Nashville RV Bomb

hedonist

F Me In The Brain said:

Poncier said:

He's a terrorist.
If all he wanted to do was kill himself he could have done that in the privacy of his own home.

This.

Just because this fucking weirdo had an announcement going to try and clear everyone away does not stop it from being an act of terror.

Also....Downtown?  Just sayin'...but that is an act of terror on its own.

And this, too.

Merkin Baller

Gern Blansten said:

Merkin Baller said:

Gern Blansten said:

Merkin Baller said:

I don't understand the reluctance to use the term terrorism in the media. 

I understand the motives may still be unclear, but isn't that why we have and use terms like 'suspected' and / or 'alleged'? 

I get it but "Suicide Bombers" and "Terrorists" don't generally warn everyone to clear the area first.

It's an odd situation for sure.  This guy gave everything away and apparently targeted the AT&T bldg.  

My guess is that he is a tRump supporter in a big way.

Why are you using quotes for suicide bomber? Do signs not currently point to this being a suicide bombing? 

Granted, we need more facts to know the whole story, but all signs from the get go suggest this was domestic terrorism. 

I don't understand the reluctance to use these terms... again, it's why we have words like 'alleged' or 'suspected'. 

Not to mention, I've never heard of a suicide bomber who wasn't a terrorist. 

I was just referring to giving the guy an actual title.  It seems like there is a lot of outrage for not labeling him as of yet.

I get it....I'm just not outraged by the lack of a label yet.

I don’t get it... you guessed the guy is a trump supporter (which is your prerogative) but won’t apply the terrorism label... I would argue there’s more evidence that this was an act of terror than there’s evidence that this person is a trump supporter. 

& if he IS a Trump supporter, wouldn’t that lean more towards this being an act of domestic terror than not, all things considered? 

I don’t have the answers, but all signs point to this as an alleged act of terror.

If you’re inferring outrage from my posts, you’re misreading them; I genuinely don’t understand the reluctance to call this what it looks like. 

Gern Blansten

Merkin Baller said:

Gern Blansten said:

Merkin Baller said:

Gern Blansten said:

Merkin Baller said:

I don't understand the reluctance to use the term terrorism in the media. 

I understand the motives may still be unclear, but isn't that why we have and use terms like 'suspected' and / or 'alleged'? 

I get it but "Suicide Bombers" and "Terrorists" don't generally warn everyone to clear the area first.

It's an odd situation for sure.  This guy gave everything away and apparently targeted the AT&T bldg.  

My guess is that he is a tRump supporter in a big way.

Why are you using quotes for suicide bomber? Do signs not currently point to this being a suicide bombing? 

Granted, we need more facts to know the whole story, but all signs from the get go suggest this was domestic terrorism. 

I don't understand the reluctance to use these terms... again, it's why we have words like 'alleged' or 'suspected'. 

Not to mention, I've never heard of a suicide bomber who wasn't a terrorist. 

I was just referring to giving the guy an actual title.  It seems like there is a lot of outrage for not labeling him as of yet.

I get it....I'm just not outraged by the lack of a label yet.

I don’t get it... you guessed the guy is a trump supporter (which is your prerogative) but won’t apply the terrorism label... I would argue there’s more evidence that this was an act of terror than there’s evidence that this person is a trump supporter. 

& if he IS a Trump supporter, wouldn’t that lean more towards this being an act of domestic terror than not, all things considered? 

I don’t have the answers, but all signs point to this as an alleged act of terror.

If you’re inferring outrage from my posts, you’re misreading them; I genuinely don’t understand the reluctance to call this what it looks like. 

No not your posts....I was initially referring to what I was seeing in my FB and twitter feeds.  

I don't have a problem with calling him a terrorist, etc., I just don't see why it is so important that he be labeled as such in order to diffuse outrage from some people.

I'm probably not being very clear but I wonder if tRump hasn't commented about him because they know he was a tRump supporter.

