No, they’re not. Quit watering down what terrorism means.
Terrorism is someone who specifically is trying to kill, maim, destroy, or significantly hurt people due to very narrow ideologies which are usually VERY political now.
Running people over because you can’t get to work isn’t one of them. That is attempted manslaughter if you hurt them bad enough, not a fucking terrorist.
Either you guys know way more about the incident than I do since you’re close to the police and already know it’s a Trumper who hates strikes and thought they were all gay black democrats, who potentially showed up specifically to hurt these people, or it was some asshole trying to get to work and got so manic he decided it’s better to maim or kill people than to get to work.
I am fully willing to change my thought on the matter at the drop of a hat with new information. But the way the article reads is VERY different from every terrorist car attack we’ve seen in the USA in previous years.
The strikers were blocking an exit to the processing center on West Bristol Road, Bade said, when the incident took place.
The driver, who drove off after the incident, has not been located, Bade said.
UAW Region 1-D President Steve Dawes told MLive-The Flint Journal that the vehicle involved in the incident was dark in color, possibly an HHR or PT Cruiser.
He added that two of the five people hit were taken to a local hospital.
“It was uncalled for,” Dawes said. “These people are out here, you know these are my membership, and they’re out here doing a peaceful, legal demonstration.
“This is very serious and we’re going to be pushing this issue.”
Lol, what? Terrorism has a very broad definition and for good reason.
The main way to identify terrorism is if the terrorist’s goal is to instill fear into the populace. That’s why it’s called, terrorism after all. It’s an asymmetrical warfare tactic that people use when fighting directly isn’t viable.
Sad seeing people live in their fantasy worlds and then get their panties in a bunch when met with reality.
Who are they? Op meant you. They’re referencing your validation of terrorizing striking workers from exercising their constitutional rights. You’re validating it by minimizing its importance.
Yep, and yet the article says nothing close to it, and is described the same way every frustrated person dealing with blocked roads does when they panic and flee and eventually get hit with significant battery or accidental manslaughter charges. Unless their car started to get beat on and they tried breaking in, in which case, it ends up being self defense. Isn’t that how the charges against the dude who ran down a bunch of motorcyclicsts got free? He had his whole family with him too though iirc. I think it was this? but I swear it was denser and more in a city.
If you think that running people over is a valid response to a minor inconvenience, you might be a terrorist.
No, they’re not. Quit watering down what terrorism means.
Terrorism is someone who specifically is trying to kill, maim, destroy, or significantly hurt people due to very narrow ideologies which are usually VERY political now.
Running people over because you can’t get to work isn’t one of them. That is attempted manslaughter if you hurt them bad enough, not a fucking terrorist.
Either you guys know way more about the incident than I do since you’re close to the police and already know it’s a Trumper who hates strikes and thought they were all gay black democrats, who potentially showed up specifically to hurt these people, or it was some asshole trying to get to work and got so manic he decided it’s better to maim or kill people than to get to work.
THEY, ARE NOT, THE SAME.
How do you know why they were run over when the person who did it hasn’t been caught?
Exactly. Thank you.
I am fully willing to change my thought on the matter at the drop of a hat with new information. But the way the article reads is VERY different from every terrorist car attack we’ve seen in the USA in previous years.
Crossing a picket line is an inherently political act. Terrorism is the use of violence for political ends. Connect the fucking dots.
Terrorism doesn’t have to be political.
Your goal just needs to be to instill fear in a population.
Even if that’s true, it only expands the definition, which doesn’t refute my point.
The comment you responded to was backing you up, correct.
Lol, what? Terrorism has a very broad definition and for good reason.
The main way to identify terrorism is if the terrorist’s goal is to instill fear into the populace. That’s why it’s called, terrorism after all. It’s an asymmetrical warfare tactic that people use when fighting directly isn’t viable.
Sad seeing people live in their fantasy worlds and then get their panties in a bunch when met with reality.
Who are they? Op meant you. They’re referencing your validation of terrorizing striking workers from exercising their constitutional rights. You’re validating it by minimizing its importance.
I mean, this is entirely plausible.
Yep, and yet the article says nothing close to it, and is described the same way every frustrated person dealing with blocked roads does when they panic and flee and eventually get hit with significant battery or accidental manslaughter charges. Unless their car started to get beat on and they tried breaking in, in which case, it ends up being self defense. Isn’t that how the charges against the dude who ran down a bunch of motorcyclicsts got free? He had his whole family with him too though iirc. I think it was this? but I swear it was denser and more in a city.
I had no point other than the actual words I wrote, FYI.
Where are you getting your definition? I would like to be able to compare them.