“Any killing of a human being should be an act of terrorism. I think we need to control our gun law in this country. No matter what, any killing of any human being is an act of terrorism.” – Salihin Kondoker whose wife was wounded in San Bernardino yesterday in San Bernardino Shooting: Suspects Left Baby Daughter With Grandma [at nbcnews.com]
So, that includes:
Killing in self defense?
Killing by accident?
Killing by The State?
Mercy killing?
Thou shalt not kill I guess. Mercy killing? Maybe the Christmas sweaters were really bad and he thought he was doing them a favor. Personally I think someone spiked his Christmas nog and that set him off. Gonna be a strange life for that kid they left behind. Is it still 3 shooters? In any case, marksmanship. Only 14 fatalities? Were they shooting in the air like you see them do at weddings? Maybe that was it, they were celebrating in their cultural style. Oh well, time to invest in the iiia on the body, plate carrier in the trunk and a trunk monkey.
The triage videos from yesterday reflected lots of leg wounds. So somebody was shooting low.
The tactic is called “herding” it wounds and scares the target to bunch up in choke points for killing (shooting center mass) while reducing the herd’s coalescence with the people on the ground (and overall). It reduces the chance of a coalition counter-attack by the out-numbering target field.
In response to those the OP was talking about, what about the fwads that holds your hands behind your back while someone is killing you? Terrorism? Or is it just POS SOP from the evil blue house of liberal (D)? Or both?
Lets just redefine terrorism to be whatever we want yea?
Terrorism: (n) the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
Well that would make Hillery one of the worst…
Well… Terrorism is a ridiculous propaganda tool as well. The founding fathers of this country were all terrorists according to today’s definition. Freedom fighters = terrorists.
Would have to disagree there. The Founders were not at all about killing innocent people and torturing and so forth. They were men committed to order and liberty and who understood the dangers of insurrection and terrorism to a free society.
The founding fathers were most certainly insurrectionists.
Insurrection: (n) a violent uprising against an authority or government.
Definition of Terrorism:
Terrorism: (n) the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
The colonists (many supported by some founding fathers) made political and commercial attacks for political aims. The whole concept of the rebellion was to force the hand of the British or have the British release control of the colonies to the new american government (a win by intimidation). The former occurred rather than the latter and a war was fought.
Your definition of terrorism (“The Founders were not at all about killing innocent people and torturing and so forth.”) is not the common definition today.
Back then, nobody even used the word “terrorism.” Terrorism is a political term of recent birth:
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=7&case_insensitive=on&content=terrorism&direct_url=t4%3B%2Cterrorism%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bterrorism%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BTerrorism%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BTERRORISM%3B%2Cc0
So that makes all military forces terrorists, as per Clausewitz. Which is correct according to the etymology, “terrorism” was first used to describe military attacks on civilian targets in warfare, before governments redefined the word.
Last time I checked, terrorism is a politically motivated attack for a cause. Kind of hard to figure out a political motive for most murders, like dead prostitutes, gang shootings and infanticide.
Words have meanings; why is this so hard for people to understand?
Control the words, control the “understanding.”
The Progressives are trying very hard to redefine “terrorism.”
When everything is terrorism, nothing is terrorism…
So … If everyone has guns, no one has guns?
Outstanding! An AR and a Beretta M9 for every citizen! Then no one will be armed!
/antilogic
Terrorism is an act, not a physical object. The point I believe he was making is that once you label everything as terrorism then the word is meaningless. It is already nearing meaningless at the rate the far left are going. I fail to see a lack of logic in his statement. I only see it in comparing an act to an object.
No…just no.
He is saying that if the term “Terrorism” is applied so haphazardly and to every and all situation that involved some form of violence, then the actual, legal and political meaning is rendered moot.
Sorry for his loss, but doesn’t understand freedom or liberty.
…and because, we all know California does absolutely nothing to deliberately control how, who, what, when, where, or if firearms are sold.
Worked out well for them didn’t it?
My heart goes out to him – I don’t know what I’d do if I lost my wife like this, I can’t even imagine what he must be going through right now. Nor, honestly,do I want to try.
I understand that right now he’s likely full of grief, despair, confusion and rage. Which is why a responsible journalist would give some space and time for some rationality to return rather than vamping for quotes immediately.
He did not lose his wife, she was shot in the arm and is recovering. I would be relieved and pissed at this point.
Control the gun laws? What does that mean?
I’m guessing that the two “muslim pacifists” broke a California gun law or two in their “workplace violence” act. Not to mention the pipe bomb issues.
Gun control control. It’s a restriction on who can propose gun control, how much they can propose, etc. Maybe a one gun control statement per month restriction. Or a ban on high capacity gun control organizations. Or on (gun rights) assault groups like CSVG.
I am sorry for his loss. His loss, however does not make him an expert on anything, except for maybe emotional reaction.
That said, I totally agree with his statement as quoted, ” …we need to control our gun law…”
Gun laws are totally out of control. The ever growing body of laws that serve only to disarm the law abiding create ever growing pools of potential victims. It’s time to write laws that allow those willing to take action, to be prepared to take action, should the need arise.
I guess the major fault of the gun control set is they believe people follow laws or that all the guns will magically disappear and never come back? It’s the only way somebody can conclude that an armed defender is a worse option than a decree banning attackers from attacking.
What happens when you declaw an outdoor cat? It gets eaten. So either stop declawing outdoor cats or lock all the cats up indoors for their safety.
