Capitol shooter Larry Dawson shouted he was "prophet of God"

[Sizzily 14,571]

Just now, YourSweet666 said:

 

I didn't even think about his race. It doesn't really matter.

Sorry, I didn't mean you.

I agree that it could be labeled as terrorism.

[River 127,342]

3 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

Yes, I'd say it fits the third one the best (federal crime of terrorism)

However, it would be domestic terrorism if it was politically motivated (meant to impact policy). He seems to be using religion and I read he was a minimum wage activist? 

So could be either one of these. 

Thank you! I understand!

 "I am prophet of god" can it be considered as a motivation to impact policy? I mean, it's like he's against the USA government because it's not a government that was chosen by god and not with the help of a prophet. and *probably* he considering himself as the one who should take political decisions.. like the prophets jobs more or less in the old and new testaments.. (I think I made a huge salad lol)

[MJHolland 12,725]

30 minutes ago, YourSweet666 said:

 

Fits to definition. 

 

You would have to be delirious to think this is terrorism. Terrorism is not just inciting terror, as every international study will tell you including the Correlates of War project.

It's obvious you're trying to push your agenda of proving not all terrorists are muslims. Well look somewhere else bud, this man is not a terrorist. He didn't conspire, he didn't have political motives, he didn't seek any change to public policy, and for all we know it wasn't even premeditated. 

[Morphine Prince 109,650]

18 minutes ago, River said:

Thank you! I understand!

 "I am prophet of god" can it be considered as a motivation to impact policy? I mean, it's like he's against the USA government because it's not a government that was chosen by god and not with the help of a prophet. and *probably* he considering himself as the one who should take political decisions.. like the prophets jobs more or less in the old and new testaments.. (I think I made a huge salad lol)

Yes, I think so. 

I read up more on this guy and he has been pushing for minimum wage changes even in his church. 

 

[Morphine Prince 109,650]

5 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

You would have to be delirious to think this is terrorism. Terrorism is not just inciting terror, as every international study will tell you including the Correlates of War project.

It's obvious you're trying to push your agenda of proving not all terrorists are muslims. Well look somewhere else bud, this man is not a terrorist. He didn't conspire, he didn't have political motives, he didn't seek any change to public policy, and for all we know it wasn't even premeditated. 

I read up on him and he's a minimum wage activist and in October he also claimed to be a prophet as he interrupted inside Congress. Could this not be a potential political motivation? 

[MJHolland 12,725]

Just now, Morphine Prince said:

I read up on him and he's a minimum wage activist and in October he also claimed to be a prophet as he interrupted inside Congress. Could this not be a potential political motivation? 

As far as I know, he wasn't attempting to effect any change whatsoever, a fundamental characteristic of terrorism. Just because his target was a government building that happened to be the Capitol doesn't mean he has political motives.

[Morphine Prince 109,650]

Just now, MJHolland said:

As far as I know, he wasn't attempting to effect any change whatsoever, a fundamental characteristic of terrorism. Just because his target was a government building that happened to be the Capitol doesn't mean he has political motives.

Has that been investigated though? Because I'm not finding anything on it however I did find those details about his past which lead me to believe that that may be his motivation for today's incident.

[MJHolland 12,725]

Just now, Morphine Prince said:

Has that been investigated though? Because I'm not finding anything on it however I did find those details about his past which lead me to believe that that may be his motivation for today's incident.

The thing is, when terrorists plan attacks, they make the reasoning for their attacks known immediately or even beforehand. Otherwise, what was the point of the attack? How would it effect the change you desire if nobody know's how to appease you in order to stop you/your network from planning further attacks in the future.

People trying to make something out of nothing by calling this clearly mentally disturbed man a terrorist in order to push their own agendas of proving not all terrorists are muslims are just as ignorant as the people who claim all terrorists are muslims.

[Sizzily 14,571]

2 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

The thing is, when terrorists plan attacks, they make the reasoning for their attacks known immediately or even beforehand. Otherwise, what was the point of the attack? How would it effect the change you desire if nobody know's how to appease you in order to stop you/your network from planning further attacks in the future.

People trying to make something out of nothing by calling this clearly mentally disturbed man a terrorist in order to push their own agendas of proving not all terrorists are muslims are just as ignorant as the people who claim all terrorists are muslims.

What would you classify it as? A random act of violence for no purpose?

[lego 44,165]

7 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

You would have to be delirious to think this is terrorism. Terrorism is not just inciting terror, as every international study will tell you including the Correlates of War project.

