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

[MCVetSteve]

What I'm getting at is that there is a line (thin though it may be) between someone who utilizes asymmetric warfare and a terrorist. Same tactics, different intents/goals. Good old "Charlie" wasn't a terrorist in Vietnam, but he sure did know how to use asymetric warfare.

If I put images of "The Rock" all over my social media pages and generally idolize the guy before delivering the "People's Elbow" to someone's face that has wronged me, does that make me a professional wrestler? Am I affiliated with the WWE? Is my goal to entertain people?

This Nolen guy... There's no doubt that he is one sick puppy. That being said, it's difficult to believe that a guy who goes to get a knife after being fired/suspended and tries to kill the person that ratted him out had the goal of terrorizing an entire population in order to affect large scale political change.

Does the definition of terrorism specify political change? I thought a goal could be religious or social as well.

 

[Big_McLargehuge]

Hmm... is it terrorism when fellow inmates behead a pedophile (to the subtle and not so subtle approval of many of us here)? Do we champion maximizing the pain and terror of the deaths of the most vile among us? We may call it poetic justice, but in it's most objective light, these acts carry the same stigma. It is instead the offences of the victims that we object to. While many of us approve, or at least do not strongly disapprove of the torture and murder of those who have crossed our philosophical line between human and monster, the moslem feels the same way. The difference is that the line between human and monster is drawn in a much tighter circle around himself. Don't worship ollie? You're a monster. Worship ollie, but complain about being raped, you're a monster. In some places the only difference is which knee they get down on first to pray on, and that's enough for each group of "faithful" to label each other as monsters.*
When moslems claim to be a religion of tolerance, they mean they tolerate people exactly like them.

Reminds me of an old joke:

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?" He said, "Baptist!" I said,"Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?" He said, "Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?" He said,"Reformed Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off.

 

[inactive]

Does the definition of terrorism specify political change? I thought a goal could be religious or social as well.

Actually, yes.

Though the broader definition of political change can include religious or social motives. Surely the Islamic terrorists have religious motives, but the change they are looking to affect are to shake our political climate and promote their admittedly theocratic political causes.

It's a fine line to draw when their political motives are intertwined with their (the Extremists, anyway... not categorically all Muslims) inherent religious directives.

 

[Shootin 4 Fun]

What I'm getting at is that there is a line (thin though it may be) between someone who utilizes asymmetric warfare and a terrorist. Same tactics, different intents/goals. Good old "Charlie" wasn't a terrorist in Vietnam, but he sure did know how to use asymetric warfare.

If I put images of "The Rock" all over my social media pages and generally idolize the guy before delivering the "People's Elbow" to someone's face that has wronged me, does that make me a professional wrestler? Am I affiliated with the WWE? Is my goal to entertain people?

This Nolen guy... There's no doubt that he is one sick puppy. That being said, it's difficult to believe that a guy who goes to get a knife after being fired/suspended and tries to kill the person that ratted him out had the goal of terrorizing an entire population in order to affect large scale political change.

He was following in the footsteps of his muslim brothers. Bring the Jihad to the heartland. There is no doubt that he is a radical muslim.

 

[soonerwings]

He was following in the footsteps of his muslim brothers. Bring the Jihad to the heartland. There is no doubt that he is a radical muslim.

I don't doubt that he was a radical Muslim. I doubt that he was a terrorist.

 

[Glocktogo]

The distinction that you and Dennis seem loathe to acknowledge is that both Hasan and Nolen KILLED THEIR OWN COWORKERS. That does NOT make every casualty in war an incident of workplace violence. I suspect that if everyone signing up thought that being in the states posed the same risk as being deployed that we'd have a far smaller volunteer force. Heck, if an American GI goes a nuts and kills his CO or blows up his buddies with a grenade does that make him a terrorist? After all, some people get scared afterward.
Hasan is more borderline to me. That guy was killing agents of the American government after all, but I never really read into what was found about his motives. If they were to terrorize a population and try to bend a government to his will, terrorism. If they were simple vengeance or just plain old mental illness, workplace violence.
Nolen worked at a place that distributes fresh produce and was angry at someone who had three strikes in his mind. She was 1. A woman 2. White and 3. An infidel. To me, this looks, smells, and walks a lot more like a hate crime in the workplace than terrorism.