P.S. don’t declaw your cat. It’s an f’d up thing to do.
Too bad they had to call people with guns to come help them out. A lot of time was lost and a lot of people died while they waited for others to do what they should have done for themselves.
“Salihin” you live in the US but don’t have a clue? Arm your wife of leave her defenseless? Leave her in the cesspool of Kalifornia?
The circle is now complete. I hereby declare the term terrorism to have exactly zero meaning.
Find another word, people!
Completely agree. A number of isms started out barely realistic to start with but now the extinction of meaning for once (and still sometimes) valid isms seems to be increasing thanks to the screeching of Constitution denying Statists.
I’m going with Islamed.
Islamed = Being shot, stabbed or blown up by a practitioner of the religion of peace.
And here is a perfect example of why gun free utopias like California are they way they are. The people actually think this way. They refuse to take responsibility for their own safety so they will endlessly sell their liberty. Unbelievable. These fools are completely unphased by the reality that terrorist attacks have recently taken place in some of the strictest anti-gun nations on earth. But, what good are facts when you are afraid to embrace your own security. “Protect me nanny state by denying me my constitutional rights.”
Something just doesn’t sit right with me when the loved one of a victim – whether said victim survives a tragedy or not – feels compelled to jump in front of a news camera as soon as possible. We’ve all been guilty of knee-jerk reactions here and there, but maybe these folks should make their family, and not the national media nor the national public, their priority.
It’s probably the result of the need to do “something” about the attack on his loved one. In more clear thinking societies the men of the village would be retrieving machetes from their huts and getting ready to take care of business. Since that is not an option for us, we jump in front of the news cameras.
Peasant 1: We have found a terrorist, may we burn her?
(cheers)
Vladimir: How do you known she is a terrorist?
P2: She looks like one!
V: Bring her forward
(advance)
Woman: I’m not a terrorist! I’m not a terrorist!
V: ehh… but you are dressed like one.
W: They dressed me up like this!
All: naah no we didn’t… no.
W: And this isn’t my Keffiyeh, it’s a false one.
(V lifts up carrot)
V: Well?
P1: Well we did do the Keffiyeh
V: The Keffiyeh?
P1: …And the guns, but she is a terrorist!
(all: yeah, burn her burn her!)
V: Did you dress her up like this?
P1: No! (no no… no) Yes. (yes yeah) a bit (a bit bit a bit) But she has got a beard!
(P3 points at beard)
V: What makes you think she is a terrorist?
P2: Well, she looked at me!
V: She looked at you?!
(P2 pause & look around)
P2: I got better.
(pause)
P3: Burn her anyway! (burn her burn her burn!)
(king walks in)
V: There are ways of telling whether she is a terrorist.
P1: Are there? Well then tell us! (tell us)
V: Tell me… what do you do with terrorists?
P3: Burn’em! Burn them up! (burn burn burn)
V: What do you burn apart from terrorists?
P1: More terrorists! (P2 nudge P1)
(pause)
P3: Wood!
V: So, why do terrorists burn?
(long pause)
P2: Cuz they’re made of… wood?
V: Gooood.
(crowd congratulates P2)
V: So, how do we tell if she is made of wood?
P1: Build a bridge out of her!
V: Ahh, but can you not also make bridges out of stone?
P1: Oh yeah…
V: Does wood sink in water?
P1: No
P3: No. It floats!
P1: Let’s throw her into the bog! (yeah yeah ya!)
V: What also floats in water?
P1: Bread
P3: Apples
P2: Very small rocks
(V looks annoyed)
P1: Cider
P3: Grape gravy
P1: Cherries
P3: Mud
King: A Duck!
(all look and stare at king)
V: Exactly! So, logically…
P1(thinking): If she ways the same as a duck… she’s made of wood!
V: And therefore,
(pause & think)
P3: A terrorist! (P1: a terrorist)(P2: a terrorist)(all: a terrorist!)
V: We shall use my largest scales.
This is why you waterboard suspected terrorists. To see if they float or sink.
Police are a terrorist organization. Got it.
Waco PD fits the bill.
Sigh.
No matter what, any killing of any human being is a tragedy. He is deep in personal tragedy and fear of it getting worse. Perfectly natural. Yet not all tragedy and fear is terrorism or frankly worthy of re-ordering the world, when the quick cure is worse.
Sadly, there is half the truth to his statement. Any killing of any human being probably scares him some, and probably scares everyone some, and probably should. So, all killing = terrorism… just, no.
I got a hangnail, which scares me, so terrorism!
Sigh. Because terrorism is scary, does not mean all scary things are terrorism. Nor does our bereaved proclaimer have the right to live in a world free of scary things.
Hes emotional.right now, and just wants the badness to go away. So, he will grasp at any power word that might help. And the agenda-mongers will flog his quote and his grief.
Its not reporting, it is advocacy, exploiting a man in the middle of a tragedy. Screw them.
Some time people dying is not even close to being a tragedy. Anyone going to shed a tear if Cali decided to off Charles Manson.
Breaking news! The allah couple were armed to the teeth. They did NOT have the dough to purchase what they had. DUH…
Why isn’t this guy walking the streets of Chicago with that message?
So the cops that killed the terrorists are also terrorists. Makes sense…
There already is a word for killing. It’s called, drumroll, killing…. We don’t really need another one, do we?
If the World Trace Center gets blown up in a forest, and noone’s there to die from it, is it still terrorism?
Comments are closed.