HughFreakingDillon

the only reason things need a label is so the media knows which narrative to go with to then extrapolate the proper dramatic sequence. 

so far, we know he was a jerk with a bomb who called police to the area, and warned people in the area to evacuate. 

and the usual information about a white guy who was nice and professional and quiet. all the usual boxes ticked when it's a white dude. all we need now is how he had a legitimate reason for hating the world, and what a tragic ending it was. 

doesn't an act of terror need to have a motive of inciting terror to be labelled as such? maybe it's splitting hairs, but i think there is a distinction, no? 

and @Gern Blansten, how do you make the leap to" trump supporter in a big way"?

Merkin Baller

Gern Blansten said:

Merkin Baller said:

Gern Blansten said:

Merkin Baller said:

Gern Blansten said:

Merkin Baller said:

I don't understand the reluctance to use the term terrorism in the media. 

I understand the motives may still be unclear, but isn't that why we have and use terms like 'suspected' and / or 'alleged'? 

I get it but "Suicide Bombers" and "Terrorists" don't generally warn everyone to clear the area first.

It's an odd situation for sure.  This guy gave everything away and apparently targeted the AT&T bldg.  

My guess is that he is a tRump supporter in a big way.

Why are you using quotes for suicide bomber? Do signs not currently point to this being a suicide bombing? 

Granted, we need more facts to know the whole story, but all signs from the get go suggest this was domestic terrorism. 

I don't understand the reluctance to use these terms... again, it's why we have words like 'alleged' or 'suspected'. 

Not to mention, I've never heard of a suicide bomber who wasn't a terrorist. 

I was just referring to giving the guy an actual title.  It seems like there is a lot of outrage for not labeling him as of yet.

I get it....I'm just not outraged by the lack of a label yet.

I don’t get it... you guessed the guy is a trump supporter (which is your prerogative) but won’t apply the terrorism label... I would argue there’s more evidence that this was an act of terror than there’s evidence that this person is a trump supporter. 

& if he IS a Trump supporter, wouldn’t that lean more towards this being an act of domestic terror than not, all things considered? 

I don’t have the answers, but all signs point to this as an alleged act of terror.

If you’re inferring outrage from my posts, you’re misreading them; I genuinely don’t understand the reluctance to call this what it looks like. 

No not your posts....I was initially referring to what I was seeing in my FB and twitter feeds.  

I don't have a problem with calling him a terrorist, etc., I just don't see why it is so important that he be labeled as such in order to diffuse outrage from some people.

I'm probably not being very clear but I wonder if tRump hasn't commented about him because they know he was a tRump supporter.

For what it’s worth, I agree about him likely being a trump supporter; & like w/ the proud boys, david duke etc, I think trump will do everything he can to not disavow the attack. 

In response to why people care about the label... there does seem to be a reluctance to apply the term to white Americans, but if for example the prime suspect was an American Muslim, does anyone doubt this would have had the terrorism label applied to it right away? 

Gern Blansten

HughFreakingDillon said:

the only reason things need a label is so the media knows which narrative to go with to then extrapolate the proper dramatic sequence. 

so far, we know he was a jerk with a bomb who called police to the area, and warned people in the area to evacuate. 

and the usual information about a white guy who was nice and professional and quiet. all the usual boxes ticked when it's a white dude. all we need now is how he had a legitimate reason for hating the world, and what a tragic ending it was. 

doesn't an act of terror need to have a motive of inciting terror to be labelled as such? maybe it's splitting hairs, but i think there is a distinction, no? 

and @Gern Blansten, how do you make the leap to" trump supporter in a big way"?

I can feel it in my plums

HughFreakingDillon

Merkin Baller said:

Gern Blansten said:

Merkin Baller said:

Gern Blansten said:

Merkin Baller said:

Gern Blansten said:

Merkin Baller said:

I don't understand the reluctance to use the term terrorism in the media. 

