This is a good point. It's a well known fact that being gunned down in a crowd of people only induces terror when committed by certain ethnic groups. Victims at the scene reported, "bodily harm, pain, and blood loss, sure, but not necessarily 'terror' tbh'.
at least his purpose wasn't because someone refused to draw his Danny phantom OC
It's not terrorism because it was organized and orchestrated by the left. In case you haven't noticed, they are the ones who decide whether or not it's morally okay to call something terrorism.
Quote from: Trogtor on October 02, 2017, 08:34:24 AMat least his purpose wasn't because someone refused to draw his Danny phantom OCthat forgetin' chud took fifty shots to kill three peoplewith a shotgunat point-blank rangesmh get on this guy's level
While I do agree with you to an extent, I don't agree with using that as a valid example. With the amount of variables at play, drawing any meaningful conclusion from that is impossible.At the time of your post, only the name of the shooter and a possible person of interest have been released. In the days after the San Bernardino attack, a clear link between the shooters and a terrorist organization had been established.
people were killed, that's the issue.
that forgetin' chud took fifty shots to kill three peoplewith a shotgunat point-blank rangesmh get on this guy's level Wait what? What was this?
people were killed
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PFRArJmAedA
Can you guys stop trying to tell if it was terrorism or not?