is terrorism now supplanting racism as the go-to buzzword

[133743Hokie]

Seems any violent interaction is now termed terrorism. The C'ville attack wasn't terrorism.

[USN_Hokie]

I reserve to change this opinion if more evidence is brought forward, but yeah - don't see the "terrorism" angle here at all based on what we know.

Obviously, the left prefers that language to ratchet up the rhetoric.

[awesome guy]

They want to equate the right with the violent left.

[fatman]

When someone or a group plows into a crowd of people with their car or truck in Germany, France, England, or Virginia the word terrorism is typically used. If someone were to plant bombs or hijack airplanes the same term is commonly used as well.

Do you feel that when some member of a hate group from Kentucky is the culprit the term somehow is no longer applicable?

[UpstateSCHokie]

I reserve to change this opinion if more evidence is brought forward, but yeah - don't see the "terrorism" angle here at all based on what we know.

Obviously, the left prefers that language to ratchet up the rhetoric.

I tend to agree with this. Terrorism is when someone plans out attacks on innocent civilians who were in no way engaged in political activities at the time of the attack. Based on what we know, this attack seemed more like the heat of the moment type of thing more than anything premeditated.

That said, I see where the DOJ is considering charging him with a "Civil Rights Violation." Too bad these "Civil Rights" charges never seem to get applied in an even and equal way (you know, as in equal protection under the law). If the "Civil Rights" of the people who were prevented from speaking in Berkeley were not violated, then I have no idea what has to be done to deny someone their "Civil Rights."

And as Ive said before, I really have no idea what "Civil Rights" are. I know what Constitutional Rights are, as they are clearly spelled out in the nation's founding documents. "Civil Rights" seemed to be some made-up rights that allow members of the Democrat party to receive special treatment under the law - a direct violation of Constitutional rights.

[UpstateSCHokie]

When someone or a group plows into a crowd of people with their car or truck in Germany, France, England, or Virginia the word terrorism is typically used. If someone were to plant bombs or hijack airplanes the same term is commonly used as well.

Do you feel that when some member of a hate group from Kentucky is the culprit the term somehow is no longer applicable?

Again, in all of the other examples, the act was premeditated and planned out to terrorize people in the name of a political agenda. Show us where the attack yesterday was premeditated.

[awesome guy]

When someone or a group plows into a crowd of people with their car or truck in Germany, France, England, or Virginia the word terrorism is typically used. If someone were to plant bombs or hijack airplanes the same term is commonly used as well.

Do you feel that when some member of a hate group from Kentucky is the culprit the term somehow is no longer applicable?

Difference is before this event, the driver was at the receiving end of punches, rocks, and other objects thrown at him. That's retaliation, the other events are unprovoked. If your ilk weren't violent earlier in the day or even up the point that he drove then it likely wouldn't have happened at all. A terrorist attack is planned ahead and is unprovoked. This seems like a response to FatTroll approved violence.

[fatman]

When someone or a group plows into a crowd of people with their car or truck in Germany, France, England, or Virginia the word terrorism is typically used. If someone were to plant bombs or hijack airplanes the same term is commonly used as well.

Do you feel that when some member of a hate group from Kentucky is the culprit the term somehow is no longer applicable?

Difference is before this event, the driver was at the receiving end of punches, rocks, and other objects thrown at him. That's retaliation, the other events are unprovoked. If your ilk weren't violent earlier in the day or even up the point that he drove then it likely wouldn't have happened at all. A terrorist attack is planned ahead and is unprovoked. This seems like a response to FatTroll approved violence.

If I'm following your argument here correctly, you are saying that because someone punched this dude from Kentucky earlier in the day or threw rocks at him at some point Saturday, that he was justified when he decided to ram a group of Americans at high speed with his car. Is that what you are saying?

[UpstateSCHokie]

When someone or a group plows into a crowd of people with their car or truck in Germany, France, England, or Virginia the word terrorism is typically used. If someone were to plant bombs or hijack airplanes the same term is commonly used as well.

Do you feel that when some member of a hate group from Kentucky is the culprit the term somehow is no longer applicable?

Difference is before this event, the driver was at the receiving end of punches, rocks, and other objects thrown at him. That's retaliation, the other events are unprovoked. If your ilk weren't violent earlier in the day or even up the point that he drove then it likely wouldn't have happened at all. A terrorist attack is planned ahead and is unprovoked. This seems like a response to FatTroll approved violence.

If I'm following your argument here correctly, you are saying that because someone punched this dude from Kentucky earlier in the day or threw rocks at him at some point Saturday, that he was justified when he decided to ram a group of Americans at high speed with his car. Is that what you are saying?

