Yep. You can only change an open mind.

If someone is so full of energy that they're defending their viewpoints in a proper debate, then they're almost guaranteed to stick to their views.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-one-thing-we-can-count-on-these-are-strange-times-indeed

http://www.feedspot.com/?dadi=1#feed/f_8607/article/5340820822?dd=431152294380904

my definition of terrorism - someone who commits violence, on behalf of a political organization with a history of violence

so, lone wolf shooters are not terrorists in my opinion... anyone agree or disagree? it would make ANTIFA terrrorists

no

lone wolfs are terrorists, the only necessary qualifier is the use of terror against a community to push an agenda

There are different *types* of terrorists depending on the backing, but it is as Coolitic said. Regarding AntiFa as a domestic terrorist group, however, I tend to agree

I think the name of terrorist implies the definition

AntiFa is simply a terrorist group because they admit to using fear as a tactic

They intend to give terror and fear to drive of their opponents they deem "fascists."

@Coolitic the problem is govt uses it as an excuse to tack on extra charges... you commit any kind of felony, next thing you know, you're a terrorist

that doesn't change the definition of a terrorist

who created the definition?

whats wrong with just calling lone wolves, commiters of massacre?

they are, they're also terrorists

the solution is to prevent govts from using the label of terrorist to remove your rights

i dont see why we need to expand the definition of terrorist - it's authoritarian, it's using language for authoritarian ends, therefore orwellian

that is the default definition of terrorist, it's in the fucking name retard

i think the way to prevent govt removing rights is to more strictly and rigidly define the definition of terrorist

instead of actually telling the govt that they dont get to use that label as an excuse to remove your rights, you have the retarded idea of changing the definition?

someone who makes people feel scared shouldn't be it... it's too vague

hey i never said that shouldn't be done... the label shouldn't be used to remove rights either - but I think definitions are important, for legal reasons as well

I win!

@What Would Jack Conte Do? , I know that certain denominations of Christianity are apocalyptic. So, they can behave in a cult like manner over the misfortune of others. As it says so on the Bible. So, there are too many reasons why, this question , @What Would Jack Conte Do? but, they're not lone wolf, but, they took a little piece of what was said out of context and like any other opportunity of their belief; took it upon themselves. Like the guy from the Christchurch shootings. He travelled around the bad location's. How do we know, he's not apart of a cult?

And by the way @What Would Jack Conte Do? Britain and Europe removed their enemy of the country law's, because, of Europe. It is time to ask yourself whether or not they think treason law's are more effective, perhaps.

I don't think it stopped the IRA much but it reduced the other problems. Treason law's . Gave the country back it's fundamental right to make that decision.
By the way the new terrorist law's are an excuse for extra mistrust and extra insecurities because they can randomly pick on someone the government deems , as a terrorist. They may not necessarily be one. But then through the interrogation they may.

The definition of a terrorist is not necessary for law enforcement purposes

In recent years I've seen people citing Norway as an example of functioning democratic socialism. Well, I always doubted their claim, and my go-to response was that it's anecdotal evidence at best (selection bias). But perhaps pointing out Norway's natural resources makes for a stronger rebuttal:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/07/08/the-myth-of-democratic-socialism/

Plus, the lack of a connection between increasing socialism and wealth.

By the way it's the same with Austria. We're rich on natural resources.

I'd argue our high taxation is probably detrimental, but we don't notice the effects of that because we have all this natural wealth.

The more utopian your society already is, the larger amounts of socialism it can handle.

You're meant to cap it. Sorry, but, unless you have people working. Then they can't have the money. Simple as that. They have given away load's to refugees. But , then they kick them out the country. <:sargonfingerguns:568463117856669696> <:sargonmagaicon2:538676372726349824>

when will sargon leave UK forever? to what level will the tyranny increase before he does

never

he'll lead the revolution

Sargon will become the next Oliver Cromwell

If my memory of history is correct, things didn’t exactly end well for Cromwell, so I hope not.

Indeed. Fuck cromwell.

Question for everyone. If AOC is the horsewoman of famine, who would deserve the remaining titles from the rest of "The Squad"?