We Remember The Magic Caf We Remember
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Even MSNBC doesn't buy into "workplace violence." (1 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16346 Posts

Profile of tommy
Terror, all it means is to frighten.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2556 Posts

Profile of critter
Quote:
On Oct 1, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On Oct 1, 2014, R.S. wrote:
Which terrorist group is Nolen affiliated with? Does he have links to ISIS? Is there anything that shows he was not just a disgruntled lone-wolf nut job? (there may be - I seriously don't know and I'm asking if anyone has more info). Thanks.

Ron


Which terrorist group was Timothy McVeigh affiliated with?



The NRA Smile
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1199 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Smile

Smile
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20973 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Quote:
On Oct 1, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I thought your question was the non-sequitur; as the McVeigh example illustrates, ties to terrorist groups are not a requirement for terrorist activity.

I don't know of any such ties, myself.



Ron after this YOU said it depends on how you define terrorist activity. What do you not think I am following? I think I was following fairly well. Perhaps you should read your own posts prior to hitting submit.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Slim King
View Profile
Eternal Order
Orlando
17862 Posts

Profile of Slim King
Quote:
On Oct 2, 2014, Payne wrote:
Quote:
On Oct 2, 2014, Slim King wrote:

McVeigh was trying to kill the guys that murdered the children in WACO. Isn't that the final story?



I wasn't aware that infants and toddlers were perpetrators or involved in any way in the attacks at Waco.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/03/us/ter......ain.html


Yes .. I agree .. it was horrible ... 21 children murdered ... And president approved CIA drones have killed over 7 times as many children just in Pakistan ..our Allie.

The Bomber wanted to kill those that murdered the children in Waco. They were burned alive ... He said so. No guessing needed.

Looks like Bombers and Governments don't care if kids are killed.
THE MAN THE SKEPTICS REFUSE TO TEST FOR ONE MILLION DOLLARS.. The Worlds Foremost Authority on Houdini's Life after Death.....
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
176 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On Oct 2, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
Quote:
On Oct 1, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I thought your question was the non-sequitur; as the McVeigh example illustrates, ties to terrorist groups are not a requirement for terrorist activity.

I don't know of any such ties, myself.



Ron after this YOU said it depends on how you define terrorist activity. What do you not think I am following? I think I was following fairly well. Perhaps you should read your own posts prior to hitting submit.


Danny, you said to me (and I quote)...

"Oh wait are you not defining Timoth McVeigh as a terrorist?"


Please show me where I even MENTIONED McVeigh prior to that post. And if you can (which you can't), then show me where I DEFINED him as anything.

Thank you.

Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16346 Posts

Profile of tommy
Of course the U.S. would ignore the CIA controlled Nazi Muslim Brotherhood infiltration and Timothy McVeigh’s Islamist ties, and much more. http://www.westernfreepress.com/2013/06/......ch-more/
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1199 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On Oct 3, 2014, R.S. wrote:
Quote:
On Oct 2, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
Quote:
On Oct 1, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I thought your question was the non-sequitur; as the McVeigh example illustrates, ties to terrorist groups are not a requirement for terrorist activity.

I don't know of any such ties, myself.



Ron after this YOU said it depends on how you define terrorist activity. What do you not think I am following? I think I was following fairly well. Perhaps you should read your own posts prior to hitting submit.


Danny, you said to me (and I quote)...

"Oh wait are you not defining Timoth McVeigh as a terrorist?"


Please show me where I even MENTIONED McVeigh prior to that post. And if you can (which you can't), then show me where I DEFINED him as anything.

Thank you.

Ron


It's true that my example is a non sequitur if you don't accept that Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist.

If you don't think Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist, you're a member of a very exclusive club. However, if you don't want to concede any points at all in the discussion of whether the beheader is a terrorist, the, you can, of course, be as non-committal as you like about McVeighh.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20973 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Yea I love that tactic.

For the record in my opinion he was a domestic terrorist.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Slim King
View Profile
Eternal Order
Orlando
17862 Posts

Profile of Slim King
Timothy McVeigh was a bomber. He made a bomb with a plan. I'm not sure his goal was to terrorize American Citizens ... Perhaps he wanted to terrorize those in high places that allowed these innocent children to be burned alive. I'm pretty sure he wanted them to feel the terror of imminent pain and death ... That's why he did it. IMHO But I'm pretty sure that's what he said in his own way.

But back to the original idea here ... beheading people is NOT workplace violence no matter who tells you it is....... Just a fact!!!!!
THE MAN THE SKEPTICS REFUSE TO TEST FOR ONE MILLION DOLLARS.. The Worlds Foremost Authority on Houdini's Life after Death.....
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
176 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Edit
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
176 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On Oct 3, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On Oct 3, 2014, R.S. wrote:
Quote:
On Oct 2, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
Quote:
On Oct 1, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I thought your question was the non-sequitur; as the McVeigh example illustrates, ties to terrorist groups are not a requirement for terrorist activity.

I don't know of any such ties, myself.