It's obvious you're trying to push your agenda of proving not all terrorists are muslims. Well look somewhere else bud, this man is not a terrorist. He didn't conspire, he didn't have political motives, he didn't seek any change to public policy, and for all we know it wasn't even premeditated. 

 

There is no need to prove that. That is common sense.

The mental gymnastic tho, to prove that religious lunatic targeting government building and shooting at police somehow doesn't fit to definition of domestic terrorism.

 

 

"in January, after Washington D.C. court officials sent a letter to his Tennessee address notifying him of an arrest warrant, Dawson responded with a letter describing himself as "a Minister and True Prophet of God."

"I have been called chosen and sent unto You this day," the letter says, adding: "Therefore, I will not comply with the court order, nor will I surrender myself unto your office. No longer will I let myself be governed by flesh and blood, but only by the Divine Love of God!!!!"

 

He's doesn't recognize the government. All anti-government "activists" who start shooting for whatever cause, are domestic terrorists by the FBI definition. 

[MJHolland 12,725]

8 minutes ago, Sizzliy said:

What would you classify it as? A random act of violence for no purpose?

Correct, because that is what it is. This does not even have any characteristics of lone-wolf terrorism.

[Morphine Prince 109,650]

12 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

The thing is, when terrorists plan attacks, they make the reasoning for their attacks known immediately or even beforehand. Otherwise, what was the point of the attack? How would it effect the change you desire if nobody know's how to appease you in order to stop you/your network from planning further attacks in the future.

People trying to make something out of nothing by calling this clearly mentally disturbed man a terrorist in order to push their own agendas of proving not all terrorists are muslims are just as ignorant as the people who claim all terrorists are muslims.

It's a good point that he didn't specifically state a motive. 

However, imo I think the potential motive should be investigated more thoroughly in order to officially state it as terrorism. It fits most of the aspects of "terrorism" definitions, except on the part about the motive. 

[MJHolland 12,725]

1 minute ago, YourSweet666 said:

 

There is no need to prove that. That is common sense.

The mental gymnastic tho, to prove that religious lunatic targeting government building and shooting at police somehow doesn't fit to definition of domestic terrorism.

 

 

"in January, after Washington D.C. court officials sent a letter to his Tennessee address notifying him of an arrest warrant, Dawson responded with a letter describing himself as "a Minister and True Prophet of God."

"I have been called chosen and sent unto You this day," the letter says, adding: "Therefore, I will not comply with the court order, nor will I surrender myself unto your office. No longer will I let myself be governed by flesh and blood, but only by the Divine Love of God!!!!"

 

He's doesn't recognize the government. All anti-government "activists" who start shooting for whatever cause, are domestic terrorists by the FBI definition. 

So now he's an activist? Alright, what was he advocating for? You cannot just call every violent mentally ill person a terrorist.

Additionally, by your own logic, if all violent activists who deny the U.S. government's/police authority, the Black Panthers and Malcolm X should be considered terrorists too, right? Or are they not terrorists because you believe the ends justified the means?

Your arguments are lacking logic.

[MJHolland 12,725]

Just now, Morphine Prince said:

It's a good point that he didn't specifically state a motive. 

However, imo I think the potential motive should be investigated more thoroughly in order to officially state it as terrorism. It fits most of the aspects of "terrorism" definitions, except on the part about the motive. 

Random acts of violence are just that; they are not acts of terror unless they are politically motivated.

Are we going to start calling all inner-city gang violence against police officers and communities terrorism? Of course not. Motive is the ONLY criterion that sets apart "normal" acts of violence from terrorism. You can't just say "that was an act of terror except they didn't have any political goal". Terrorists try to influence states or state-like actors in the international system through violence. This is not the case.

[lego 44,165]

1 minute ago, MJHolland said:

So now he's an activist? Alright, what was he advocating for? You cannot just call every violent mentally ill person a terrorist.

Additionally, by your own logic, if all violent activists who deny the U.S. government's/police authority, the Black Panthers and Malcolm X should be considered terrorists too, right? Or are they not terrorists because you believe the ends justified the means?

Your arguments are lacking logic.

 

I didn't call him activist, that's how they're usually called in the media - "anti-government activists", if he thinks he's a prophet and doesn't recognize the government, then starts shooting at government buildings, there are clear elements of domestic terrorism right there. Religiously motivated. 

 

Oh but you did call Black Panthers terrorists. So what is stopping you now?