Terrorism Attack Lower Manhattan 8 Dead still developing

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Go Beavers said:

mcgruff10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Bentleyspop said:

My guess is that if you asked any of the people who were there if they were terrorized they'd say yes.

It was a terrorist act. Obviously.

"Allah Akbar!"
"This was an act of terror, and a particularly cowardly act of terror," New York Mayor Bill de Blasio said, "aimed at innocent civilians, aimed at people going about their lives who had no idea what was about to hit them."

And if he yelled God hates sinners, Jesus saves, would that be evidence of terrorism? My point is not just to debate a definition, but if the Patriot act gets applied, then Constitutional rights get waived. It also guides the dialogue and intervention based in how we define it.  

Are you concerned about the constitutional rights of the guy shouting, "Allah Akbar" being waived... or in the broader sense? What would you be most concerned with regarding any dialogue and intervention that might arise defining this act as a terrorism?

What are you trying to protect? 

mcgruff10

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/31/us/new-york-shots-fired/index.html

Authorities found a note, written in English, claiming the suspect in Tuesday's attack in New York did it in the name of ISIS, a senior law enforcement official told CNN. 

The note was found in the truck police said was used in the attack, the source said.

Go Beavers

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Go Beavers said:

mcgruff10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Bentleyspop said:

My guess is that if you asked any of the people who were there if they were terrorized they'd say yes.

It was a terrorist act. Obviously.

"Allah Akbar!"
"This was an act of terror, and a particularly cowardly act of terror," New York Mayor Bill de Blasio said, "aimed at innocent civilians, aimed at people going about their lives who had no idea what was about to hit them."

And if he yelled God hates sinners, Jesus saves, would that be evidence of terrorism? My point is not just to debate a definition, but if the Patriot act gets applied, then Constitutional rights get waived. It also guides the dialogue and intervention based in how we define it.  

Are you concerned about the constitutional rights of the guy shouting, "Allah Akbar" being waived... or in the broader sense? What would you be most concerned with regarding any dialogue and intervention that might arise defining this act as a terrorism?

What are you trying to protect? 

I’m protective of Constitutional rights and I’m also not a fan of prejudice where Muslims are labelled a terrorist immediately and Christians are labelled nut jobs acting alone immediately. 

mcgruff10

Go Beavers said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Go Beavers said:

mcgruff10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Bentleyspop said:

My guess is that if you asked any of the people who were there if they were terrorized they'd say yes.

It was a terrorist act. Obviously.

"Allah Akbar!"
"This was an act of terror, and a particularly cowardly act of terror," New York Mayor Bill de Blasio said, "aimed at innocent civilians, aimed at people going about their lives who had no idea what was about to hit them."

And if he yelled God hates sinners, Jesus saves, would that be evidence of terrorism? My point is not just to debate a definition, but if the Patriot act gets applied, then Constitutional rights get waived. It also guides the dialogue and intervention based in how we define it.  

Are you concerned about the constitutional rights of the guy shouting, "Allah Akbar" being waived... or in the broader sense? What would you be most concerned with regarding any dialogue and intervention that might arise defining this act as a terrorism?

What are you trying to protect? 

I’m protective of Constitutional rights and I’m also not a fan of prejudice where Muslims are labelled a terrorist immediately and Christians are labelled nut jobs acting alone immediately. 

Authorities found a note, written in English, claiming the suspect in Tuesday's attack in New York did it in the name of ISIS, a senior law enforcement official told CNN. 

The note was found in the truck police said was used in the attack, the source said. 

Go Beavers

mcgruff10 said:

Go Beavers said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Go Beavers said:

mcgruff10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Bentleyspop said:

My guess is that if you asked any of the people who were there if they were terrorized they'd say yes.

It was a terrorist act. Obviously.

"Allah Akbar!"
"This was an act of terror, and a particularly cowardly act of terror," New York Mayor Bill de Blasio said, "aimed at innocent civilians, aimed at people going about their lives who had no idea what was about to hit them."

And if he yelled God hates sinners, Jesus saves, would that be evidence of terrorism? My point is not just to debate a definition, but if the Patriot act gets applied, then Constitutional rights get waived. It also guides the dialogue and intervention based in how we define it.  

Are you concerned about the constitutional rights of the guy shouting, "Allah Akbar" being waived... or in the broader sense? What would you be most concerned with regarding any dialogue and intervention that might arise defining this act as a terrorism?

What are you trying to protect? 

I’m protective of Constitutional rights and I’m also not a fan of prejudice where Muslims are labelled a terrorist immediately and Christians are labelled nut jobs acting alone immediately. 

Authorities found a note, written in English, claiming the suspect in Tuesday's attack in New York did it in the name of ISIS, a senior law enforcement official told CNN. 

The note was found in the truck police said was used in the attack, the source said. 

