Posted on 09/29/2014 3:34:09 PM PDT by markomalley
Monday on CNN's "The Lead," host Jake Tapper said the man who beheaded his co worker in Oklahoma on Thursday, Alton Nolen, was "clearly an Islamic extremist."
Tapper said, "Some call this a case of workplace violence. The suspect's devolution into the world of radical Islam is hard to ignore."
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
and he attended a radical mosque and such
That’s one dot. The next one is “He’s infected. Let’s start to root out the source of the infection.”
Workplace violence. What a joke. So if a man decides to murder his wife and goes to her place of employment to do it, is that workplace violence, or domestic violence?
It’s murder.
Oh but MSNBC’s Melissa Harris Perry said Beheading Is “Workplace Violence”, How Dare Any One Suggest A Muslim Connection? (Video in link below)
Obama is a case not of workplace violence but TERRORISM perpetrated against the United States. JMHO!
Maybe Missy can cite me the last time an American going postal beheaded a co-worker.
I’ll probably take a beating for this, but here’s how I see it.
Fort Hood was committed (IMO) to cause fear in the hearts of our service members. It was intended to put members of the military on notice, that they were going to experience mass killings in their ranks, because they chose to serve in the armed forces of the United States.
To me, that is a terrorist act.
This Oklahoma moron used a terrorists tactic to kill someone, but I don’t see it as an attempt to scare all office workers across the nation. Perhaps I’m wrong about that, but that’s how I see it.
So was this a terrorist act? I don’t believe so.
If I could identify a group that he was seeking to intimidate, I could buy into that label.
I think it’s to general to simply state he wanted to cause terror in the populace at large. I just think he wanted to kill people he had a vendetta against.
I could be wrong. That’s how I see it.
Should his mosque get a visit? You’re damn straight they should.
Free speech is great, but encouraging jihad against the West and it’s ways, should not be protected.
Yeah she is nothing but a heavy left propagandist.
What is it with blacks in this country and
Islam? The should think again if the think Islam would do them any favors.
The guy is obviously a nutter. A nutter who chose to express his insanity using Islam. Doesn’t excuse Islam from responsibility, but then it’s equally obvious, at least to me, that he would have likely killed people if he’d never heard of Islam.
His new religion guided his rhetoric and methods, not his criminality as such.
I hear you, but consider this:
Definitions of domestic terrorism
The statutory definition of domestic terrorism in the United States has changed many times over the years; also, it can be argued that acts of domestic terrorism have been occurring since long before any legal definition was set forth.
According to a memo produced by the FBI’s Terrorist Research and Analytical Center in 1994, domestic terrorism was defined as “the unlawful use of force or violence, committed by a group(s) of two or more individuals, against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”[2]
Under current United States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which: “(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”[3]
Source: Wikipedia
If an American citizen adopts the political agenda of an enemy of the United States and then commits acts of aggression against its citizens, is that not terrorism?
Let me add that none of us should be duped into the trick that obama wants you to believe that “isis”, “isil”, kourasan, al nusra, “Core” vs “non core” al qaeda are anything but Sunni Wahhabi sect al qaeda. It is all the same. The reason for this construction is that obama announced to the world that “ al qaeda is decimated”. It is all al qaeda— It is all sunni and it is all 100% wahhabi sect. You cannot lump that in with Iran or shiite. No way. Sunni and Shiites kill each other every day.
The issue to focus on in our country is DO WE HAVE WAHHABI IN THIS COUNTRY AND WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO WITH THEM? One cut off the head of a helpless 57 year old women in Moore Oklahoma last Friday. One killed 13 and wounded 37 at Fort Hood and 14 of them flew passenger aircraft into the world trade center and the Pentagon. One got on a plane with a bomb in his shoe— and on and on. Until we know who the enemy is we cannot fight them. Wahhabi sect sunni islam !!
I’d say it’s terrorism. I would call it thus for another reason.
Islam attracts his type BECAUSE of their fanaticism and instability and they do it intentionally because they want cannon fodder. Their ‘holy book’ is literally a textbook on terror.
It it terrorism because islam itself is terrorism. It defines terrorism. It preaches terrorism over and over. It then logically follows that adherents of a doctrine based on terror are terrorists and thus their actions, by definition, terrorism.
This is the definition of Islam. Even if they succeed in controlling the entire world there will never be peace among these people, because they will always be angry at someone, even another muslim, who they will believe Allah wants them to kill.
Yes, I agree.
If someone could make a decent argument that this was intended to influence people in some way consistent with changing government policy, moving public opinion or the public's behavior across the board, I could buy into it being labeled a terrorist act.
According to a memo produced by the FBI’s Terrorist Research and Analytical Center in 1994, domestic terrorism was defined as “the unlawful use of force or violence, committed by a group(s) of two or more individuals, against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”[2]
This condition wasn't met.
Under current United States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which: “(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”[3]
Perhaps (A), (B), and (C) conditions need to be met. I'm not certain of that.
(A) here seems too vague. Almost any threat to human safety could be called an act of terrorism. An old codger drives into a crowd. Is that terrorism? Generally it's senility or at least health related. This hurdle was met by the Oklahoma Beheader but this definition alone shouldn't suffice IMO.
(B) has not been met by the Oklahoma Beheader. IMO
(C) was met by the Oklahoma Beheader, but there again, there must have been intent to sway a government or a group of people.
If an American citizen adopts the political agenda of an enemy of the United States and then commits acts of aggression against its citizens, is that not terrorism?
If an American citizen adopts the political agenda, then is motivated by that agenda to commit and act to cause people to adopt the goals of the group, then yes it should be terrorism.
If an American citizen adopts the political agenda of an enemy of the U. S., but simply gets angry at some people at work and kills them using the tactic a terrorist uses, but isn't intending to sway public or government opinion, I think it fails the terrorist test.
Others will see this differently. I see Fort Hood as clear terrorism, and this to be the work place actions of a malcontent who got fired and wanted revenge.
OK, but what about the fact that he was a “recent” convert to islam?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.