Add NYC Mayor DiBlasio to the list of people who's face I'd spit into. What an a**hole.
The driver behind the mayhem in New York City's Times Square that killed one and injured 22 others allegedly stated, "I wanted to kill them" and admitted to smoking PCP-laced marijuana before Thursday's violence.
Richard Rojas, 26, told a witness that he had wanted to kill the pedestrians of Times Square whom he hit with his 2009 Honda Accord, according to court documents. He also allegedly added that he smoked PCP-laced marijuana before the onslaught.
"I smoked marijuana," he told police, according to court documents. "I laced the marijuana with PCP."
"It appears to be intentional in the sense that he was troubled and lashing out," New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said on WNYC radio on Friday. ["APPEARS" to?????]
Police and the Department of Homeland Security initially suggested it was an accident.
The mayor added that this was not an act of terror.
Not an act of terror??? Tell that to the family of 18-year-old Alyssa Elsman of Portage, Michigan who was killed. I really don't think they'd agree with you.
Good ol KJ (killer joint), the drug of choice among Hispanic banger's. It was all over the central valley CA, I have never heard it mentioned up here in the North West.
I missed it in your write up and the article. What political, religious, or ideological aim did this a$$hole hope to achieve? What cause inspired him to do this?
He's nuts. Ideology doesn't matter to a dead person. If someone, ANYONE specifically intends to kill/harm others for ANY reason shy of self defense then it's "terror" in my book. He did it with MJ/PCP. Muslims do it with Islam. (You REALLY want to go there???)
Ask the people who live in inner city Chicago who hear gunfire all the time and who sees their young children killed for no reason other than being in gang crossfire about what "terror" is.
But I guess you could also theoretically call ME a terrorist then, because if that were my daughter (and if it were there'd likely be a pile of spent brass at the scene) and I caught up with that ********er I'd rip his lungs out.
It's not terrorism, which is what the mayor was saying. Not every depraved act is terrorism. Terrorism requires a cause. An ideology. It doesn't make it any more or less tragic. But it's not terrorism.
Taqiyya at it's finest. You never fail to disappoint Bigeasymuslim. But I'll spell it our for you.......So far as we know, this lunatic's reason was PCP laced MJ and some deep seated hatred. Muslims use the koran to do the same thing. But I would not be shocked to find out that this guy's been on ISIS webpages or even visited a mosque. Maybe that's where the hatred part comes from.
Sorry trublu, it does. That is the definition of terrorism. Causing terror is something different. That's not what the mayor of NY was saying. He was saying this does not appear to be the act of someone tied to an organization, ideology, cause, or religion. This act was not performed in the name of any of those things. If you can't understand why it is important to make that distinction in today's world then you must have been living in a cave for the last 16 years. Everybody wants to know who is behind these acts. That is the thrust behind the mayor's statement. You all are the ones parsing words, not me.
This was an act of a crazy person, be it mental illness or because of mind altering drugs. It is NO LESS tragic than any terrorist act.
And now I don't even know what WW is mad at based on his last post? Are you upset because he said this isn't terrorism? Or are you upset because we haven't ruled out that this guy is muslim?
I have no problem with the Webster's definition either, but let's look at the definition of coercion:
Legal Definition of coercion
: the use of express or implied threats of violence or reprisal (as discharge from employment) or other intimidating behavior that puts a person in immediate fear of the consequences in order to compel that person to act against his or her will; also : the defense that one acted under coercion — see also defense, duress — compare undue influence
Ultimately, terrorism is the use of violence or threat/fear of violence in order to compel and or influence people to act in certain way, i.e. to further a cause (religious, political, racial).
If a person is an alcoholic and is high and hearing voices, what sort of social change are they trying to elicit? Or are they just messed up in the head?
"Terrorism is the use of violence or threat of violence especially against civilians in the pursuit of political aims, religious, or ideological change."
It's not terrorism without that. The mayor was not saying what happened wasn't terrible. He wasn't saying that people weren't feeling terrorized.
He was saying just what you posted. This act was not an act driven by an ideology or a cause. Period. Not sure why everyone else can understand the distinction but some on here seem to really struggle with it. Every terrible act committed by a crazy person is NOT terrorism. Go back and read your definition. It's right there.
