“Workplace Violence”, Eh?
I’m sure everyone reading this has heard about the recent beheadings in Oklahoma by that new convert to Islam, Alton Nolen. Jonn’s written about that previously here.
I’m also sure everyone’s head by now that authorities have characterized the incident as “workplace violence” – and NOT as an act of“Islamic terrorism”. Gotta refrain from “jumping to conclusions” lest we “offend someone”, right?
Put me down as “unconvinced” about that. Why? Well, let’s see. For starters
- Nolen was apparently active in the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City. That group’s former leader, Imam Suhaib Webb, is a known associate of Al Qaeda mastermind Anwar al-Awlaki. And Webb is today Imam of an organization associated with the Boston-area mosque attended by Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev
- Nolen apparently had recently attempted to convert some of his former co-workers to Islam.
- Nolen’s post-conversion Facebook page appears to be supportive of Islamic terrorism and known terrorist organizations – and proclaims that “Sharia law is coming”.
- Nolen apparently considered America and Israel “wicked”.
and, finally
- Nolen seems to have been fired from his job for an at-work argument with co-workers in which he said that women “should be stoned” for a particular offense (not further identified). So not long afterwards, he came back to his former place of employment – and tried to kill two women, succeeding in one case, and beheading his victim.
Now, individually, none of these are necessarily telling. But collectively they make a fairly persuasive argument that this was a calculated act of Islamic terrorism – albeit possibly one committed by a lone individual vice a larger group.
Why do I say that? Simplicity, folks – simplicity. “If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck,acts like a duck, and quacks like a duck, well . . . chances are pretty damn good it’s a duck.“
Further, behavior of a number of members of OKC’s Islamic community during and after the press conference concerning the incident was, to say the least, both troubling and shocking. So while this a-hole may well have acted alone, he apparently was not the only one in OKC with similar twisted beliefs and loyalties.
So, tell me: why are the authorities p!ssing on our leg and telling us it’s raining? That is: why are they bald-faced lying to us, and calling a pretty damned obvious incident of radical Islamic terrorism “workplace violence” – once again?
Oh, yeah, I remember now: we must be “nice”. We must refrain from “offending anyone”.
Even when the bastards are trying to kill us.
Category: "Teh Stoopid", "Your Tax Dollars At Work", Terror War
Ridiculous.
I hope no one over there is actually buying that; from what I’ve heard, the people have it pegged as what it was.
I don’t think the police anywhere are quite prepared for the possibility that these incidents are not isolated.
What is the difference between this and the recent riot during a peaceful memorial in Ferguson, MO? Not a whole lot.
I hope these converts choose to continue wearing their bathrobes and shower caps when the decide to rise up. It will certainly make them easier to sight in on….
None of these acts of violence will be labeled ‘terrorist acts’ by ths administration, unless there is a direct attack on one of them. Using that label implies that there exists a willingness to commit to waging war – real war, not this pussyfooting stuff – in the Middle East, and we ALL know that this administration does not have the willpower or the cojones to do that.
And why were that bunch of yelling idiots surrounding the police in the press conference? Because they figured they could do it and get away with it. They haven’t had the history of protests like those in Chicago, Detroit, New York City and Watts in Los Angeles. Unfortunately, they may have to face it, and I don’t think they are prepared for it, any more than the police in Ferguson, MO were.
Yep.
What PH2 said……..
Suppose that I am a liberal (it give me the heebie jeebies just to type that) and somebody said that Ft Hood was “workplace violence”. I want to believe that because I want to be nice, not judgmental, not violent, not act like a frightened conservative. I am better than that.
But I know better.
So long as it doesn’t cost me anything to say “workplace violence” and nobody is standing outside my door with a gun, then I should argue for that point of view. That is how it SHOULD be so that is what it MUST be. It SHOULD not happen so it DID not happen.
But I think that they know.
When a news outlet plays a video of some poor bastard getting his head cut off, that is not how it SHOULD be. Herding a coule hundred people into a pit and shooting them in the back of the head, that SHOULD not happen. So maybe it didn’t happen – some conservative news source, Fox, or some bad guy in his basement playing with a video editor. But after two or three or four of those videos they cannot ignore it any more. They too want the government to act.
