Grenade Attack In Belgium

[Kathianne]

No worries though, not terrorism. It's always so comforting that the government people know that so quickly.

http://news.yahoo.com/death-toll-belgian-attack-rises-4-154123200.html


LIEGE, Belgium (AP) — An official says the death toll in a grenade and gun attack in the Belgian city of Liege is now four, including the attacker.


Liege Prosecutor Danielle Reynders said Tuesday that the dead included a 15-year-old boy, a 17-year-old girl, and a 75-year-old woman. Officials say at least 75 people have been wounded.


La Libre newspaper said one of the wounded is a 2-year-old girl, who is in critical condition.


THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
LIEGE, Belgium (AP) — A man armed with hand grenades and guns opened fire in the crowded center of a Belgian city on Tuesday, killing two people and wounding 64, an official said.


It was not immediately clear what motivated the attack in Liege city, but Interior Ministry official Peter Mertens said it did not involve terrorism. He said the assailant died, but did not say how that had happened. The daily La Meuse newspaper said the unidentified attacker killed himself...

[Gaffer]

Of course he killed himself, since there are laws preventing citizens from carrying fie arms in Belgium. And The govt knows it wasn't terrorism even though they have no clue as to why he did it. Swamp gas anyone?

[ConHog]

Of course he killed himself, since there are laws preventing citizens from carrying fie arms in Belgium. And The govt knows it wasn't terrorism even though they have no clue as to why he did it. Swamp gas anyone?

Seems to me that using bombs and guns to scare and kill civilians in the middle of a city is the very definition of terrorism. I have no idea why that guy said that. I mean it seems pretty obvious that he meant not related to AQ, but if its not AQ it's not terrorism?

[avatar4321]

So if it was terrorist related, would it really be any different?

[revelarts]

is it a crime or act of war?

[revelarts]

is it a crime or act of war?
no answer here?

[revelarts]

is it a crime or act of war?
Still waiting for a response here.

4 dead 64 wounded in an explosive attack.
You can probably guess what my answer is.
is it terrorism? not sure, what's the motive? If to attempt to frighten/threaten into people to political changes or action then sure it's terrorism.
If a small militant group does it with political intent. yes it's the crime of terrorism.
If a Nation state does it's an act of war. Seems clear to me.

[fj1200]

Not sure what you're looking for rev. Could be war, probably not though. Crime either way.

[jimnyc]

is it a crime or act of war?


no answer here?


Still waiting for a response here.

4 dead 64 wounded in an explosive attack.
You can probably guess what my answer is.
is it terrorism? not sure, what's the motive? If to attempt to frighten/threaten into people to political changes or action then sure it's terrorism.
If a small militant group does it with political intent. yes it's the crime of terrorism.
If a Nation state does it's an act of war. Seems clear to me.

Maybe no one replied as they don't want to get sucked into a debate with you, where you'll then change their words around on them at will?

Like fj said, it's a crime no matter what. Just as 9/11 was a crime. But in 9/11 we had a terrorist organization take responsibility for the act and stated they were going after American interests and would continue to do so around the world. We further had a country that protected the leader of the terrorist group that struck against us and refused to hand him over. I would imagine if someone stated the same here, then it could be considered an act of war against whatever organization carried out the attack.

Seems you don't think a terrorist organization can go to "war" with anyone, that they can only terrorize, and that ONLY a nation can be at war. You're wrong.

[revelarts]

Maybe no one replied as they don't want to get sucked into a debate with you, where you'll then change their words around on them at will?

Like fj said, it's a crime no matter what. Just as 9/11 was a crime. But in 9/11 we had a terrorist organization take responsibility for the act and stated they were going after American interests and would continue to do so around the world. We further had a country that protected the leader of the terrorist group that struck against us and refused to hand him over. I would imagine if someone stated the same here, then it could be considered an act of war against whatever organization carried out the attack.

Seems you don't think a terrorist organization can go to "war" with anyone, that they can only terrorize, and that ONLY a nation can be at war. You're wrong.

Seems you don't think a terrorist organization can go to "war" with anyone, that they can only terrorize, and that ONLY a nation can be at war. You're wrong.

How does a terrorist org go to war? they have no state. they can attack but war is a state action.

It is a crime. when people commit multiple crimes we call them serial criminals or if large groups then it's organized crime. When organized crime is said to go to "war" the term is used figuratively not legally or literally. If a state protects organized criminals we can declare war on the state. but not the criminals. And if you and others think it's a REAL war then the Soldiers on the other side get all the rights of soldiers. but you don't want that either. you can't have your cake and eat it to.
your wrong Jim.

[jimnyc]

Seems you don't think a terrorist organization can go to "war" with anyone, that they can only terrorize, and that ONLY a nation can be at war. You're wrong.

How does a terrorist org go to war? they have no state. they can attack but war is a state action.

It is a crime. when people commit multiple crimes we call them serial criminals or if large groups then it's organized crime. When organized crime is said to go to "war" the term is used figuratively not legally or literally. If a state protects organized criminals we can declare war on the state. but not the criminals.
your wrong Jim.



1. a conflict carried on by force (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/force) of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.

2. a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.

3. a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812.