I understand the motives may still be unclear, but isn't that why we have and use terms like 'suspected' and / or 'alleged'? 

I get it but "Suicide Bombers" and "Terrorists" don't generally warn everyone to clear the area first.

It's an odd situation for sure.  This guy gave everything away and apparently targeted the AT&T bldg.  

My guess is that he is a tRump supporter in a big way.

Why are you using quotes for suicide bomber? Do signs not currently point to this being a suicide bombing? 

Granted, we need more facts to know the whole story, but all signs from the get go suggest this was domestic terrorism. 

I don't understand the reluctance to use these terms... again, it's why we have words like 'alleged' or 'suspected'. 

Not to mention, I've never heard of a suicide bomber who wasn't a terrorist. 

I was just referring to giving the guy an actual title.  It seems like there is a lot of outrage for not labeling him as of yet.

I get it....I'm just not outraged by the lack of a label yet.

I don’t get it... you guessed the guy is a trump supporter (which is your prerogative) but won’t apply the terrorism label... I would argue there’s more evidence that this was an act of terror than there’s evidence that this person is a trump supporter. 

& if he IS a Trump supporter, wouldn’t that lean more towards this being an act of domestic terror than not, all things considered? 

I don’t have the answers, but all signs point to this as an alleged act of terror.

If you’re inferring outrage from my posts, you’re misreading them; I genuinely don’t understand the reluctance to call this what it looks like. 

No not your posts....I was initially referring to what I was seeing in my FB and twitter feeds.  

I don't have a problem with calling him a terrorist, etc., I just don't see why it is so important that he be labeled as such in order to diffuse outrage from some people.

I'm probably not being very clear but I wonder if tRump hasn't commented about him because they know he was a tRump supporter.

For what it’s worth, I agree about him likely being a trump supporter; & like w/ the proud boys, david duke etc, I think trump will do everything he can to not disavow the attack. 

In response to why people care about the label... there does seem to be a reluctance to apply the term to white Americans, but if for example the prime suspect was an American Muslim, does anyone doubt this would have had the terrorism label applied to it right away? 

instantly. with his passport photo accompanying every news segment on it. 

Gern Blansten

HughFreakingDillon said:

Merkin Baller said:

Gern Blansten said:

Merkin Baller said:

Gern Blansten said:

Merkin Baller said:

Gern Blansten said:

Merkin Baller said:

I don't understand the reluctance to use the term terrorism in the media. 

I understand the motives may still be unclear, but isn't that why we have and use terms like 'suspected' and / or 'alleged'? 

I get it but "Suicide Bombers" and "Terrorists" don't generally warn everyone to clear the area first.

It's an odd situation for sure.  This guy gave everything away and apparently targeted the AT&T bldg.  

My guess is that he is a tRump supporter in a big way.

Why are you using quotes for suicide bomber? Do signs not currently point to this being a suicide bombing? 

Granted, we need more facts to know the whole story, but all signs from the get go suggest this was domestic terrorism. 

I don't understand the reluctance to use these terms... again, it's why we have words like 'alleged' or 'suspected'. 

Not to mention, I've never heard of a suicide bomber who wasn't a terrorist. 

I was just referring to giving the guy an actual title.  It seems like there is a lot of outrage for not labeling him as of yet.

I get it....I'm just not outraged by the lack of a label yet.

I don’t get it... you guessed the guy is a trump supporter (which is your prerogative) but won’t apply the terrorism label... I would argue there’s more evidence that this was an act of terror than there’s evidence that this person is a trump supporter. 

& if he IS a Trump supporter, wouldn’t that lean more towards this being an act of domestic terror than not, all things considered? 

I don’t have the answers, but all signs point to this as an alleged act of terror.

If you’re inferring outrage from my posts, you’re misreading them; I genuinely don’t understand the reluctance to call this what it looks like. 

No not your posts....I was initially referring to what I was seeing in my FB and twitter feeds.  