But not the military. That would mean soldiers, uniforms, guns, bombs, violence. That is not nice. That would be as horrible as the videos. I do not want to be part of that.
Why are some people focused on what they WANT the world to be instead of what the world IS?
It’s the problem of idealism.
I personally WANT the world to get over its petty fears and hatreds and rise to become something greater, something better. In that aspect, I am like a Liberal, but everyone has that same kind of want and hope for something.
However, where the difference starts between the average Liberal and I (as well as any Conservative, or any regular here) is that I KNOW that the world won’t look like that for a long time, and I need to deal with the now rather than the later. The Liberal looks at the world how they WANT it to be, because it’s cleaner and nicer than how the world IS.
It’s just the sad truth of things. Maybe someday things’ll get better, but for the moment we need to put aside the idealism and work to change the world for the better by dealing with today’s issues.
I remember way back when I was a pup of 7 years, I was at my grandparents’ house for a family get-together (Irish family, we could fill up an average-sized metropolitan convention center). It was 1991, and the air campaign against Saddam was the lead story on every channel. I remember sitting on the couch with my Grandpa (Mom’s side, WWII Navy vet, Atlantic, Med, and Pacific), Great-Uncle Ollie (Mom’s side, WWII Army Air Forces vet, Europe & North Africa), Great-Uncle Jim (Mom’s side, WWII Army vet, infantry in Europe under Patton), my step-Grandpa (Dad’s side, Korean War Army vet, infantry), and Uncle Greg (Vietnam Marine vet, infantry and War Dog handler). When somebody came on TV talking about hearts and minds, they unanimously scoffed. Their opinion, based on bitter real-world experience, was that you should care about the feelings of somebody who’s nice to you. If they’re trying to kill you, fuck their feelings. If they support the people trying to kill you, fuck their feelings. If they don’t support you, fuck their feelings. Win the war by kicking their ass, kill as many of theirs as possible, until they just want it to end and surrender unconditionally. Then worry about making their lives better, while making it clear that they owe everything to your mercy. My Grandpa was a hardcore conservative Republican right down to his DNA, but he kept a picture of FDR in his house, because for all his faults, Roosevelt had the will to win the war (even if he didn’t have the lifespan), and Grandpa had been proud to have him as Commander-in-Chief. He would not tolerate the name of Lyndon Johnson being spoken in his house (if it came up in conversation, his name was replaced with “that lying son of a bitch”) for sending his eldest son to the ass-end of Asia to fight a war that he wasn’t allowed to win. None of those men were racists. Grandpa would welcome anybody, of any color or creed, into his house as an honored guest, and he frequently did. Uncle Ollie never took… Read more »
Agreed 100%.
Your grandfather sounds like an outstanding man, Whitey. I would have loved to meet him.
You should meet mine sometime, he’s a great guy and a Task Force Smith veteran (for those of you who don’t know what that is, which I doubt, that was the American force that got trapped in Korea when the DPRK moved across the border). He was there from day one to the ceasefire.
The Other Whitey…Wish I could have met your granddad. He sounds a lot like mine. I miss mine very much and often wish I could talk to him just once more.
I know the feeling, Sparks. I was the first of my Grandpa’s nine (I’m number 8, family ratio is roughly 3 girls to each boy) grandsons to be born after he retired, so I was the first one he had unlimited time for, though he always made time for everybody, even when he worked two jobs. I was very close to him, but he died when I was eight. To this day I have a near-photographic recall of his funeral, of the words of the Senior Chief who led the Navy Honor Guard as he handed the flag to my Grandma. I still have a .30-06 case from his rifle volley salute (the Honor Guard used M1s). I even remember what the weather was like, down to which way the wind was blowing. I would trade anything for him to come back for just one day, to meet my wife and daughter–he’d likely say something like, “I’ll be damned! Irish and Cambodian, why not?” and I know he’d adore my wife–and his other grandchildren born after his death. I really hope that he would approve of how I turned out. God knows I’ve dicked the dog enough times to wonder. I feel the same for the rest of them as well. The last of them was Uncle Greg, who we lost to a traffic accident when I was 15. What I would give for just one day! All I have now are fond memories and keepsakes. Uncle Ollie’s dog tags, rosary, Ruptured Duck, and a picture of him up to his elbows in the #2 engine of a B-17 in Algeria. My step-Grandpa’s (I still called him Grandpa) Enfield No.4 rifle that he traded his M1 for at Inchon while waiting for his ride home in 1953. Uncle Jim’s war stories. A picture of Uncle Greg with his M14 in one hand and his war dog’s leash in the other in 1966 (believe the picture was taken at Chu Lai, not 100% sure), and memories if him teaching me to hunt deer. And Grandpa teaching me the value of a… Read more »
“Win the war by kicking their ass, kill as many of theirs as possible, until they just want it to end and surrender unconditionally. Then worry about making their lives better, while making it clear that they owe everything to your mercy.”