4. active hostility or contention; conflict; contest: a war of words.

5. aggressive business conflict, as through severe price cutting in the same industry or any other means of undermining competitors: a fare war among airlines; a trade war between nations.




Seems you can only have the version that supports your view. A "war" DOES NOT have to be between 2 nations. I'm sorry your vocabulary can only hold so much, but WAR has multiple meanings - and I assure you that a terrorist group vowing to attack a country and it's interests throughout the world, they are declaring exactly what it is - WAR.

[ConHog]

Seems you don't think a terrorist organization can go to "war" with anyone, that they can only terrorize, and that ONLY a nation can be at war. You're wrong.

How does a terrorist org go to war? they have no state. they can attack but war is a state action.

It is a crime. when people commit multiple crimes we call them serial criminals or if large groups then it's organized crime. When organized crime is said to go to "war" the term is used figuratively not legally or literally. If a state protects organized criminals we can declare war on the state. but not the criminals. And if you and others think it's a REAL war then the Soldiers on the other side get all the rights of soldiers. but you don't want that either. you can't have your cake and eat it to.
your wrong Jim.

Actually dufus, WAR as far as our military is concerned (and who cares how civilians define it to be honest) is an act of aggression AGAINST a government, not an act of aggression BY a government.

For instance, if our government sends troops over to some drug dealers house and kicks his ass, that isn't war. But if that same drug dealer gathers some of his buddies up and attacks us because he is upset with government policies, that is war.

Sorry that doesn't go over well with your whole "hate on US troops " theme, but ohwell.

[revelarts]

Actually dufus, WAR as far as our military is concerned (and who cares how civilians define it to be honest) is an act of aggression AGAINST a government, not an act of aggression BY a government.

For instance, if our government sends troops over to some drug dealers house and kicks his ass, that isn't war. But if that same drug dealer gathers some of his buddies up and attacks us because he is upset with government policies, that is war.

Sorry that doesn't go over well with your whole "hate on US troops " theme, but ohwell.

O well I'm Hating on the US troops?!?
What the heck? Where does that come from?!? Supporting Ron Paul is hating on the troops now too? Wanting to fire the TSA is hating on the troops? what kinda wolrd is this?


Well the civilians are suppose to be the bosses for better or worse and congress -um civilians- some former military there i understand, are suppose declare the wars according to the constitution your a scholar of, and if it's the LAW it's the LAW we need to STFU and get in line is what I've heard. that included soldiers i assume, unless you think law enforcement and soldiers are exempt from that. I'm sure you'll say no they aren't but your dismissive attitude toward "civilians" instigated my response.


Jim here's a legal dictionary
unless you want to include price cutting and the likeWAR. A contention by force; or the art of paralysing the forces of an enemy.
2. It is either public or private. It is not intended here to speak of the latter.
3. Public war is either civil or national. Civil war is that which is waged between two parties, citizens or members of the same state or nation. National war is a contest between two or more independent nations) carried on by authority of their respective governments.
4. War is not only an act, but a state or condition, for nations are said to be at war not only when their armies are engaged, so as to be in the very act of contention, but also when, they have any matter of controversy or dispute subsisting between them which they are determined to decide by the use of force, and have declared publicly, or by their acts, their determination so to decide it.
5. National wars are said to be offensive or defensive. War is offensive on the part of that government which commits the first act of violence; it is defensive on the part of that government which receives such act; but it is very difficult to say what is the first act of violence. If a nation sees itself menaced with an attack, its first act of violence to prevent such attack, will be considered as defensive.
6. To legalize a war it must be declared by that branch of the government entrusted by the constitution with this power. Bro. tit., Denizen, pl. 20. And it seems it need not be declared by both the belligerent powers. Rob. Rep. 232. By the constitution of the United States, art. 1, s. 7, congress are invested with power "to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; and they have also the power to raise and support armies, and to provide and maintain a navy." See 8 Cranch, R. 110, 154; 1 Mason, R. 79, 81; 4 Binn. R 487. Vide, generally, Grot. B, 1, c. 1, s. 1 Rutherf. Inst. B. 1, c. 19; Bynkershoeck, Quest. Jur. Pub. lib. 1, c. 1; Lee on Capt. c. 1; Chit. Law of Nat. 28; Marten's Law of Nat. B. 8, c. 2; Phil. Ev. Index, h., t. Dane's Ab. Index, h. i.; Com. Dig. h.t. Bac. Ab. Prerogative, D 4; Merl. Repert. mot Guerre; 1 Inst. 249; Vattel, liv. 3, c. 1, Sec. 1; Mann. Com. B. 3, c. 1.
A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.



http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/war

[jimnyc]

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/war[/URL]

Sorry, but "war" as you posted it is in a legal sense under American law. I don't think other countries, other enemies & terrorists will follow US law. Until they live in the US and follow US laws, I suppose we'll have to go by the universally recognized definitions of what constitutes a war. But go ahead, think of it as a crime because that's what your leader Ron Paul tells you. But luckily for me our modern governments all treat these actions as a declaration of war and are fighting it as such. Too bad for you and the kook.

[ConHog]

Why is everyone ignoring the real issue in this thread?


Are the waffles okay?

:laugh2: