... Actually, no, I don't know that. You said "A) he shouted 'Allahu Akbar,' kind of gives the game away," in relation to "they're calling it a terrorist attack because of the 'Obvious, visible reasons,'" right? Which implies that "Allahu Akbar" is an "obvious, visible reason" to call something a terrorist attack.
Which implies that people shouting "Allahu Akbar" are "obvious, visible" terrorists [at least when there's an event like this, which I've already explained in my directly previous post how That Is Wrong.]
Unless that *wasn't* in relation to the post directly before yours, which it seems to be directly answering. OR you were poor in writing what you were trying to say.
Oh; and even if it was someone deliberately attacking people, it doesn't automatically make it ideologically motivated if they shout takbir during it; for much the same reasons, takbir also comes when you're in a stressful/high stakes situation, like trying to kill people for any number of reasons. From "I'm going postal because of work stress," to "I'm literally high as balls on I don't even know how many drugs," to "I'm a high functioning sociopath who stopped functioning." To "I'm a diiiick, suck my baaaaalls, you're all wooooorthless, suck my baaaaalls." Honestly, I don't know why people would attack other people like this, so my list of motivations is wonky.
Takbir is evidence that they're Muslim, or were raised Muslim. It's not evidence that this is an ideologically/politically motivated attack.*
*which is one of the few definitions of "terrorism" that doesn't just make *any*thing count as terrorism; an attack intending to forward a political ideology. I mean, if you just call anything that makes people terrified "terrorism," that's literally any attack. *any* attack makes people shit bricks; they're being attacked! Of course they're terrified! So that definition doesn't work.
Author
Topic: AmeriPol thread (Read 4459283 times)