That there is the Money Quote of the Day, IMO.
What PH2 said……..
It’s all just jibberish. Collecting data to use when formulating policy, allocating resources and such things is valid. Even arbitrarily assigning categories is often necessary when sorting data. But to compare the “why” of crime with the “where” of crime is just silly, confusing and serves no useful purpose.
Yeah, I have some very strong thoughts on the subject.
Now, individually, every one of these are necessarily telling.
Fixed it for yeh.
Of course publicly available news media coverage of ISIS terrorists and Muslims elsewhere calling on Muslims all over the world to “act alone to bring Jihad and terror wherever they are in the world” had nothing to do with influencing this ass hole. Yea and I’m on the short list to be the next Pope.
Until this nation realizes the terrorists are right here among us, meeting weekly to praise Allah and recite the corrosive, murderous message of the Koran in Mosques across America, they have their heads in the sand to say the least. To say the truth, that we should regard Muslims in America as potential enemies of the state and watch their every move would just be too offensive for Obama, the DoJ, the FBI and HLS. After all, the “religion of peace” is virtually a protected class in America. To say otherwise is to be a racist, or Muslimophobe or some such as the left liberals would label me. I am fed up with “due consideration” of a people who advocate Sharia law over the Constitution which allows them their free assembly and free speech. Under their law, there would be neither. I am fed up with calling a person with a warped value of life, pedophilia, freedom for women, freedom of religious faith and practice, just another brand of normal American. If they were not Muslims in our society we would not hesitate to call them each of those things, pedophiles, misogynists, racists, homophobes or what have you and every press agency and thinking person would take them to hard task about those issues. Some of those things are crimes for which we prosecute. Unless it is hidden in the Muslim community of course. There’s gonna be a wake up call coming, again. Perhaps when more of this type of “workplace violence” occurs. Sad it will take that to finally call a spade a spade. Sorry for the long rant and this is just my one humble opinion.
The heart of the problem is that the animating ideology of the left is Marxism and Marxism divides the world up into “oppressors” and “the oppressed”. Westerners, but especially Americans and most especially white male Americans, are “oppressors”-and so they, and their implicit racism, are the problem that needs to be addressed. “Others” (a category that is infinitely flexible to fit the needs of the left, but generally those who are not straight white males) are “the oppressed” and so their actions can-and usually must-be explained by their oppression. It’s not really any more complicated than that.
68W58…Simple, elegant and well said with far fewer words than I used. Thank you.
Media is using older pictures of him when reporting the story to push a false narrative as well.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2014/09/28/press-using-older-photos-alton-nolen-over-recent-one-muslim-garb
I’m surprised they didn’t pull a Travon Martin and come up with some boy photo when he was 13 years old.
I’ll give CNN credit. They repeatedly showed pictures of the terrorist in his muslim garb during midday segments of the murdering thug.
A Muslim convert should be referenced by his chosen muslim name, not his forsaken Christian name. When he converted, he took the name Jah’Keem Yisrael. News reports that use his name should refer to this subhuman as, “Jah’Keem Yisrael, formerly known as Alton Nolen” not as Alton Nolen. That name makes him sound like just an ordinary American citizen, when he is the enemy. First time I noticed the liberal media use this form of whitewash was when they referred to Abdullah al-Muhajir as Jose Padilla right after 9/11. Jeez, the bedwetters in the media will call a muslim convert by his previous Christian name rather than the name he wishes to be known by, yet they will refer to Bradley Manning by his new chosen name. Just annoys the hell out of me.
I have a better idea. Call him “Murdering, Woman-Hating, Child-Raping,Islamist Terrorist Coward Asshole Number _____.”
