independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Black Supremacist mows down Christmas parade killing 6
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 2 of 2 <12
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #30 posted 11/25/21 9:03am

RichardS

OnlyNDaUsa said:

RichardS said:

I think we would agree that other people who are currently defining this as a terrorist attack are simply speculating (i.e. making things up) to suit their agenda, am I correct?

you assume motive here.

True. Sometimes motive is quite obvious, but in other cases perhaps they are without agenda but just ignorant.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #31 posted 11/25/21 9:08am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

RichardS said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

you assume motive here.

True. Sometimes motive is quite obvious, but in other cases perhaps they are without agenda but just ignorant.

so you assume it is okay? and the entire process is assumptions with various levels of support and evidence. Again if he made anti-white statements and then drove into a group of white people that is evidence that he had a pre-existing mind set and that he acted in a manner consistent with that mind set... and terrorism is defined in general as an act intended to scare people that has a social or political agenda or message...

and again if thoes posts are shown to not have been made by him then we can talk about it not being evidence of his acts being meant to send a message.

i dIdn't reAd aNy of that gaRbaG
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #32 posted 11/25/21 9:29am

RichardS

OnlyNDaUsa said:

RichardS said:

True. Sometimes motive is quite obvious, but in other cases perhaps they are without agenda but just ignorant.

so you assume it is okay? and the entire process is assumptions with various levels of support and evidence. Again if he made anti-white statements and then drove into a group of white people that is evidence that he had a pre-existing mind set and that he acted in a manner consistent with that mind set... and terrorism is defined in general as an act intended to scare people that has a social or political agenda or message...

and again if thoes posts are shown to not have been made by him then we can talk about it not being evidence of his acts being meant to send a message.

When you say 'so you assume it is okay?' I'm not sure what you refer to. What is okay?

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #33 posted 11/25/21 9:39am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

RichardS said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

so you assume it is okay? and the entire process is assumptions with various levels of support and evidence. Again if he made anti-white statements and then drove into a group of white people that is evidence that he had a pre-existing mind set and that he acted in a manner consistent with that mind set... and terrorism is defined in general as an act intended to scare people that has a social or political agenda or message...

and again if thoes posts are shown to not have been made by him then we can talk about it not being evidence of his acts being meant to send a message.

When you say 'so you assume it is okay?' I'm not sure what you refer to. What is okay?

part that it is oaky to assume as long as you are willing to change your mind as new info comes to light. Like I assumed it was illegal for Kyle to have that gun....but then it came to light that the law allowes him to... i chaged my view.

i dIdn't reAd aNy of that gaRbaG
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #34 posted 11/25/21 9:45am

TruthBomb

WANT TO SEE HOW EVIL WORKS?

SIMPLY DO A SEARCH ON WIKI FOR CHARLOTSVILLE CAR ATTACK VS WAUKESHA CAR ATTACK

.

.

.

The Charlottesville car attack was a white supremacist terrorist attack[10] perpetrated on August 12, 2017, when James Alex Fields, Jr. deliberately drove his car into a crowd of people peacefully protesting the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, killing one person and injuring 35.[4][11] 20-year-old Fields had previously espoused neo-Nazi and white supremacist beliefs,[7] and drove from Ohio to attend the rally.[12] He was convicted in a state court for the first-degree murder of 32-year-old Heather Heyer, eight counts of malicious wounding, and hit and run, and was sentenced to life in prison plus an additional 419 years in July 2019.[13] He also pled guilty to 29 of 30 federal hate crime charges to avoid the death penalty, which resulted in another life sentence handed down in June 2019.

A memorial service and vigils were organized. The mayor of Charlottesville, public safety secretary, US attorney general, and director of the FBI called the attack an act of domestic terrorism.

.

.

.

2021 Waukesha Christmas parade attack

On November 21, 2021, the driver of a SUV killed six people and injured 62 others when he hit and ran over participants and observers at a Christmas parade in Waukesha, Wisconsin, United States. The suspected driver of the vehicle, 39-year-old Darrell E. Brooks, was arrested and charged with five counts of first-degree intentional homicide.[2] Authorities have not announced a motive for the attack.[3]

.

.

SEE IT FOR YOURSELF. EVIL ON DISPLAY

[Edited 11/25/21 9:46am]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #35 posted 11/25/21 9:50am

RichardS

OnlyNDaUsa said:

RichardS said:

When you say 'so you assume it is okay?' I'm not sure what you refer to. What is okay?

part that it is oaky to assume as long as you are willing to change your mind as new info comes to light. Like I assumed it was illegal for Kyle to have that gun....but then it came to light that the law allowes him to... i chaged my view.

Yeah, I agree.

But some people have already declared it as definitely a terrorist attack, when clearly, at best, that is an unknown. At worst it directly contradicts statements by the Waukesha Police Chief who said "This was not a terrorist attack".

What benefit is there from making such statements? Does it help the victims families? I would very much doubt it, perhaps even the opposite. The most obvious benefit, and reason for making such statements at this point, is a political agenda.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #36 posted 11/25/21 12:16pm

IanRG

OnlyNDaUsa said:

RichardS said:

When you say 'so you assume it is okay?' I'm not sure what you refer to. What is okay?

part that it is oaky to assume as long as you are willing to change your mind as new info comes to light. Like I assumed it was illegal for Kyle to have that gun....but then it came to light that the law allowes him to... i chaged my view.

.

I did read this garbage.

.

It is beholden on you to not assume what new info could come to light so that the far-right spin and the deliberate labeling of this as terrorism by Fox and Co could, perhaps, be seen as correct.

.

Whilst is it off-topic: It was illegal for Rittenhouse to be supplied that gun. It is only not illegal for him to have that gun due to an appealable ambiguity that the judge improperly addressed and admitted so in court saying "Well, I guess that’s not fair for me to say because I was sitting on it. So shame on me."

.

In both cases facts beat spin. Whilst the media spin that this is terrorism is speculation against what they have been told by the police, the laying of criminal charges are not mere speculation - this is a false equivalence. The charges are based on the facts in the available evidence. The subjective thing in these is a professional judgement call as to what are the most appropriate charges to enable the criminal justice system to see justice is served fairly within the law and legal principles.

[Edited 11/25/21 12:47pm]

I may not agree with what you say, but I will never seek to cancel you with an anti-free speech signature
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #37 posted 11/25/21 12:45pm

IanRG

TruthBomb said:

WANT TO SEE HOW EVIL WORKS?

SIMPLY DO A SEARCH ON WIKI FOR CHARLOTSVILLE CAR ATTACK VS WAUKESHA CAR ATTACK

.

.

.

The Charlottesville car attack was a white supremacist terrorist attack[10] perpetrated on August 12, 2017, when James Alex Fields, Jr. deliberately drove his car into a crowd of people peacefully protesting the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, killing one person and injuring 35.[4][11] 20-year-old Fields had previously espoused neo-Nazi and white supremacist beliefs,[7] and drove from Ohio to attend the rally.[12] He was convicted in a state court for the first-degree murder of 32-year-old Heather Heyer, eight counts of malicious wounding, and hit and run, and was sentenced to life in prison plus an additional 419 years in July 2019.[13] He also pled guilty to 29 of 30 federal hate crime charges to avoid the death penalty, which resulted in another life sentence handed down in June 2019.

A memorial service and vigils were organized. The mayor of Charlottesville, public safety secretary, US attorney general, and director of the FBI called the attack an act of domestic terrorism.

.

.

.

2021 Waukesha Christmas parade attack

On November 21, 2021, the driver of a SUV killed six people and injured 62 others when he hit and ran over participants and observers at a Christmas parade in Waukesha, Wisconsin, United States. The suspected driver of the vehicle, 39-year-old Darrell E. Brooks, was arrested and charged with five counts of first-degree intentional homicide.[2] Authorities have not announced a motive for the attack.[3]

.

.

SEE IT FOR YOURSELF. EVIL ON DISPLAY

[Edited 11/25/21 9:46am]

.

I agree. Both are evil acts reported properly in line with what is currently known to date.

.

One is 1,565 days after the murders so the evil by Fields is known and the process of justice is complete and he serving his time for his crimes.

.

The other is a couple of days after the alleged murders (only alleged because there has not been enough time to confirm this in the court). As it is only a couple of days, less is known and the process is only in its very early days. Brooks in custody and very unlikely to get out before he is also convicted and serves his time for his crimes. It has been stated that he is expected to be charged with more crimes.

I may not agree with what you say, but I will never seek to cancel you with an anti-free speech signature
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #38 posted 11/26/21 6:28am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

RichardS said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

part that it is oaky to assume as long as you are willing to change your mind as new info comes to light. Like I assumed it was illegal for Kyle to have that gun....but then it came to light that the law allowes him to... i chaged my view.

Yeah, I agree.

But some people have already declared it as definitely a terrorist attack, when clearly, at best, that is an unknown. At worst it directly contradicts statements by the Waukesha Police Chief who said "This was not a terrorist attack".