Sportoutfitter, you're ignoring the "coercion" part of the definition. Tell me again what this guy was trying to coerce?
Of course terrorism and terror have broad definitions. The mayor was not speaking to the broadest definition of terror. Come on. Y'all have to know this. He's saying this guy did not commit this act in the name of an ideology or a cause (like, say, Islam or anarchy).
I don't think that's what Woods was getting at bigeasy. The way I took it, he's talking about the terror the family experienced. The mayor said this was not an act of terror. All Woods said is ask the family if this is terrorism. At no point in the op was the word Muslim, extremist, jihadist, etc. used. Just seems like you jump at every opportunity to pick apart what people say to fit your point of view. If you don't think that guys actions terrorized those folks your crazy. Once again, read the original post for what it was. No one mentioned your precious Muslims.
It's not me that fails to understand the point the mayor was making. I'm not the one that posted the link calling the mayor an a$$hole for saying this was not an act of terrorism (again, by the definition we all come to use and understand, it wasn't). He didn't say it wasn't awful or terrible. He said this guy was not influenced by religion, or idealogy, or organization. It's as simple as that. Y'all sound like a bunch of snowflakes getting offended at everything.
Yeah I don't get it either. Even trublu's post contains this part: "It can only be committed by non-state actors or undercover personnel serving on the behalf of their respective governments."
That was definitely not the case here. So it was not terrorism by that common definition. Doesn't mean it wasn't terrifying. Big difference.
I guess the OP wants to spit in everybody's face that uses the most common definition?
Bigeasymuslim: I don't really give a flying **** what you say it is. I KNOW what I know.
And if he IS a "Christian" and did this then it's STILL an act of terror. The only difference is that if he is Christian he's acting the exact opposite of how a Christian should act. If he's a Muslim then he's just following the koran.
Either way, I don't really care. He's a murdering maniac who killed an innocent girl, and injured scores more both physically and emotionally. A bullet would be too good a death for him.
I guess that I'm just utilitarian. I don't care about labels. There's no doubt that he did it. Not one bit of ambiguity. It's on video. He admitted guilt. I think someone should start on his feet with a three pound maul and work their way up. Uncivilized? Yep.
I have no idea what labels a person wants to apply. This as well as many others, a bullet to the back of the head is the answer to a societal problem. Debating a persons motivations are a luxury only those disconnected with the incident are graced with.........
It's a despicable, horrible crime, but not an act of terror, done in support of some extreme cause, such as radical Islam. The label is not as important as what happens to the defendant.
You can see why it's critical that officials determine and make statements as to whether this was a terrorist act when a tragedy like this strikes. DiBlasio saying that takes much of the fear and uncertainty out of the situation. There are no questions as to whether there is a terrorist cell operating in the city, whether there may be follow up attacks, what LEO and intelligence officials should be doing, etc. That has an effect on the public psyche. Contrast that with the uncertainty and fear people still have with the Manchester attack where we don't yet know who executed the attack or what their motivations are.
The trust in official determinations of terrorist acts is very important especially when so many "officials" openly excuse obvious instances of koranderthalic terrorism...
Koranderthalism + muslim name + "aloha snackbar" + repetition of MO seen elsewhere = terrorism, especially since the observable rise in Amish attacks on civilians.
"....takes much of the fear and uncertainty out of the situation."
Tell that to the survivors of that massacre. And I don't think you'd be saying that if it was YOUR flesh and blood in the ICU or worse yet the morgue.
Pure bullshit spoken by people with no skin in the game. DiBlasio doesn't have to worry, he's got 24/7/365 taxpayer funded armed security for him and his family so he can be as idiotic and irresponsible as possible with no consequences.
That message is not meant to provide condolences or ease the pain of those who suffer. What about that is so hard for you to understand?? Everyone else seems to get it.
bigeasyagitator, times like this your speeach is highly offensive, nobody in this room needs your little PSA on public psyche, go hug a somali or suck something random
What on earth is offensive? The fact that I have to teach you all what terrorism is?? Y'all get worked up on some of the most ridiculous things. What a bunch of snowflakes.