That way, you don’t whitewash it with the Christian name he discarded, nor do you humor the fucker by calling him what he wants to be called. You just call him what he is.
Well, I’ll be ‘that guy’. To me, it isn’t beyond the realm of reason to feel that ‘workplace violence’ is more adequate a description than ‘terrorism’ in this particular case.
From my admittedly limited understanding, the attacks took place immediately after he was fired, correct? So even though he was a jackass Islamic fanatic who was increasingly unhinged as evidenced by his Facebook posts, the root cause of THIS attack is possibly -probably?- his general rage being triggered by the firing.
To be fair, my bias is we use ‘terrorism’ as a blanket term for everything these days – and to me, terrorism is usually something that’s intended to inflict, well, terror. To do that, it typically needs to be perceived as a general threat, not a specific one. He targeted people from his work, not the population at large. To me, his interest in and identification with radical Islamic elements means this COULD be terrorism,… but that requires more evidence than we currently have. The attacks happened at his work, after he was fired. “Workplace violence” doesn’t seem completely implausible.
I’m not about to defend that vigorously since I don’t feel too strongly about it, but there’s no reason to be outraged over that classification yet.
Put another way, if some jihadi wannabe is contemplating all sorts of vicious things he wants to do, and is by all accounts a to-be-terrorist, and on his way to the bomb lab some day gets violent road rage because someone cuts him off, and then he rams that person off a cliff… the cause OF THAT MURDER is road rage, not ‘terrorism’. He may still be a terrorist, but we describe the cause of the violence, not the person who committed it.
If you want to be fully descriptive, fine – workplace violence by an asshole Islamic fanatic.
Either way, fuck this guy.
That is exactly the sort of confusion one expects when comparing apples and oranges with sea shells. “Workplace Violence” describes a place where violence occurs. We would expect it to be compared to violence occurring other places, like maybe parks, streets, or residences.
Instead, the term, as it is usually used, is rather meaningless. “Domestic Violence,” for instance, tells us that a relationship existed between the victim and the criminal. No such relationship is implied when using the term “Workplace Violence.”
Armed robbery in a convenience store would seem to be “Workplace Violence” since the guy getting robbed is in his workplace and the robber is also in his.
I guess that’s part of the problem – the definitions aren’t really very clear. I honestly never took the description of ‘workplace violence’ as meaning that the violence occurred AT the place of work, but rather that it had to do with interpersonal dynamics from one’s place of work.
If someone got fired, went berserk, and killed their old boss in the boss’s home, to me that would be an example of ‘workplace violence’. The root cause relates to the work environment, even if the actual crime didn’t occur there.
Apples, oranges and sea shells as you say.
Your view actually makes more sense to me than the way the term is used these days. But, it still speaks to motive, while common use describes location. The Ft Hood shootings, the Arkansas recruiters, this one, and many more were categorized “Workplace Violence” in spite of there being no relationship between the killer and the victims.
Kind of with you on this one LC.
It’s far more logical to associate the violence the perp displayed with his being a) bat shit crazy and b) pissed off about being fired.
I understand true terrorism to be violence perpetrated with the focused purpose of changing/altering/effecting/influencing political policy and public habits. This crime doesn’t rise to that, the raghead in training wasn’t trying to change anyone’s mind or influence anything, he was simply being vengeful.
A quick look at the FBI’s web site defines domestic terrorism thusly;
“”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.”
International Terrorism is similarly defined.
Again, this crime just falls way short.
Sure, Jacobite. Just like the Weathermen bombings and those of the Unibomber were those of small groups of loonies. Or any number of violent incidents at abortion clinics.
Each of those was the calculated use, by an individual or small group, of violence to make a political point. The desired end in all cases was to terrorize some segment of the public and (indirectly) change public policy.
The Weathermen and the Unibomber used bombs. Those doing violence against abortion clinics/providers were using various means to perpetrate acts of violence. This jackass is attempted to bring the “wrath of Allah” down upon “evil unbelievers” and impose his own personal Sharia – with a knife, through beheadings.
Targets of terrorist acts need not have a direct government connection. Public opinion and/or the public’s feeling of well-being and safety is often a target of terrorist acts.