What benefit is there from making such statements? Does it help the victims families? I would very much doubt it, perhaps even the opposite. The most obvious benefit, and reason for making such statements at this point, is a political agenda.

well I have seen reports that it was intentional... is that a step in the terrorism direction?

i dIdn't reAd aNy of that gaRbaG
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #39 posted 11/26/21 7:25am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Why does it matter what color he was?

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #40 posted 11/26/21 7:33am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

Why does it matter what color he was?

if he targeted his victims or even did this in hopes of any of them being of a specific group and if he had any postings or had expressed any thoughts or ideals or ideologies that seemed to match that hope then I think it matters.

As it shows a race bias motive.

the fact that if a white person did this at what that person thought would be a predominately black event and had made such comments wouldn't their race matter?

I recall a mass shooting where it was said to have been a white killer and that was the lead...but then it wasn't and wow that person's race and identity seemed to vanish...replaced with why it was still the white man's fault.

i dIdn't reAd aNy of that gaRbaG
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #41 posted 11/26/21 7:35am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

So racial motives matter, hmm?

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #42 posted 11/26/21 7:44am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

So racial motives matter, hmm?



having a motive helps. that is not even up for debate.


But as I said IF he had made posts that seem to match the results of the event in question then that goes to motive. That would help show it was not an accident.


I am still and always opposed to hate crimes being used to add too a serious crime. I stand by my view that they should only be used if the crime was otherwise minor. So it SHOULD Not apply in this case.

i dIdn't reAd aNy of that gaRbaG
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #43 posted 11/26/21 1:03pm

IanRG

OnlyNDaUsa said:

RichardS said:

Yeah, I agree.

But some people have already declared it as definitely a terrorist attack, when clearly, at best, that is an unknown. At worst it directly contradicts statements by the Waukesha Police Chief who said "This was not a terrorist attack".

What benefit is there from making such statements? Does it help the victims families? I would very much doubt it, perhaps even the opposite. The most obvious benefit, and reason for making such statements at this point, is a political agenda.

well I have seen reports that it was intentional... is that a step in the terrorism direction?

.

The opinion in the types of reports you choose to read does not make anything a step in any direction.

.

You are obsessing in trying to make this something that those who are investigating this say it is not. Speculating that perhaps this could be "terrorsim" in face of ALL the clear evidence that he is a person that has form in battery, domestic violence, drugs charges and resisting arrest.

.

2/11 He was arrested for punching the mother of his child and chased in the SUV and hit her with the SUV.

.

11/11 He was inexplicably released for a remarkedly low bail - THIS SHOULD BE THE TOPIC, not the far-right hopes that this is an anti-far-right hate crime.

.

He had just come from what the police called a "domestic disturbance" when he attacked the parade and he was in a county that had recently issued an arrest warrant out on him for reneging on child support.

.

The things that are missing that would make this a potential terrorist attack would be that there is an intended link that should be clear to those affected by the attack that this act of violence is in support of the terrorist's political aims. That you have to speculate that perhaps this could exist or rely on far-right corporate media claims shows this is guesswork. If and only if, the investigators find evidence of how Brooks intended for this to be a political message in support of his poliitcal aims then you might be able to claim terrorism.

.

Facts beat spin

I may not agree with what you say, but I will never seek to cancel you with an anti-free speech signature
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #44 posted 11/26/21 1:13pm

IanRG

OnlyNDaUsa said:

2freaky4church1 said:

So racial motives matter, hmm?



having a motive helps. that is not even up for debate.


But as I said IF he had made posts that seem to match the results of the event in question then that goes to motive. That would help show it was not an accident.


I am still and always opposed to hate crimes being used to add too a serious crime. I stand by my view that they should only be used if the crime was otherwise minor. So it SHOULD Not apply in this case.

.

To be terrorism, you need more than motive. You need a political agenda, a clear link between the violent acts and the message about that political agenda sent by that violent act.

.

If you don't want the accusation of hate crimes to be added too (sic) a serious crime, why are you joining in with the far-right obsession that this is, or could be, a hate crime of terrorism?

I may not agree with what you say, but I will never seek to cancel you with an anti-free speech signature
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #45 posted 11/27/21 7:13am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Yea, he had a long record. Look at his face, the dude was nuts. You cannot go on about how racism does not exist but this guy a black supremicist.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #46 posted 11/27/21 7:13am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

DJ has me smokinnn out tha windowww

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 2 of 2 <12
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Black Supremacist mows down Christmas parade killing 6