Taygibay
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2010
- Messages
- 3,392
- Reaction score
- 29
- Country
- Location
Actually, M2S, I defend that often by explaining what the definitions cover.So apparently Muslims when they murder can't be crazy. They are straight up terrorist
It so happens that the clearest differentiating factor is revendication, AKA claim.
If there is one it marks the line. In the name of whom has the act been made?
So one step further is a group that accepts it even if by staying silent once linked.
That would make it terrorism.
To compare, the act in Kuwait was claimed by Daesch and that makes it terrorist.
We're waiting on Lyon and Sousse. But in France, the guy was known to services.
Dylan Roof in Charleston that shot 9 people to death has a revendication that I rebuked
on my blog based on the most basic of racists delusions. His claim was personal because
_ I quote : "We have no skinheads, no real KKK, no one doing anything but talking on the internet."
And no group claimed him and his lapse of reason as their own! So murderous racist : AKA Crazy!
Muslim radicals are routinely plotting against the very aggressive countries of Sweden and Ireland.
When an individual is "known to the security services" why don't the security services act? These organisations appear to me to be immensely overrated.
Sweden has past history but the worst Irish are mostly looting alcohol and potatoes …
which shouldn't be so bad in most Muslim lands!
As for agencies, their hands are tied. Even that so decried new law only got excessive on prolonged
"black box" tap on Internet services. For phone taps and such basic surveillance, it only extended 30
days renewable periods from suspect to suspect & direct family, spouses etc. It's good because the
law enforcement missed the Kouachi brothers because they used their wifes' phones to plot their deed.
We're still only talking of a hundredth of thousandth of the combined Patriot Act- Homeland security here.
So not useless but say constrained?
Good day all, Tay.