There is no essential difference between any of those acts I mentioned in this comment. The first 3 categories are clearly acts of terrorism.
Take off the PC blinders and do the math yourself for this most recent case.
Actually Hondo, you make my argument for me.
The examples you cite are easy to catagorize as true ‘acts of terrorism’ rather than ‘workplace violence’ or simple mass murder. This event doesn’t lend it’s self to the clear line you’re trying to draw.
From what little information there is to sift so far about the beheading, making the leap from act of mass murderer to act of terrorist right off the bat requires you to ignore this piece of crap’s long criminal history, a history that well predates his conversion to Islam.
By catagorizing this as an act of terrorism I feel like the meme becomes “See, this is what Islamists are, and what Islamist do.” And while Islamists are indeed murdering pieces of crap, what you’ve done is obscure the real story, a story which reads to me like, “Career criminal with mental issues who shouldn’t have been walking the street free to begin with finaly snaps and kills former co-worker and wounds a second.”
I see it that way because Islamist extremism wasn’t the catalist for the crime. I believe, based on the losers past history, that this guy would have eventually killed someone regardless of whether he had ever converted to Islam or not. One doesn’t have to be an Islamist to be both violent and a misogynist.
Was Patrick Sherrill a domestic terrorist?
Were Thomas McIlvane, Lawrence Jasion, Jennifer San Marco, Grant Gallaher, Mark Orrin Barton, or Joseph T. Wesbecker?
I’m not wearing ‘PC blinders’ my friend, but I’m also not blinded by my hatred for Islamists. 😉
Wrong answer, Jacobite. I am well aware of the fact that the man had a long legal history. Indeed, prison is where he converted to Islam – a location reputedly used as recruiting grounds by radical groups of many persuasions, including some affiliated with radical Islam. However, that point is also largely irrelevant. What is relevant are the facts of this incident. And IMO you’re ignoring facts pointing to his being at least an unwitting tool in a terrorist cause, and IMO more probably an active participant. 1. The man’s public statements make clear his admiration for and allegiance to radical Islam. They also make clear his desire to see Sharia law imposed in place of our system of jurisprudence. You appear to be ignoring these indicators. 2. His acts were dangerous to human life and violated state (and, arguably, Federal) law. 3. His acts served both as a call to change policy and to intimidate the public. In particular, this mans acts appear to have been a unilateral small-scale implementation of Sharia as an example. The beheading aspect is the telltale point here; IMO it’s a giveaway. Were he not making such a deliberate statement, he’d have settled for simply stabbing both women to death. 4. The act occurred within the US. The incident meets the FBI definition of domestic terrorism, plain and simple. Denying that is denying reality. It does not matter that this fool may have been unstable, or may have been an unwitting “useful idiot” to his ideological cohorts and done this without conscious intent. The act meets the definition of a terrorist act, even if he did it unwittingly or after “snapping”. The latter may partially absolve him from criminal liability, or render it impossible to prosecute as terrorism. However, that it does not alter the nature of the act, or its (perhaps unconscious) terrorist motivations. This was no less a symbolic terrorist act than the Birmingham 16th Street Baptist Church Bombing in 1963. The latter would have been a terrorist act whether perpetrated by the KKK directly or by a lone nut sympathizing with… Read more »
Can’t speak for others, but I seriously do not care if this clown was Muslim or Martian. He made it clear that his religious choice provoked him to the specific act which he committed.
Sure, he had a history of criminality. His religious conversion occurred while in prison for other (lesser) crimes. He is the one who took that conversion to the workplace. And escalated his criminal activities, presumably because of that conversion.
The act of beheading was designed to terrorize potential additional victims of his terror. Or maybe he “just” wanted to see how many people he could kill before himself being killed. He chose to act like a terrorist. Why should we argue with him on that point?
Again, I don’t care if his did his crimes in the name of allah, whatever a Martian might revere, or something/someone else entirely. The point he made quite clear was that he acted like a terrorist to punish those who did not accept his manner, convert to his manner, and nothing else. The fact that “his manner” in this case was Islam was his choice, not mine.
Recognizing a threat and reacting appropriately to it requires only the proper interpretation of what someone is doing. Spending time arguing about what to call it, or paying too much attention to what the threat might be saying, is not an appropriate reaction to a threat.