That’s info that I hadn’t read in what I saw. So we’re back to defining what terrorism is, influence by a group or networked into the group somehow? I guess we’ll find out more. And since he’s still alive, we might get more info on his mental state. Lolks like they’re still saying he’s a lone wolf. 

lastexitlondon

This kind of attack is ridiculously hard to see coming.
In Europe these have made me think twice about where i go with my kids and being out in the open at events . 
Me and my partner were at the Christmas markets in berlin last year the week before the terror attack. To come home and watch on tv the place you were just in smashed by a truck and people dead was mind blowing.
Everyone says don't let them win but it has definitely changed how i go about. 
I chose to drive into central london to take my daughter to a hospital appointment at great ormand street because i was scared to go on yhe underground and i know thats what "they" want but it has worked with me at least. 
Terror is real and i really am thinking of those poor families that have lost their loved ones to a coward fanatical maniac so very sad again with this world...

tempo_n_groove

Go Beavers said:

mcgruff10 said:

Go Beavers said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Go Beavers said:

mcgruff10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Bentleyspop said:

My guess is that if you asked any of the people who were there if they were terrorized they'd say yes.

It was a terrorist act. Obviously.

"Allah Akbar!"
"This was an act of terror, and a particularly cowardly act of terror," New York Mayor Bill de Blasio said, "aimed at innocent civilians, aimed at people going about their lives who had no idea what was about to hit them."

And if he yelled God hates sinners, Jesus saves, would that be evidence of terrorism? My point is not just to debate a definition, but if the Patriot act gets applied, then Constitutional rights get waived. It also guides the dialogue and intervention based in how we define it.  

Are you concerned about the constitutional rights of the guy shouting, "Allah Akbar" being waived... or in the broader sense? What would you be most concerned with regarding any dialogue and intervention that might arise defining this act as a terrorism?

What are you trying to protect? 

I’m protective of Constitutional rights and I’m also not a fan of prejudice where Muslims are labelled a terrorist immediately and Christians are labelled nut jobs acting alone immediately. 

Authorities found a note, written in English, claiming the suspect in Tuesday's attack in New York did it in the name of ISIS, a senior law enforcement official told CNN. 

The note was found in the truck police said was used in the attack, the source said. 

That’s info that I hadn’t read in what I saw. So we’re back to defining what terrorism is, influence by a group or networked into the group somehow? I guess we’ll find out more. And since he’s still alive, we might get more info on his mental state. Lolks like they’re still saying he’s a lone wolf. 

The definition of terrorism- "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

This act checks all those boxes so, driving a truck into civilians in the name of ISIS= terrorism.

unsung

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

unsung said:

Truck attack = terrorism

Attack with a gun = gun violence, mass shooting, not terrorism.

Check.

I'm not sure how you're coming to this conclusion?

People are quick to blame a device and not the perp, unless of course their is no agenda with the device.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

unsung said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

unsung said:

Truck attack = terrorism

Attack with a gun = gun violence, mass shooting, not terrorism.

Check.

I'm not sure how you're coming to this conclusion?

People are quick to blame a device and not the perp, unless of course their is no agenda with the device.

I think you are confused.

Nobody blames guns for the stream of mass murders your country routinely exhibits. Lamenting the lack of responsibility and application of common sense... people bemoan their availability.

I mean... c'mon... you have a device designed for the sole purpose of killing many things in little time. Every mass murder where one is used... it has worked perfectly. Comparing that to the device designed for transportation, but used to kill people is a reach at best.

The gun nuts know they have been thundered in the great gun debate. This is why these types of silly comments appear (there is nothing else they can use to justify their position).

Sheesh.

Go Beavers

tempo_n_groove said:

Go Beavers said:

mcgruff10 said:

Go Beavers said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Go Beavers said:

mcgruff10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Bentleyspop said:

My guess is that if you asked any of the people who were there if they were terrorized they'd say yes.

It was a terrorist act. Obviously.

"Allah Akbar!"
"This was an act of terror, and a particularly cowardly act of terror," New York Mayor Bill de Blasio said, "aimed at innocent civilians, aimed at people going about their lives who had no idea what was about to hit them."

And if he yelled God hates sinners, Jesus saves, would that be evidence of terrorism? My point is not just to debate a definition, but if the Patriot act gets applied, then Constitutional rights get waived. It also guides the dialogue and intervention based in how we define it.  

Are you concerned about the constitutional rights of the guy shouting, "Allah Akbar" being waived... or in the broader sense? What would you be most concerned with regarding any dialogue and intervention that might arise defining this act as a terrorism?

What are you trying to protect? 

I’m protective of Constitutional rights and I’m also not a fan of prejudice where Muslims are labelled a terrorist immediately and Christians are labelled nut jobs acting alone immediately. 

Authorities found a note, written in English, claiming the suspect in Tuesday's attack in New York did it in the name of ISIS, a senior law enforcement official told CNN. 

