The article says that they don’t consider it an act of terrorism. Unless the guy was so drunk that he had no idea what was happening how was it not an act of terrorism?
EDIT: More reading and someone says he appeared to have mental health issues.
“The person we have in custody does have a significant history of interactions with police and health-care professionals related to mental health,” he told a briefing on Sunday.
To be a tertorist act it needs to be intended to cause terror. If the guy was having a psychotic episode and didn’t know what he was doing it would not be terrorism.
A small Filipino cultural festival at a school was attacked. I am skeptical that this was a random act of violence. Nothing is impossible, but I think that it is much more likely that this was a targeted attack. Wait till they get the suspects computer, internet history, etc.
Having strong ideological beliefs on top of being desperate doesn’t mean you have mental illness by a massive margin. Most terrorists at most are depressed, not mentally ill. These are two radically different things. Just because someone is a danger to themselves and others doesn’t make them terrorists either.
No. If you think that some group of people is superior to another group of people, and its justifiable to use violence against everyone in the inferior group, you have a mental illness.
Thats why we have correctional facilities, so these people can be separated from society while they receive treatment for their illness.
That’s not mental illness, that’s having immoral beliefs. Being racist doesn’t get you put into correctional facilities even if you advocate for the use of force against groups you don’t like. If that was true, than Israel would be one of the world’s largest correctional facilities in the world.
Or maybe the US, considering how they elected Trump.
By your definition, 70% of the world should be locked up in asylums. This isn’t an illness, it’s ideals and values incompatible with those that you personally hold. From their perspective, you who have no problems condemning an entire nation to the block is the one with mental illness by your own definition.
Yes. When that’s the only option left. Many movements around the world have employed what we now refer to as terrorism to affect change. Including ones that are currently not considered terrorist.
Terrorism is by definition political. Mass school shootings are rarely political, for example. They are very very scary, but they are not terrorism. When the PLQ killed 8 people, that was terrorism.
The article says that they don’t consider it an act of terrorism. Unless the guy was so drunk that he had no idea what was happening how was it not an act of terrorism?
EDIT: More reading and someone says he appeared to have mental health issues.
Useful context.
So… Maybe he
shouldshouldn’t have been licensed to handle a deadly weapon. Edit: shouldntThere are tons of people on the road who shouldnt have licenses.
Do we know that he had a valid licence?
Is it possible to commit a terrorist act and not have mental health issues? Pretty sure this is still terrorism.
To be a tertorist act it needs to be intended to cause terror. If the guy was having a psychotic episode and didn’t know what he was doing it would not be terrorism.
… for political goals
A small Filipino cultural festival at a school was attacked. I am skeptical that this was a random act of violence. Nothing is impossible, but I think that it is much more likely that this was a targeted attack. Wait till they get the suspects computer, internet history, etc.
Sure. That’s a very specific short-lived mental health crisis. A narrow subset of people with mental health issues.
Having strong ideological beliefs on top of being desperate doesn’t mean you have mental illness by a massive margin. Most terrorists at most are depressed, not mentally ill. These are two radically different things. Just because someone is a danger to themselves and others doesn’t make them terrorists either.
No. If you think that some group of people is superior to another group of people, and its justifiable to use violence against everyone in the inferior group, you have a mental illness.
Thats why we have correctional facilities, so these people can be separated from society while they receive treatment for their illness.
That’s not mental illness, that’s having immoral beliefs. Being racist doesn’t get you put into correctional facilities even if you advocate for the use of force against groups you don’t like. If that was true, than Israel would be one of the world’s largest correctional facilities in the world.
Or maybe the US, considering how they elected Trump.
That is mental illness. Most Israelis should be sent to the Hague to receive treatment for their mental illness.
And at least 30% of the US Americans should be given free treatment for their illness as well.
By your definition, 70% of the world should be locked up in asylums. This isn’t an illness, it’s ideals and values incompatible with those that you personally hold. From their perspective, you who have no problems condemning an entire nation to the block is the one with mental illness by your own definition.
Yes. When that’s the only option left. Many movements around the world have employed what we now refer to as terrorism to affect change. Including ones that are currently not considered terrorist.
That’s abuse of the term. If you’re attacking a military, you’re not a terrorist. Even if your skin is brown.
If you’re attacking women and children intentionally, you’re a terrorist. Even if you’re wearing a State-issued military uniform.
Terrorism is by definition political. Mass school shootings are rarely political, for example. They are very very scary, but they are not terrorism. When the PLQ killed 8 people, that was terrorism.
Mass shooting in a school is definitely terrorism wtf