“I believe, based on the losers past history, that this guy would have eventually killed someone regardless of whether he had ever converted to Islam or not.”
Yeah, I believe that, too. All of the other arguments in favor of labeling his crime terrorism are sound and well reasoned. But I see this clown as a nutjob who probably will be diagnosed by his (future) court-appointed shrink as a sociopath and end up in a psycho ward, not the prison death house. We’ll see.
Possibly true, 2/17 Cav – and also irrelevant. Terrorist acts can be committed by both sane and insane individuals – as well as by weak-minded fools who are duped into committing them.
The insane may not be prosecutable, but that does not change the heinous nature of acts they may commit. It merely provides reason to show mercy when they are caught.
We will disagree then. The criminal act he committed was murder. Whether he committed that act in furtherance of jihad or as a consequence of a diseased mind is certainly relevant. I also disagree with the mercy aspect. If someone is concluded to have been insane at the time he committed a criminal act, then it is by operation of law, not judicial mercy, that he is not–in most states–found guilty. Guilt requires something that the insane cannot possess, which, I would point out, makes those states that allow a “Guilty but not criminally culpable” all the more a curiosity.
+1
We are not so much in disagreement as we are viewing the issue from two different perspectives, 2/17 Air Cav. Which of us is correct depends on whether you view the terms “terrorist act” and “guilt” as legal terms or descriptions of observed fact. Based on your profession, you perspective is obviously to view them as the former. Mine is not. I’ll go out on a limb here and assert that most of the rest of the world outside the legal community views the terms as descriptions of fact. And as a practicing lawyer, you obviously are familiar with the reality that judicial decisions, including verdicts in both criminal and civil cases, often have little connection with the actual facts of a case – and with the fact that legal definitions can and very often do vary widely from the common usage of a term. Take the term “treason”, for instance. In law, it has a very specific definition – one that varies greatly from common usage. Technically, spies such as the Rosenbergs, Walker, Hanson, et al, were not traitors; their acts don’t meet the legal definition of the crime of treason. In reality – and in common usage of the term – all were exactly that. They all betrayed this nation in order to benefit another country. The term “guilty” is similar. In law, it has a specific meaning: having been convicted of a crime in a court of law. Yet in common usage, the term is used to mean “did the deed”. In legal terms, OJ Simpson is not “guilty” of murder. In reality, there is little doubt that he is precisely that – but avoided convicted through a combination of money, apparent jurisdiction shopping, good defense lawyers, a botched case by the prosecution, and (possibly) jury nullification. We will have to disagree regarding the “guilty but insane” verdict, though. I hold that those jurisdictions with a “guilty but insane” verdict are actually the ones getting it right. The fact that a person is bat-sh!t crazy at the time they kill someone does not alter the fact that… Read more »
There are states that can and do render a verdict of ‘guilty buy mentally ill’, which means that using a mentally ill defense does not allow the criminal to escape punishment. If he gets that verdict, he has to stay in a mental hospital. If he is ever declared ‘cured’, he still has to serve his sentence.
It is not his being fired but a woman fired him.The insult to him and Islam. Joe
Why not view this through a more cynical, dystopian lens, and admit that this so-called religion of peace is no more about peace than it is about treating women like human beings?
Why not admit that it always was, and is today, nothing but an excuse for malcontents to let loose the more vicious parts of their personalities, and take out their anger on anyone and everyone around them?
Why not admit that it has become nothing more than a ticket to commit mass murders and brutal acts, a permit to thuggery, and an open door to bloodlust and predatory behavior?
If these people – and I use that term loosely – want to live in the 7th century, fine. Let them. Drill a damned hole in the desert floor some place to find the ground water required to survive, build a damned wall they can’t get through or over, and tell them that’s THEIR country, but should they ever leave, the penalty is death. Then weld the damned doors shut.
These are violent, dangerous times. It will be like this everywhere until March 2015 and we must all be alert. Watch your back, even at the grocery store, your favorite restaurant, or in your own neighborhood. And do not assume that you are safe. Neighborhoods that have never seen drive-by shootings are seeing them now.
I am not kidding about this warning.
PH2, eh my apologies if I missed a clue…but wahts in Mar 2015?
