.

Yet, when you replace "terrorism" with crime, namely gun crime, they do a 180...
"We can't spend any resources on it."
"Criminals will be criminals."
"We can't stop all the crime."
"The Constitution is sacred, cannot touch their blessed 2nd Amerndment."
"We can't legislate violence away."

Although we are AWASH in crime, violent crime and gun-crime.

What's the difference of a so-called terrorist blowing up an NYC building or Boston building and a rabid RW nutjob blowing up an abortion clinic or walking into a church in session and blowing the brains out of one if it's members in broad daylight? What's the difference between those acts and a crazed gun-happy nutjob walking into a pre-school and blowing our little ones to shreds?

What's more terrifying than massacring our little children?

Seriously...what's the difference?

You forgot that the knee jerking rw's want to torture him but actually, there is a very important difference.

While the rw's want this guy treated like an enemy combatant, no Mirandizing and therefore, no death penalty, the Dems (President Obama) are approaching this from a legal pov so he doesn't get off on a technicality. And, yes, it could happen.

They can change that if it becomes advantageous but its iportant not to go off half cocked like the damn Rs are doing.

If they cannot prove "terrorism", he could get life in prison with us paying the bill. Without the proof of "terrorism", he cannot get the death penalty.

The stupid and rabid among us (like idiots Peter King and Lindsey Graham) are running around screaming that the sky is falling.

Just be very glad that calmer heads (President Obama) will prevail.

Yes, those are two of the stupidest out there...and flaming I might add.

 

[MarcATL]

Sorry Malcolm, your Boi King is has not Mirandized your friend Tsarnaev.

The rabid right wing are quick to toss their blesses, beloved and sacred Constitution out the door whenever the word "terrorism" is thrown into the mix.

"Hang him/them."
"Kill them."
"Put them in military tribunals."
"No Miranda rights."
"Throw the book at them."
Every resource they can think of, financial and otherwise, must be used and spent to stop it although it's occurance is in the decimals of percentage.

Yet, when you replace "terrorism" with crime, namely gun crime, they do a 180...
"We can't spend any resources on it."
"Criminals will be criminals."
"We can't stop all the crime."
"The Constitution is sacred, cannot touch their blessed 2nd Amerndment."
"We can't legislate violence away."

Although we are AWASH in crime, violent crime and gun-crime.

What's the difference of a so-called terrorist blowing up an NYC building or Boston building and a rabid RW nutjob blowing up an abortion clinic or walking into a church in session and blowing the brains out of one if it's members in broad daylight? What's the difference between those acts and a crazed gun-happy nutjob walking into a pre-school and blowing our little ones to shreds?

What's more terrifying than massacring our little children?

Seriously...what's the difference?

Do you understand why?

Do you understand that he will be Mirandized?

I wish the idiots on the right could suspend their Hate Obama Shit for just a few minutes and actually THINK about the legalities of this case.

Ain't gonna happen though.

I got a feeling that in this case, it may not even be about Obama, it's just their gut reaction to this topic. That's just how they are.

I just may be wrong and it really may be another bad case of rabid Obama Hate Syndrome.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The difference is deterrence... Treating terrorist scum like average criminals is just as nutty as the terrorist attacks themselves. When you eliminate capital punishment people act sort of differently when they plan their lunacy.

What's average about blowing up abortion clinics, or ripping pre-schoolers to shreds with high-powered rifles?

I'd like to know.

Actually, you've touched on an important legal point.

We have domestic terrorist groups like the abortion clinic bombers, doctor murderers, KKK, Westboro (intersting that they're all religious groups ... )but all of those scum bags are still US citizens and they get the same presumption of innocence and Miranda rights.

So does this suspect.

Idiot rw's don't want enemy combatants killed with drones but they want to suspend this guys rights, thus guaranteeing a path to life in prison or even eventual parole. Wish they'd think it through but all they want is to denigrate the president. Stupid.

 

[hortysir]

Sorry Malcolm, your Boi King is has not Mirandized your friend Tsarnaev.

Do you understand why?

Do you understand that he will be Mirandized?

I wish the idiots on the right could suspend their Hate Obama Shit for just a few minutes and actually THINK about the legalities of this case.

Ain't gonna happen though.

I got a feeling that in this case, it may not even be about Obama, it's just their gut reaction to this topic. That's just how they are.

I just may be wrong and it really may be another bad case of rabid Obama Hate Syndrome.

Strange.

Just today I've heard graham and Boehner saying that the Miranda exception is perfectly logical in this case.
Graham's an idiot and still cries "tribunal".
Boehner's more reasonable and sees this going to trial

 

[Antares]

LOL, do you understand that ole Malcolm X there in ATL brought it up and not me?

...and as for you Duddley, you already ran away from me when I said he is an American citizen and gets every right he deserves??/

Run along now child.

Sorry Malcolm, your Boi King is has not Mirandized your friend Tsarnaev.

The rabid right wing are quick to toss their blesses, beloved and sacred Constitution out the door whenever the word "terrorism" is thrown into the mix.

"Hang him/them."
"Kill them."
"Put them in military tribunals."
"No Miranda rights."
"Throw the book at them."
Every resource they can think of, financial and otherwise, must be used and spent to stop it although it's occurance is in the decimals of percentage.

Yet, when you replace "terrorism" with crime, namely gun crime, they do a 180...
"We can't spend any resources on it."
"Criminals will be criminals."
"We can't stop all the crime."
"The Constitution is sacred, cannot touch their blessed 2nd Amerndment."
"We can't legislate violence away."

Although we are AWASH in crime, violent crime and gun-crime.

What's the difference of a so-called terrorist blowing up an NYC building or Boston building and a rabid RW nutjob blowing up an abortion clinic or walking into a church in session and blowing the brains out of one if it's members in broad daylight? What's the difference between those acts and a crazed gun-happy nutjob walking into a pre-school and blowing our little ones to shreds?

What's more terrifying than massacring our little children?

Seriously...what's the difference?

Do you understand why?

Do you understand that he will be Mirandized?

I wish the idiots on the right could suspend their Hate Obama Shit for just a few minutes and actually THINK about the legalities of this case.

Ain't gonna happen though.