The note was found in the truck police said was used in the attack, the source said. 

That’s info that I hadn’t read in what I saw. So we’re back to defining what terrorism is, influence by a group or networked into the group somehow? I guess we’ll find out more. And since he’s still alive, we might get more info on his mental state. Lolks like they’re still saying he’s a lone wolf. 

The definition of terrorism- "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

This act checks all those boxes so, driving a truck into civilians in the name of ISIS= terrorism.

I know that’s the Patriot Act definition, but is it a good one? And I noticed that in today’s Wapo article, no one quoted used the term terrorism Wednesday a.m. but instead referred to isis influence. 

tempo_n_groove

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Go Beavers said:

mcgruff10 said:

Go Beavers said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Go Beavers said:

mcgruff10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Bentleyspop said:

My guess is that if you asked any of the people who were there if they were terrorized they'd say yes.

It was a terrorist act. Obviously.

"Allah Akbar!"
"This was an act of terror, and a particularly cowardly act of terror," New York Mayor Bill de Blasio said, "aimed at innocent civilians, aimed at people going about their lives who had no idea what was about to hit them."

And if he yelled God hates sinners, Jesus saves, would that be evidence of terrorism? My point is not just to debate a definition, but if the Patriot act gets applied, then Constitutional rights get waived. It also guides the dialogue and intervention based in how we define it.  

Are you concerned about the constitutional rights of the guy shouting, "Allah Akbar" being waived... or in the broader sense? What would you be most concerned with regarding any dialogue and intervention that might arise defining this act as a terrorism?

What are you trying to protect? 

I’m protective of Constitutional rights and I’m also not a fan of prejudice where Muslims are labelled a terrorist immediately and Christians are labelled nut jobs acting alone immediately. 

Authorities found a note, written in English, claiming the suspect in Tuesday's attack in New York did it in the name of ISIS, a senior law enforcement official told CNN. 

The note was found in the truck police said was used in the attack, the source said. 

That’s info that I hadn’t read in what I saw. So we’re back to defining what terrorism is, influence by a group or networked into the group somehow? I guess we’ll find out more. And since he’s still alive, we might get more info on his mental state. Lolks like they’re still saying he’s a lone wolf. 

The definition of terrorism- "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

This act checks all those boxes so, driving a truck into civilians in the name of ISIS= terrorism.

I know that’s the Patriot Act definition, but is it a good one? And I noticed that in today’s Wapo article, no one quoted used the term terrorism Wednesday a.m. but instead referred to isis influence. 

I just don't see how this is even up for debate or question?

JC29856

This is terrible, not only bec of loss of life but it further divides the country. The current environment and state of affairs is ripe for this kind of taking. Wildly divided nation, Trump Russia delusion, right-wing and left-wing narratives, distracted (ineffective) intel agencies, money money money all make for a opportune time for these attacks.

oftenreading

Leave it to Trump to find a way to blame the Dems for this attack. He couldn't pin it on Hillary, but he found someone.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/trump-new-york-terrorist-attack_us_59f90649e4b00c6145e26e19

The terrorist came into our country through what is called the "Diversity Visa Lottery Program," a Chuck Schumer beauty. I want merit based.

4:24 AM - Nov 1, 2017

mcgruff10

oftenreading said:

Leave it to Trump to find a way to blame the Dems for this attack. He couldn't pin it on Hillary, but he found someone.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/trump-new-york-terrorist-attack_us_59f90649e4b00c6145e26e19

The terrorist came into our country through what is called the "Diversity Visa Lottery Program," a Chuck Schumer beauty. I want merit based.

4:24 AM - Nov 1, 2017

I am not shocked. 

Go Beavers

tempo_n_groove said:

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Go Beavers said:

mcgruff10 said:

Go Beavers said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Go Beavers said:

mcgruff10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Bentleyspop said:

My guess is that if you asked any of the people who were there if they were terrorized they'd say yes.

It was a terrorist act. Obviously.

"Allah Akbar!"
"This was an act of terror, and a particularly cowardly act of terror," New York Mayor Bill de Blasio said, "aimed at innocent civilians, aimed at people going about their lives who had no idea what was about to hit them."

And if he yelled God hates sinners, Jesus saves, would that be evidence of terrorism? My point is not just to debate a definition, but if the Patriot act gets applied, then Constitutional rights get waived. It also guides the dialogue and intervention based in how we define it.  

Are you concerned about the constitutional rights of the guy shouting, "Allah Akbar" being waived... or in the broader sense? What would you be most concerned with regarding any dialogue and intervention that might arise defining this act as a terrorism?

What are you trying to protect? 

I’m protective of Constitutional rights and I’m also not a fan of prejudice where Muslims are labelled a terrorist immediately and Christians are labelled nut jobs acting alone immediately. 