Starting after the first 10 days of October and going into November 2014 through March 2015, the likelihood of acts of extreme violence everywhere is increased exponentially, as is the likelihood of extreme volatility in financial markets. A recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll on September 9 reports that “The percentage of Americans who believe the United States is less safe is at its highest point since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.” WSJ It has everything to do with timing. “The Sun entered Libra on Sept 22. Autumn started its new season here in the northern hemisphere. In astrology, we call that the autumnal equinox, which provides an important chart for understanding the next three months. These next three months promise to be very intense – and dangerous. Pluto turned direct on the same day (Monday, 09-22-2014), so this season will be Plutonian, which is to say, intense and dangerous. We have already seen signs of Pluto, god of the underworld, rearing its ugly head by decapitating noted journalists via the ISIS group. Pluto, with Uranus square, remains a dangerous terrorist-activity period. In fact, it will last through March 2015, with highlights around November 11 and March 11 when Mars conjuncts first Pluto, and then Uranus. This is not a time to take risks in dangerous places. – MMA Weekly Preview week of 9-19-2014. The period of time for starting this uptick is between now and October 11. Whether you agree with astrology or not, there is no oogie-boogie involved here. It is about timing, nothing else. The author of that quote is a financial analyis with a 97% accuracy rate for financial forecast. What he is saying is that the volatility we see in so many events is a common chord in financial and commodities markets, e.g., oil and gold prices, as well as in the world in general. His analysis indicates that the world won’t return to what we consider ‘normal’ until after 2017, some time in 2020 to 2022, but in the meantime, we are facing financial as well as political volatility, e.g., ISers v. West, Russia… Read more »
Another one of those things which seems so obvious to some of us and such a foreign concept to others. It is actions which define one as a terrorist. It just doesn’t matter if they practice any religion or no religion, if they are young or old, their country of origin, or any of that sort of thing. If you act like a terrorist it should come as no great shock to anyone that at least some of us would call you a terrorist.
Indiscriminately killing folks is an act of terrorism. It causes people to become terrified. See how simple this can be?
I’m confused about the Mar 2015 thing as well…..I think my TBI is getting in the way
I’m sorry. I did not mean to be mysterious about it, just avoiding making an excessively long post.
I should have realized it really did require an explanation. My bad.
Just caught your post from 10:49, so apologize for my previous “Tin Foil Hat”, knee jerk.
It’s okay. I don’t cotton to
the tinfoil hat crowd at all. I’ve found the same heads-up stuff on people whose opinions are trustworthy, and who are not idiots.
One of them spent a full online column analyzing the origins of ISIL/IS, when it started, was it planned to start at a specific time – the Arabs use astrology copiously – and the declaration of ISIL/IS as a state was timed to coincide with the first sighting of the new crescent moon on the Feast of Ramadan. The writer’s comparison was ISIL/IS to Hitler – same goals, same ambitions, but Hitler kept it hidden and ISIL/IS have not.
My curiosity has been aroused by Ex-PH2, too. All I can find on the gargling of the web is a prediction by some fella who claimed to be a time traveler saying there will be nuclear war then (mid March), also a total eclipse. What else have I missed?
That’s true for all religion – every religion is going to have X number of adherents who go full-retard in the name of that religion and its God. Look at that church in Topeka that pickets soldiers’ funerals (Christian), or the Jewish Defence League (Jewish, natch). Oh, you say they aren’t REALLY Christians / Jews? Sorry; that’s a cop-out. Look up the phrase ‘no true Scotsman fallacy’ for more info on that one.
Ultimately, the only fair way to deal with people is on a case-by-case basis. Scum is scum, regardless of religion or lack thereof. Judge people on the content of their character; nothing else.
Oklahoma Code defines terrorism thusly:
8. “Terrorism” means an act of violence resulting in damage to property or personal injury perpetrated to coerce a civilian population or government into granting illegal political or economic demands; or conduct intended to incite violence in order to create apprehension of bodily injury or damage to property in order to coerce a civilian population or government into granting illegal political or economic demands. Peaceful picketing or boycotts and other nonviolent action shall not be considered terrorism;
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=391453
It will be up to the State of Oklahoma to sort it all out. Is it too early to speculate that plain old murder will be the charge? Seems like a slam dunk to prosecute.