Twelve people have died and another 58 are wounded after a gunman opened fire at the midnight premiere of the new Batman movie. The shooter was 24-year-old James Holmes, a graduate student at the University of Colorado. He claimed to be the Joker, a character from another Batman movie. The Shooter. Post edited by Skip
It's gotten to the point where this kind of thing happens so often that people have become desensitized to it. It's like "oh, another mass shooting."
there were children in that movie theater and it is a tradegy that you cannot even go to a family night movie and be safe. I read that the man started shooting during a shooting scene in the movie.
Why does "batman" have to be part of this story. This could have happened at any summer block-buster film. Idiots are talking about how the guy wore a gas mask and body armor - "like the character of Bane". As if the content of this movie, which premiered last night, right? had anything to do with this psychopath's decision to walk into a crowded theatre, set off smoke bombs and waste a bunch of people. It's as bad as that idiot fuck Limbaugh drawing some conspiratorial liberal Hollywood link between the villainous character of Bane (who was created in 1993) with Romney's Bain Capital.
Obviously the motivation to kill a bunch of people doesn't come from the movie, but the killer still may have committed his murders in the place and way in which he did because of the movie. I mean, the movie is the reason why so many people were gathered in a small area, so why wouldn't he dress up like the movie's villain if he's going to go murder all of those people? He's obviously crazy. Seems like something a crazy person would think to do. The big problem I have with this story is that the US government declared that this incident was not linked with terrorist acts. What the fuck is up with that? A guy killed a bunch of innocent people but since he's not brown he's not a terrorist. 50 people were shot, but he's not brown, so he's not a terrorist.
The difference being; 1) it was carried out by a lone individual 2) no political/religious motivations or declarations of cause or purpose. Saying that because he's not brown is the reason he wasn't labeled a terrorist is just plain silly. Timothy McVeigh was lily white but because of the target, the motivation, and the declared reason for the bombing are what classified him as a terrorist.
I think the statement is more so that this attack isn't linked to terrorist organizations. The only reason I don't like it is because I think it's silly to think that this isn't an act of terrorism. It spreads terror. Whether or not he was executing an attack on the behalf of Al-Queada he was still committing an act of terrorism. To say that it's not linked with terrorism is just plain wrong. If we have a war against terror, it's not a war against one terrorist organization. This kind of statement perpetuates the notion that the only "terrorists" we have to worry about are those damn arabs. If we refer to every act of terrorism as what it is then people will have less of a reason to associate the act with muslim people. I just have a serious feeling that if the man who did this had been muslim, the word terrorist would be flying around like crazy.
Terrorism: The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. Killing people doesn't make you a terrorist. He could only be correctly labeled a terrorist if there were political motivation behind his attack. Him being brown or not doesn't have anything to do with the government saying he's not a terrorist. You're being the silly one.
Terrorist: a person who terrorizes or frightens others. Edit: from OED 2. A person who professes, or tries to awaken or spread a feeling of terror or alarm; an alarmist, a scaremonger. Now rare. So I suppose the current definition generally contains political associations, but I don't particularly agree with that either. This definition makes the most sense to me for the word terrorist.
You do have to draw a line somewhere, otherwise we could find a way to claim every crime is an act of terrorism. some lone whack-job shooting a bunch of people is terror inducing and fucked-up, but it is still not what is considered "an act of terrorism" You seem to also be projecting your own bias concerning Arabs and Muslims. I mentioned McVeigh as an example, and he was not Arab, Muslim, or brown, and he was still considered a terrorist. You may not agree with the definitions of terrorism, but too bad.
Hmm. going by that definition almost every thread starter in the "conspiracy" forum are terrorists including yourself.
terrorists act to cause people to be scared to do their daily routine, thats why al-qada gets the reputation that they do. our daily flying routine is greatly changed because of that fear. going to a concert or sports event is greatly affected because of what terrorists do. im not so scared of going into a movie theater because of this one incident. if movie theaters became a target then people like this white non muslim guy would be considered terrorists. movie theaters arent considered a target so this will just go down as a nutjob acting like a nutjob. now look at the columbine school shooting, that would be a terrorist act. the one important difference is that dylan klebold (sp) said that there will be more incidents like this coming soon. now that was coming from someone that planned on killing himself so he must have known other people out there wanted to do the same thing. and by saying so he was causing people to be scared to go to school.
anyway im waiting for this to be blamed on video games. saw one report that tried to connect it to the tea party. although it looks like they are going to put this one against violent movies, there is already talk of them pulling a trailer that played before the batman movie that had a big shooting scene.
crazy joe was my hero...and my grandmother went to that school. wasnt so many blacks there in those days. at least thats how she put it.
I hope you don't think that I have any bias against muslims. I simply have a lot of animosity towards the ignorant who think mulim=terrorist, and towards the constant spread of that notion. Yes the reason for my problem with the article stems from my own interpretation of the word terrorist. I think that any act of mass murder should be consider terrorism. This man terrorized people. Is see no reason why he shouldn't be called a terrorist. He was an agent in the spread of terror. Again, these are things that I think should define a terrorist, so I cede that the government may not be technically wrong for the statement they made, but I still find fault with it because I think their definition and the popular definition causes people to be mislead about what terrorism is and about who terrorists are. The popular definition leads to the notion that terrorists are a group which we can be at war with, which I think is another huge fallacy. This is why I think that people associate muslim with terrorist, because every time anyone talks about terrorism or the war on terror, they're talking about al-Qaeda or some muslim terrorist organization. The truth is that any person anywhere in the a world can be a terrorist. They don't need to be associated with any particular group or against any particular group to be an agent in the spread of terror. Again, my definition, not the popular one. Have I started a thread in the conspiracy forum? I generally try to reduce the spread of terror and increase the spread of good things in my life and others, so I don't really appreciate the notion that I have professed or tried to awaken or spread a feeling of terror or alarm.
This just happened last night during the opening night of the new movie "The Dark Knight Rises," killing 14 people and injuring at least 50 others. http://www.wbir.com/news/article/22...dozen-dead-in-Colorado-movie-theater-shooting