Posted on 10/23/2014 6:04:52 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Canadian authorities identified the gunman in the deadly shooting Wednesday of a soldier guarding the National War Memorial in Ottawa as Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, a Canadian born in 1982.
The episode was the latest in a growing list of attacks in the West by individuals who have professed their affinity for radical Islam or sympathy to militant ideology.
Oct. 20, 2014: Hit-and-Run Kills Canadian Soldier
Sept. 25, 2014: Woman Is Beheaded in Oklahoma
Sept. 26, 2014: ISIS Lieutenant Tries to Coordinate Attacks in Australia
May 24, 2014: 3 Shot Dead at Jewish Museum in Brussels
May 22, 2013: Attack Near Military Barracks in South London
March 2012: Gunman Kills 7, Including 3 Soldiers, in France
November 2009, July 2011 and April 2014: Fort Hood Shootings
June 1, 2009: Gunman Kills Soldier Outside Arkansas Recruiting Station
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
But then it is the Slimes.
“In the West, a Growing List of Attacks Linked to Islam”
Say it NYT. With feeling.
Good on YOU, Pally ... that was MY first thought also
You beat me. ;)
The Times is a POS.
We don’t have acts of terrorism in the US. We have “workplace violence” because Obozo is covering for the religion of peace.
Change “extremism” to “Islamic Terrorism” and then the headline becomes accurate.
Punch Schmuckberger would be the first line up to be a Dhimmi!
Beat me to the correction.
Islam IS “extreme”. Those killing “the infidel” are following the directives of their book.
All one need to do to understand the liberal/Islam relationship is watch the old episode of All in the Family where Meathead finds a job he is ideal for. 100% the best man for the position. And it is given to an unqualified black man. this episode aired back when the whole special privileges/laws for minority hiring began and of course, it was being pushed hard on TV.
Meathead was called in and given the news to his face. The Boss left and Meathead sat there talking to himself saying things like “This is right. It’s fair. It had to be this way” just justifying the hell out of the screwing he got so as to not have to face the fact that his beliefs were the cause of his situation.
They’re the appeaser trying to feed everyone else to the crocodile.
Say it NYT. With feeling.
**********
Yeah, they’ve been resistant to using the “I” word. It hurts the NYT to state the obvious.
The Religion of pRes_ _ent Obola and Hasan.
I am loathe to even say anything that might be construed as defending the MSM...
That said, in the last month there has been a shift. Before, nothing at all was allowed to besmirch the Belssed Muslim/Islam. No connections were allowed and the few breakthrough statements were met with floods of newspaper ‘special sections’ for weeks on end destroying the speaker of the blasphemy.
They are moving off rez en’masse. Because they have to be seen as always at the front of the parade without acknowledging their 180 degree turn.
I think they are in full CYA mode because their own were killed. Now it’s personal. Now they realize they are not immune from their creation. But instead of admitting it, typical liberalism means they must be correct, past and present, for their actions.
So the soft sell is on.
I didn’t read the whole article because as a matter of principle I do not patronize the NYT web site, but did she actually omit the Boston Marathon bombing from her list?
treat all muzzies like you WANT to treat registered Democrats.........
It is time for some large and well funded organization to file a *private* RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) lawsuit against several forms of Islam and Muslim organizations in the United States, and certain mosques in particular.
While this sounds unusual on the surface, there is no “religious exemption” in RICO, and it could clearly apply in many cases.
What are the requirements?
1) The organization or individuals with leadership roles within conduct a pattern of racketeering activity which requires AT LEAST TWO ACTS of racketeering activity from a list of offenses, the last of which occurred within ten years (excluding any period of imprisonment) after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity. Predicate acts are related if they “have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events.”
2) The list of applicable (to Islam) activities covered by RICO include:
Any violation of state statutes against murder, kidnapping, extortion, arson, robbery, bribery, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in the Controlled Substances Act);
Any act of bribery, counterfeiting, theft, embezzlement, fraud, obstruction of justice, slavery, racketeering, money laundering, commission of murder-for-hire, and many other offenses covered under the Federal criminal code (Title 18);
Bankruptcy fraud or securities fraud;
Drug trafficking; long-term and elaborate drug networks can also be prosecuted using the Continuing Criminal Enterprise Statute;
Bringing in, aiding or assisting aliens in illegally entering the country (if the action was for financial gain);
and,
Acts of terrorism.
*********
This being said, though the government would likely *never* file a RICO lawsuit against a sect of Islam or a mosque within the US, private citizens may do so.
Case law:
National Organization for Women v. Scheidler(1994),
is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) could apply to enterprises without economic motives; pro-life protesters could thus be prosecuted under it. An organization without an economic motive can still affect interstate or foreign commerce and thus satisfy the Act’s definition of a racketeering enterprise.
Catholic Sex Abuse Cases,
RICO suits have been filed against Catholic dioceses, using racketeering laws to prosecute the highers-up in the episcopacy for abuses committed by those under their authority.
The bottom line is that sects of Islam, Imams and mosques in the US have *frequently* aided, abetted, sponsored, supported, and encouraged acts of terrorism against particular targets. Evidence of FAR MORE THAN TWO INSTANCES OF THIS would be a legal “slam dunk” in a RICO lawsuit. (For example the mosque that encouraged Hassan, the Fort Hood shooter; *and* the other Muslim planning to attack Fort Hood.)
However, pick from the list of other offenses which Muslims frequently and egregiously commit in the US. These would be icing on the cake of a RICO lawsuit.
The end result would be *triple damages* for anything they did, and would shut down such mosques and organizations like CAIR.
Now they realize they are not immune from their creation.
******
Drudge posted this link yesterday. Really sobering stuff. The NYT can’t ignore or soft peddle the threat anymore.
BTW, your overall reply was excellent. Very well said.
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.