I don't have a problem with calling him a terrorist, etc., I just don't see why it is so important that he be labeled as such in order to diffuse outrage from some people.

I'm probably not being very clear but I wonder if tRump hasn't commented about him because they know he was a tRump supporter.

For what it’s worth, I agree about him likely being a trump supporter; & like w/ the proud boys, david duke etc, I think trump will do everything he can to not disavow the attack. 

In response to why people care about the label... there does seem to be a reluctance to apply the term to white Americans, but if for example the prime suspect was an American Muslim, does anyone doubt this would have had the terrorism label applied to it right away? 

instantly. with his passport photo accompanying every news segment on it. 

I can't disagree with that.  And tRump would be all over it.

Merkin Baller

Gern Blansten

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBgm62C0q-w&t=5s

Crazy shit....the police walked right by the RV just a few minutes before it blew.

Insane

CM189191

Gern Blansten said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBgm62C0q-w&t=5s

Crazy shit....the police walked right by the RV just a few minutes before it blew.

Insane

Crazy shit....police can release body cam footage in 4 days when it doesn't involve them harassing or killing some innocent civilian

Insane

Gern Blansten

Mr. Snarkypants has arrived

CM189191

Gern Blansten said:

Mr. Snarkypants has arrived

pfffft.....I haven't worn pants in months

tbergs

CM189191 said:

Gern Blansten said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBgm62C0q-w&t=5s

Crazy shit....the police walked right by the RV just a few minutes before it blew.

Insane

Crazy shit....police can release body cam footage in 4 days when it doesn't involve them harassing or killing some innocent civilian

Insane

More like when there isn't an obstacle like civil, criminal or administrative legal proceedings tied to a personal interaction. If people see video before there's a trial or grand jury, they're more likely to be biased on what they think happened depending on where they get their news from. It probably also depends on department or city policies related to release of video to the public or media as well.

Gern Blansten

My idiot FB friend had posted something about how security camera footage did not show an RV parked on the street prior to the blast.  Amazing what people will spread without even looking to see if it is true or not.

HughFreakingDillon

Gern Blansten said:

My idiot FB friend had posted something about how security camera footage did not show an RV parked on the street prior to the blast.  Amazing what people will spread without even looking to see if it is true or not.

a few minutes after the first article i read was posted....some loser posted "they still don't know the motive for the Las Vegas shooter, but they know the motive for this guy a few minutes after? sounds like a false flag to me". 

CM189191

tbergs said:

CM189191 said:

Gern Blansten said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBgm62C0q-w&t=5s

Crazy shit....the police walked right by the RV just a few minutes before it blew.

Insane

Crazy shit....police can release body cam footage in 4 days when it doesn't involve them harassing or killing some innocent civilian

Insane

More like when there isn't an obstacle like civil, criminal or administrative legal proceedings tied to a personal interaction. If people see video before there's a trial or grand jury, they're more likely to be biased on what they think happened depending on where they get their news from. It probably also depends on department or city policies related to release of video to the public or media as well.

meh...not trying to derail the topic at hand here

Police release video when it's beneficial to the police

Gern Blansten

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nashville-bombing-anthony-warner-girlfriend-raised-red-flag-year-before-rv-blast-fbi-probed/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab6a&linkId=108159385&fbclid=IwAR2y3dTWb1nMh1TyRYA5-BgW0iIpJc2brBcJNhJX9RdDmshEoCdR0xWTL4M

Gern Blansten

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

My idiot FB friend had posted something about how security camera footage did not show an RV parked on the street prior to the blast.  Amazing what people will spread without even looking to see if it is true or not.

a few minutes after the first article i read was posted....some loser posted "they still don't know the motive for the Las Vegas shooter, but they know the motive for this guy a few minutes after? sounds like a false flag to me". 

yeah I saw something similar about them identifying the DNA of the bomber so quickly

cp3iverson

Those cops are heroes.  

Wow.