so that shooting/stabbing yesterday in moore... isis attack?

[soonerwings]

If you think detonating a bomb is required to intimidate the civilian population, you don't understand the psychological ramifications of a beheading

People commit heinous murders (stabbing someone dozens of times/dismembering them/keeping them stored in a refrigerator and eating them) on a daily basis, but it doesn't make the perpetrators terrorists. We're bombarded with news info about them 24 hours a day. I don't think this was calculated to strike fear into the heart of the civilian poplulation. I think the cheese slid off the guy's cracker and he turned violent. True to his radical ideology, he "struck the neck of the infidel" while he was getting his vengeance on someone that (in his perception) wronged him.

 

[CHenry]

I think the cheese slid off the guy's cracker

Well there's one thing we can all agree on.
I hate when my cheese slides off.

 

[LightningCrash]

First, I didn't ask him to do that. Second, you don't understand the nature of a terrorism investigation. There is SIGNIFICANT RAS to support exporing that possibility. The public aspect of it is so significant, it should demand evidence to support excluding terrorism as a motive. Simply saying "This was nothing more than workplace violence, move along..." is not in the best interests of justice or the public good.

Certainly the RAS is there and the evidence should be sought after, to explore any possible motives. You didn't ask him to believe the positive assertion, however the assertion was made by the person he was responding to. Which, as you indicate, there is no background evidence associated with that assertion at this time. He doubts the assertion, which is understandable given the breadth of the evidence, and for me I wouldn't attack him unless I believed the assertion to be self-evidently true.

That said, the heinous murder could be terrorism, we'll see what the evidence leads to.

 

[Glocktogo]

Certainly the RAS is there and the evidence should be sought after, to explore any possible motives. You didn't ask him to believe the positive assertion, however the assertion was made by the person he was responding to. Which, as you indicate, there is no background evidence associated with that assertion at this time. He doubts the assertion, which is understandable given the breadth of the evidence, and for me I wouldn't attack him unless I believed the assertion to be self-evidently true.

That said, the heinous murder could be terrorism, we'll see what the evidence leads to.

Are you saying that if it looks like a duck, flies like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck and is generally imitating a duck during duck season, we should assume it's a giraffe unless proven otherwise?

That's the impression I'm getting from soonerwings posts.

 

[Lurker66]

Are you saying that if it looks like a duck, flies like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck and is generally imitating a duck during duck season, we should assume it's a giraffe unless proven otherwise?

That's the impression I'm getting from soonerwings posts.

Muther Ducker, yall lost me.

 

[soonerwings]

Are you saying that if it looks like a duck, flies like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck and is generally imitating a duck during duck season, we should assume it's a giraffe unless proven otherwise?

That's the impression I'm getting from soonerwings posts.

Are you saying that all religious zealots are terrorists? Are you saying that there's a government conspiracy to cover up acts of terrorism? Should I invest in tin foil?

That's the impression I'm getting from yours.

 

[TedKennedy]

No, because extremist Muslims. Don't generalize. You don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot, so don't do it yourself.

Actually, I don't mind. Generalizations are made by me, and everyone else.
I just don't get my shorts in a wad real quick any more, especially when it involves anything in the Middle East. or anything related to Islam.
Some folks count on panic, outrage, knee-jerk reaction to events. It makes folks easier to lead.
I say the COO should've emptied the mag in the guy, regardless of his motivation. Does this event change the way you carry yourself? Think you're more likely to be a victim of "terror", or more likely to be a victim of a crime committed by a gangbanger?
When we get wound up and are willing to change our lifestyle, who is the victor?

 

[Glocktogo]

Are you saying that all religious zealots are terrorists? Are you saying that there's a government conspiracy to cover up acts of terrorism? Should I invest in tin foil?

That's the impression I'm getting from yours.

No. I'm saying that religious zealots who post support for IS beheading infidels in Syria and Iraq on FB, who also throw IS "gang sign" at the mosque, who then go on to utter the same types of zealous religious phrases while they go about beheading an infidel as the terrorist organization he appears to idolize, MIGHT just be a lone-wolf, self-radicalized terrorist, and that we should assume as much during the investigation until it's proven otherwise.

Second, no. I'm not saying there's a government conspiracy to cover up acts of terrorism. I'm saying that there are legitimate reasons why they might consider it to be in the best interests of "__________" to influence the direction of this type of investigation away from that conclusion, and that we should be mindful of that fact and watch for it.

I'm not sure I can get any more clear than that.

 

[Spata]

 

[soonerwings]

No. I'm saying that religious zealots who post support for IS beheading infidels in Syria and Iraq on FB, who also throw IS "gang sign" at the mosque, who then go on to utter the same types of zealous religious phrases while they go about beheading an infidel as the terrorist organization he appears to idolize, MIGHT just be a lone-wolf, self-radicalized terrorist, and that we should assume as much during the investigation until it's proven otherwise. Second, no. I'm not saying there's a government conspiracy to cover up acts of terrorism. I'm saying that there are legitimate reasons why they might consider it to be in the best interests of "__________" to influence the direction of this type of investigation away from that conclusion, and that we should be mindful of that fact and watch for it. I'm not sure I can get any more clear than that.

The FBI and State of Oklahoma (who have access to info from the investigation) are both treating it as workplace violence. They must not think it walks or quacks like a duck.