Authorities found a note, written in English, claiming the suspect in Tuesday's attack in New York did it in the name of ISIS, a senior law enforcement official told CNN. 

The note was found in the truck police said was used in the attack, the source said. 

That’s info that I hadn’t read in what I saw. So we’re back to defining what terrorism is, influence by a group or networked into the group somehow? I guess we’ll find out more. And since he’s still alive, we might get more info on his mental state. Lolks like they’re still saying he’s a lone wolf. 

The definition of terrorism- "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

This act checks all those boxes so, driving a truck into civilians in the name of ISIS= terrorism.

I know that’s the Patriot Act definition, but is it a good one? And I noticed that in today’s Wapo article, no one quoted used the term terrorism Wednesday a.m. but instead referred to isis influence. 

I just don't see how this is even up for debate or question?

Because the definition is too vague and overreaching. As a result, unconstitutional provisions of the Patriot Act can be applied. No due process, illegal surveillance, illegal search, etc.  

stuckinline

  said:

Leave it to Trump to find a way to blame the Dems for this attack. He couldn't pin it on Hillary, but he found someone.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/trump-new-york-terrorist-attack_us_59f90649e4b00c6145e26e19

The terrorist came into our country through what is called the "Diversity Visa Lottery Program," a Chuck Schumer beauty. I want merit based.

4:24 AM - Nov 1, 2017

Chuck is firing back: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/358188-schumer-knocks-trump-over-terror-attack-where-is-your-leadership
As well as Cuomo: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/358193-cuomo-on-trump-tweets-this-is-not-the-time-to-foment-hate

tempo_n_groove

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Go Beavers said:

mcgruff10 said:

Go Beavers said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Go Beavers said:

mcgruff10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Bentleyspop said:

My guess is that if you asked any of the people who were there if they were terrorized they'd say yes.

It was a terrorist act. Obviously.

"Allah Akbar!"
"This was an act of terror, and a particularly cowardly act of terror," New York Mayor Bill de Blasio said, "aimed at innocent civilians, aimed at people going about their lives who had no idea what was about to hit them."

And if he yelled God hates sinners, Jesus saves, would that be evidence of terrorism? My point is not just to debate a definition, but if the Patriot act gets applied, then Constitutional rights get waived. It also guides the dialogue and intervention based in how we define it.  

Are you concerned about the constitutional rights of the guy shouting, "Allah Akbar" being waived... or in the broader sense? What would you be most concerned with regarding any dialogue and intervention that might arise defining this act as a terrorism?

What are you trying to protect? 

I’m protective of Constitutional rights and I’m also not a fan of prejudice where Muslims are labelled a terrorist immediately and Christians are labelled nut jobs acting alone immediately. 

Authorities found a note, written in English, claiming the suspect in Tuesday's attack in New York did it in the name of ISIS, a senior law enforcement official told CNN. 

The note was found in the truck police said was used in the attack, the source said. 

That’s info that I hadn’t read in what I saw. So we’re back to defining what terrorism is, influence by a group or networked into the group somehow? I guess we’ll find out more. And since he’s still alive, we might get more info on his mental state. Lolks like they’re still saying he’s a lone wolf. 

The definition of terrorism- "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

This act checks all those boxes so, driving a truck into civilians in the name of ISIS= terrorism.

I know that’s the Patriot Act definition, but is it a good one? And I noticed that in today’s Wapo article, no one quoted used the term terrorism Wednesday a.m. but instead referred to isis influence. 

I just don't see how this is even up for debate or question?

Because the definition is too vague and overreaching. As a result, unconstitutional provisions of the Patriot Act can be applied. No due process, illegal surveillance, illegal search, etc.  

This is still pretty cut and dry.  Witnesses in broad daylight watched this man mow down people and kill them.  Not sure how much surveillance we can put on the guy now?

Also not seeing how the Patriot Act can even come to play in this now?

Thirdly, Trump is an idiot.. Cheap shot by him at Schumer...

CM189191

oftenreading said:

Leave it to Trump to find a way to blame the Dems for this attack. He couldn't pin it on Hillary, but he found someone.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/trump-new-york-terrorist-attack_us_59f90649e4b00c6145e26e19

The terrorist came into our country through what is called the "Diversity Visa Lottery Program," a Chuck Schumer beauty. I want merit based.

4:24 AM - Nov 1, 2017

tRump's motto: the buck stops....somewhere, anywhere else but here

Jason P

The guy is boasting from his hospital bed how pleased he is with his actions.  I say fit him up in some concrete boots and take him fishing on the Hudson.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Jason P said:

The guy is boasting from his hospital bed how pleased he is with his actions.  I say fit him up in some concrete boots and take him fishing on the Hudson.

Just prior to that... for two weeks... how about every day a bare knuckle boxing match with Mike Tyson?

He's a rodent.