Back to the original question: No. If he's that stupid, let him be. You shouldn't censor him, as he has a right to his opinions, even if I don't agree. And if America wants to vote him President, they have the right to.

You know Utah isn't that big, right?

Definiton of terrorism: the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

"american school shooting, if they arent terrorist acts, what are they?"
Well, I would go with 'Mass Shooting' seeing as how they have no intent to pursue political aims.

Edited 1/15/2016 11:50:31

GeneralPE, this is the very problem you pointed about the word "terrorism" and its definition, because the very definition of the word terrorism is subject of many debates, and there is actually no clear definition of this term.
Some mass shootings are as similar as any acts close to political terrorism. Many mass shootings were committed for racist purposes, others by religious zealots, etc.

For other mass shootings committed by mentally insane people with no real political purpose other than destroy the society, well you should look upon these people that committed these very so called "terrorist attacks" in Paris, Istanbul, Boston, Madrid or London. All of them were mentally insane people, same people with same psychological profiles were also those mass shooters that killed people in school, theaters or elsewhere in America.

I see no difference between mass shooters and these so called terrorists committing atrocities for ISIS, all of them are insane people having most of the time psychological traumas, and it is far beyond any political aims like the former terrorist organizations such as IRA or ETA, or any far-left/far-right terrorist groups that committed terrorism for real political purposes (some of them for nationalist ideologies, some others for political extremist ideologies).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism


Take a look on this, thanks.

Edited 1/15/2016 13:02:39

^ Saying the guy never having any valuable sources, if you do not want to read Wikipedia (I perfectly understand this), then read this:

http://www.e-ir.info/2009/05/14/why-has-defining-terrorism-proved-so-difficult/

http://www.mfa.gov.tr/what-is-terrorism_---the-problem-of-definition_.en.mfa

http://www.strategicoutlook.org/philosophy/news-terrorism-the-problems-of-definition.html

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2006/P6563.pdf

no difference between mass shooters and these so called terrorists committing atrocities for ISIS

... and it is far beyond any political aims

This is sad on so many levels I don't even know what to say...

Edited 1/17/2016 05:03:51

Can we make a petition to ban everyone who writes for Charlie Hebdo from the US? If Trump can be banned for his comments, surely they can.

6 distinct attacks carried out simultaneously on the same day, 130 people killed, 90 hostages taken. And you call this a 'so called terrorist attack.'

2 of these attackers were known to have travelled all the way from Syria just to wage terror and you dismiss them as 'mentally insane people'.

ISIS declares the attack was a retaliation for your government's airstrikes and you say these attacks have 'no real political purpose'.

No, the attack were not done impulsively. It was coldly calculated, probably months beforehand, and very political. And yet you go 'Oh, no these people didn't do it for political aims' or 'They are insane, and have psychological traumas!'

Its sad how blind and apologetic you are to these killers.

Edited 1/17/2016 05:29:46

The supporters of this petition fail to fully understand their situation. British liberals are very upset about Trump's suggestion to ban Muslims from entering the US and seem to think that discrimination and prejudice against Muslims is somehow a deciding issue in the UK; it is not.

What are the casualty figures for discrimination against Muslims? There are none. Meanwhile hate speech laws are strangling the last of human decency in Britain to death and Jihadist Muslims are conducting covert operations. The legality of selling HAM is now becoming a debate, because Britcucks will go to any length to appease their Islamic masters. British culture will be destroyed. Trump is the least of their worries.

Pulsey if you just stopped truncating my comments, this is not the proper way to debate about topics, because you are just failing answering my own comments, since you do not take the effort to answer globally what I posted.
You are here again inventing words I never stated, I never defended the persons committing terrorist attacks in Paris and elsewhere, my point was to show you that Kouachi brothers, Mohamed Merah, or Abdelhamid Abaaoud weren't political terrorists in my opinion (as the currrent definition of terrorism is mostly outdated and based upon 80s political terrorism such as far-left, far-right, or nationalist such as IRA or ETA, see links I posted), but way worse than this, these people are insane people much more similar as mental patients, it has already been proved that these people's first motivation was to satisfy their urges of destruction, or recognition (being a Martyr and a narcissistic posture to have a famous name that people should remember), experienced huge traumas in their life, etc.

Major, what the hell are you talking about? Banning Charlie Hebdo caricaturists and journalists? Did you forget that most of them (excepted one woman, that was spared just because she was a woman and of North African origin, and a Doctor editorialist that wasn't there during the attacks), already paid a heavy tribute: THEY DIED. THey were atrociously murdered, and suffered a terrible death. How can you post such insanities Major, banning dead people? Do you think this is relevant at all?

What you said was...

I see no difference between mass shooters and these so called terrorists committing atrocities for ISIS, all of them are insane people having most of the time psychological traumas

and now...

these people are insane people much more similar as mental patients, it has already been proved that these people's first motivation was to satisfy their urges of destruction, or recognition...

Please tell me how the Paris attacks were carried out by 'so called terrorists'?

Many of these attackers have links to Islamic terrorist groups such as Boko Haram, ISIS or Al - Qaeda, some were already known to intelligence services, and you tell me that the reason they kill is because they are 'insane' and have 'psychological traumas?'

And really? How do you justify their motivations have 'already been proved?' The terrorists in Paris are already all dead. Assuming you really are right in your deluded mind, where is your evidence? Meanwhile ISIS declares that the Paris attacks were conducted in retaliation for French bombings and it is reported that the Toulouse shootings were a result of French participation in Afghan war. And you tell me these attacks aren't political but just to 'satisfy their urges of destruction or recognition?

My point stands. You seem to think that you live in a bubble, that Islamic Terrorism is a myth and these atrocities only happened because the attackers want to 'satisfy their urges of destruction'. Your apologetic attitude to these killers is very insulting to the people who've died.

You are here again inventing words I never stated,

There is a pattern arguing with you. You make an observation, I attack that observation, then you tell me that I am inventing words from you and attacking a strawman, and then you reiterate the same thing again, without any response to any of my points.

Edited 1/17/2016 13:23:35

Who cares? They're pretty much just a bunch of Trumps who get to draw comics. And the entire staff is not dead, they still exist.

And yes it is relevant to the main topic, unlike your and Pulseys conversation.

Edited 1/17/2016 15:33:40

http://www.c-span.org/video/?403099-1/british-house-commons-debate-barring-donald-trump-uk

What a waste of the Parliament's time. 2 hours and 58 minutes for a bill we all know won't pass.

Just skip to minute 45 so you can here Gavin Robinson of the Democratic Unionist Party give a commonsense, rational, and entirely coherent explanation for why Trump should not be banned.

the Democratic Unionist Party give a commonsense, rational, and entirely coherent explanation

That phrase has never been said before in history.

Did you listen to his speech?