If I'm following your argument here correctly, the only 2 choices are its either an act of terrorism or its justified. Is that what you are saying?

[133743Hokie]

When someone or a group plows into a crowd of people with their car or truck in Germany, France, England, or Virginia the word terrorism is typically used. If someone were to plant bombs or hijack airplanes the same term is commonly used as well.

Do you feel that when some member of a hate group from Kentucky is the culprit the term somehow is no longer applicable?

Difference is before this event, the driver was at the receiving end of punches, rocks, and other objects thrown at him. That's retaliation, the other events are unprovoked. If your ilk weren't violent earlier in the day or even up the point that he drove then it likely wouldn't have happened at all. A terrorist attack is planned ahead and is unprovoked. This seems like a response to FatTroll approved violence.

If I'm following your argument here correctly, you are saying that because someone punched this dude from Kentucky earlier in the day or threw rocks at him at some point Saturday, that he was justified when he decided to ram a group of Americans at high speed with his car. Is that what you are saying?

No, it's vehicular homicide, etc. Like stated above, it wasn't a premeditated attack on innocents to instill fear. It was retaliation. Clearly not justified by any reasonable analysis, which is why he'll be in jail for a long time.

[awesome guy]

When someone or a group plows into a crowd of people with their car or truck in Germany, France, England, or Virginia the word terrorism is typically used. If someone were to plant bombs or hijack airplanes the same term is commonly used as well.

Do you feel that when some member of a hate group from Kentucky is the culprit the term somehow is no longer applicable?

Difference is before this event, the driver was at the receiving end of punches, rocks, and other objects thrown at him. That's retaliation, the other events are unprovoked. If your ilk weren't violent earlier in the day or even up the point that he drove then it likely wouldn't have happened at all. A terrorist attack is planned ahead and is unprovoked. This seems like a response to FatTroll approved violence.

If I'm following your argument here correctly, you are saying that because someone punched this dude from Kentucky earlier in the day or threw rocks at him at some point Saturday, that he was justified when he decided to ram a group of Americans at high speed with his car. Is that what you are saying?

No you inbred moron, I'm stating what a marginally intelligent person knows without debate, that violence begets more violence. He's just as wrong as the BLM and Antifa thugs. The violence wouldn't have happened if the cops dispersed the violent element instead of turning a blind eye to it. Bless your heart. It's common sense, don't let them fight it out as things just escalate. Not shocked this is debatable to you.

[USN_Hokie]

When someone or a group plows into a crowd of people with their car or truck in Germany, France, England, or Virginia the word terrorism is typically used. If someone were to plant bombs or hijack airplanes the same term is commonly used as well.

Do you feel that when some member of a hate group from Kentucky is the culprit the term somehow is no longer applicable?

1. Hitting people with a car doesn't mean terrorism by itself.

2. Remember Ohio State? The left refused to call that terrorism and characterized him as a student disgruntled because of racism. I should dig up the thread we had here, I wouldn't be surprised if some used that defense.

3. Your analogy is a bad one, because his vehicle was being attacked by pedestrians in the street. In one of the pictures /screen caps his wheels appear turned away from a person getting out of the way. If he was trying to kill people, he was doing a bad job of it because there were lots of people he could have plowed over on the sidewalks. His victim may have even been blocking his egress, though I'm not sure if we know that yet.

We might learn something new to change things and better determine his motivation, but I don't see any evidence to call this a terrorist attack right now.

[awesome guy]

When someone or a group plows into a crowd of people with their car or truck in Germany, France, England, or Virginia the word terrorism is typically used. If someone were to plant bombs or hijack airplanes the same term is commonly used as well.

Do you feel that when some member of a hate group from Kentucky is the culprit the term somehow is no longer applicable?

Difference is before this event, the driver was at the receiving end of punches, rocks, and other objects thrown at him. That's retaliation, the other events are unprovoked. If your ilk weren't violent earlier in the day or even up the point that he drove then it likely wouldn't have happened at all. A terrorist attack is planned ahead and is unprovoked. This seems like a response to FatTroll approved violence.

If I'm following your argument here correctly, you are saying that because someone punched this dude from Kentucky earlier in the day or threw rocks at him at some point Saturday, that he was justified when he decided to ram a group of Americans at high speed with his car. Is that what you are saying?

No, it's vehicular homicide, etc. Like stated above, it wasn't a premeditated attack on innocents to instill fear. It was retaliation. Clearly not justified by any reasonable analysis, which is why he'll be in jail for a long time.

Yep