So what you're saying is that being coworkers automatically excludes it from being terrorism. Got it...

I don't doubt that he was a radical Muslim. I doubt that he was a terrorist.

Can you explain to us how he separated his religious beliefs from his political beliefs, and assure us that the former does not influence the latter?

Can you tell us the name of the ISIS jihadist magazine? Can you assure us that he's never read it? That he wasn't following their directives in any way when he beheaded the woman?

I get that you suspect the motive based on the timing (his firing). You've yet to provide any evidence that he was not at all influenced by ISIS teachings though.

 

[soonerwings]

So what you're saying is that being coworkers automatically excludes it from being terrorism. Got it...



Can you explain to us how he separated his religious beliefs from his political beliefs, and assure us that the former does not influence the latter?

Can you tell us the name of the ISIS jihadist magazine? Can you assure us that he's never read it? That he wasn't following their directives in any way when he beheaded the woman?

I get that you suspect the motive based on the timing (his firing). You've yet to provide any evidence that he was not at all influenced by ISIS teachings though.

If I crucified/stoned a coworker would I be a terrorist or just a religious zealot?

I'm not the one that made the assertion that the government is wrong in their assessment and that this guy should be tried as a terrorist . I don't need to show evidence to introduce reasonable doubt. If you want to accuse someone of something, then the burden of proof is yours. Please present your evidence. Perhaps you have some that the prosecutor missed?

That being said, they may not have a magazine, but you can be damn sure they have a few websites they use to communicate. Do I know what they are? No, because I'm not a radical Muslim.

 

[Glocktogo]

If I crucified/stoned a coworker would I be a terrorist or just a religious zealot?

I'm not the one that made the assertion that the government is wrong in their assessment and that this guy should be tried as a terrorist . I don't need to show evidence to introduce reasonable doubt. If you want to accuse someone of something, then the burden of proof is yours. Please present your evidence. Perhaps you have some that the prosecutor missed?

That being said, they may not have a magazine, but you can be damn sure they have a few websites they use to communicate. Do I know what they are? No, because I'm not a radical Muslim.

It depends. Did you do it entirely because of your zeal as a fundamentalist? Or did you do it because you were directed to as a devout adherent to a known and categorized terrorist organization?

You're the one who said you see no way this could be terrorism. I've said we don't have all the evidence yet and it could quite possibly be terrorism. Sometimes it takes well over a year to make a case and I've laid out several reasons why people in charge may determine that it's not in their best interets to classify this as terrorism. Yet you're the one who's saying the governments are absolutely not considering this terrorism, therefore it can't be.

So yes, I think it would be a good idea for you to explain why it can't be terrorism and provide actual evidence to support your theory, rather than assuming it isn't and expecting us to agree with your amateur assessment.

BTW, it's Dabiq Magazine and it's a hell of a lot slicker than anything al Qaeda ever put out. Look it up.

 

[soonerwings]

I said I DOUBT this is terrorism after someone claimed that it obviously was. Someone else asked why I doubted it. This discussion ensued. I find it odd that so many people on this forum believe that the government sees nearly everything (when complaining about privacy) and yet when they don't see fit to charge someone it's "obviously" wrong or a conspiracy.

As to why it's not terrorism? It appears (to me) to lack the mens rea.

Nah, I'm not gonna look that one up. I trust you and have no desire to look at that piece of "literature."

 

[LightningCrash]

I said I DOUBT this is terrorism after someone claimed that it obviously was. Someone else asked why I doubted it. This discussion ensued. I find it odd that so many people on this forum believe that the government sees nearly everything (when complaining about privacy) and yet when they don't see fit to charge someone it's "obviously" wrong or a conspiracy.

As to why it's not terrorism? It appears (to me) to lack the mens rea.

Nah, I'm not gonna look that one up. I trust you and have no desire to look at that piece of "literature."

You said it again!

LOL.

I think I see what you're saying though. You're saying Nolan wasn't a muslim and that terrorism and ISIS isn't real. Well I can show you evidence that says otherwise. Through no fault of your own really, you just don't understand how the investigation works.