ed note (Tony)…LOL….Of coarse it wasn’t terrorism, because he was not an Arab. Only Arabs commit acts of terrorism, don’t you know.
It does not matter that those Cops in Dallas felt terrorized. Thanks to the Jewish control of mass-media, news, and ‘entertainment’, the lemmings have been mentally conditioned to believe that Arabs are ‘the terrorists’.
One thought on “Dallas Police Chief David Brown: 'Shooting Not Act Of Terrorism'”
Pretty sure that the brand name is essentially reserved (for now) for Arab/Muslim folks… but I s’pect cops, etc. can argue via guidelines… Taking a stab at what those might’ve been: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332b (found via: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/06/cia-director-john-brennan-admits-killing-people-countries-might-make-want-kill-us/ )
“(5) the term “Federal crime of terrorism” means an offense that—
“(A) is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government [which one?] by intimidation or coercion, OR TO RETALIATE AGAINST GOVERNMENT CONDUCT; …”
Now that’s fascinating… because e.g. certain faux pundits wave off assertions that we’re-causing-terrorism … But the very definition ‘federal crime of terrorism’ allows that it’s ‘calculated’ AS retaliation!!!! (sorry if I’m the only one that’s a revelation to…)
But the term ‘retaliate’ doesn’t appear here: “18 U.S. Code § 2331 – Definitions” https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331 No lawyer here, but guessing this latter is closer to what Chief Brown referred-to. Pertinent might be(?): 2331(5)(C) “…occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished,…”
Could explain why he’s saying no “nexus to terrorism” is close enough to unterrorism (for government work)?
Pretty sure that the brand name is essentially reserved (for now) for Arab/Muslim folks… but I s’pect cops, etc. can argue via guidelines… Taking a stab at what those might’ve been:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332b (found via: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/06/cia-director-john-brennan-admits-killing-people-countries-might-make-want-kill-us/ )
“(5) the term “Federal crime of terrorism” means an offense that—
“(A) is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government [which one?] by intimidation or coercion, OR TO RETALIATE AGAINST GOVERNMENT CONDUCT; …”
Now that’s fascinating… because e.g. certain faux pundits wave off assertions that we’re-causing-terrorism … But the very definition ‘federal crime of terrorism’ allows that it’s ‘calculated’ AS retaliation!!!! (sorry if I’m the only one that’s a revelation to…)
But the term ‘retaliate’ doesn’t appear here: “18 U.S. Code § 2331 – Definitions” https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331 No lawyer here, but guessing this latter is closer to what Chief Brown referred-to. Pertinent might be(?): 2331(5)(C) “…occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished,…”
Could explain why he’s saying no “nexus to terrorism” is close enough to unterrorism (for government work)?