Ron after this YOU said it depends on how you define terrorist activity. What do you not think I am following? I think I was following fairly well. Perhaps you should read your own posts prior to hitting submit.


Danny, you said to me (and I quote)...

"Oh wait are you not defining Timoth McVeigh as a terrorist?"


Please show me where I even MENTIONED McVeigh prior to that post. And if you can (which you can't), then show me where I DEFINED him as anything.

Thank you.

Ron


It's true that my example is a non sequitur if you don't accept that Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist.

If you don't think Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist, you're a member of a very exclusive club. However, if you don't want to concede any points at all in the discussion of whether the beheader is a terrorist, the, you can, of course, be as non-committal as you like about McVeighh.



As I implied previously, I have no hard opinion on this. I asked a few questions and all of a sudden it seems like people want to put words in my mouth in regards to McVeigh.

Anyway, according to http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/......finition

Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code

18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorism”:

"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
◾Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
◾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
◾Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
◾Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
◾Appear 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
◾Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:
◾Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
◾Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).

* FISA defines "international terrorism" in a nearly identical way, replacing "primarily" outside the U.S. with "totally" outside the U.S. 50 U.S.C. § 1801(c).


Do you accept this definition? Does Nolen fit the description of a terrorist under this definition?

Thanks.

Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16346 Posts

Profile of tommy
Terror, all it means is to scare. What's in a name anyway?
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1199 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On Oct 3, 2014, R.S. wrote:
Quote:
On Oct 3, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On Oct 3, 2014, R.S. wrote:
Quote:
On Oct 2, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
Quote:
On Oct 1, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I thought your question was the non-sequitur; as the McVeigh example illustrates, ties to terrorist groups are not a requirement for terrorist activity.

I don't know of any such ties, myself.



Ron after this YOU said it depends on how you define terrorist activity. What do you not think I am following? I think I was following fairly well. Perhaps you should read your own posts prior to hitting submit.


Danny, you said to me (and I quote)...

"Oh wait are you not defining Timoth McVeigh as a terrorist?"


Please show me where I even MENTIONED McVeigh prior to that post. And if you can (which you can't), then show me where I DEFINED him as anything.

Thank you.

Ron


It's true that my example is a non sequitur if you don't accept that Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist.

If you don't think Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist, you're a member of a very exclusive club. However, if you don't want to concede any points at all in the discussion of whether the beheader is a terrorist, the, you can, of course, be as non-committal as you like about McVeighh.



As I implied previously, I have no hard opinion on this. I asked a few questions and all of a sudden it seems like people want to put words in my mouth in regards to McVeigh.

Anyway, according to http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/......finition

Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code

18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorism”:

"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
◾Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
◾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
◾Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
◾Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
◾Appear 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
◾Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:
◾Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
◾Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).

* FISA defines "international terrorism" in a nearly identical way, replacing "primarily" outside the U.S. with "totally" outside the U.S. 50 U.S.C. § 1801(c).


Do you accept this definition? Does Nolen fit the description of a terrorist under this definition?

Thanks.

Ron


I for one was not trying to put words in your mouth. I referenced McVeigh simply because he is generally accepted as a terrorist, and he did not have ties to a terrorist group. This was to illustrate (contingent on the belief that McVeighh was a terrorist) that being affiliates with a terrorist organization is not a requirement for being a terrorist. This is consistent with the U.S. code definition.

I think Nolen meets the U.C. Code definition of a domestic terrorist. Clearly, the only debatable point is the second of the three; I think his acts and statements (including his public Facebook page) "appear intended to intimidate a civilian population."
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
176 Posts

Profile of R.S.
I agree that the only debatable point is the second of the three listed criteria. And, depending on how one interprets it, Nolen may or may not be considered a "terrorist."

From...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-......ng-case/

The FBI uses a specific definition of terrorism in its investigations. In order to be considered a terrorist act, an instance of violence must “appear 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.”

This, presumably, is partly why the FBI is not currently treating the alleged attack as a terrorist act.
Speaking to The Post, two federal law enforcement officials said the FBI was currently looking at the attack as an instance of workplace violence, and that there’s no indication Nolen was mimicking the recent beheadings carried out by the Islamic State.

The Post’s Mark Berman took a closer look at the debate over what to call attacks like this one.

Mashburn, the prosecutor, said at a press conference Tuesday that the attack appeared to be about revenge, not religion.

“It had more to do with race rather than trying to convert people,” Mashburn said, according to the AP.


So the FBI doesn't consider his actions to be intended to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population." So the question becomes, at what point does workplace proselytizing and Facebook posts become "intimidation or coercion of a population"? How does one make such an evaluation?

Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20973 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
I did not try to put words in your mouth. Your saying depending on what you consider terrorist activities I applied to McVeigh because of the position it ended up in the thread. I asked if you considered him a terrorist. Non sequitur or not I was following and just trying to clarify. Sorry if it came across as putting words in your mouth.

Sometimes it can read differently to others depending on where in the thread an answer pops up. No need for sarcasm and being nasty when all I did was ask for clarification.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Even MSNBC doesn't buy into "workplace violence." (1 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2022 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.07 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL