quote:

Originally posted by Palm:

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
Does NY state have the death penalty? Of is there a federal statute he could be charged with that has it?

NY abolished the death penalty. I'm not sure if there is any federal crime to charge him with. He didn't target a federal facility, and he did not use a bomb or weapon of mass destruction as that term is defined. There is no federal crime that punishes domestic terrorism in and of itself.

So unfortunately I'm not seeing a death penalty availability here. Someone please tell me I'm wrong ...

According to a news article I read this morning, the charge of "Violence and Destruction of Motor Vehicles Causing Death" can carry the death penalty.

Very strange that charge can, but the providing support to a foreign terrorist organization cannot, but there you go.

http://www.reuters.com/article...attack-idUSKBN1D20F2

"Lone wolf" is a good signifier for "pay no attention to anything I'm saying." Whoever uses that term now is either stupid, or trying to push an agenda. Or both.

A gentlman, navy ret., on Mike Gallager's show yesterday was using the term "KNOWN wolf"...more appropriate, I thought.

I would fry his morning eggs in bacon fat. This would block his going to heaven and getting his 73 vergins. Tell him after he is finished eating. He will sing and spill his guts.

quote:

Originally posted by justjoe:
"Lone wolf" is a good signifier for "pay no attention to anything I'm saying." Whoever uses that term now is either stupid, or trying to push an agenda. Or both.

An example of a true lone wolf might possibly be the Las Vegas shooter.

In regards to these Muslim terrorists, there simply are no lone wolves. As you say, those repeating this lie are either stupid or pushing a political agenda.

What a difference an election makes. Last President would pardon this prep, which the current President wants the death penalty for the prep.

Give him his due process, and the last state of this due process is a short walk up 13 steps, getting a hemp necktie fitted and a 13 step drop thru a hole from the platform the 13 steps led to.

As far as spies, enemy non-country citizens they are spying against I'm against the death penalty -as they are doing their job. Besides, spy exchanges happen. Now if for example a US citizen spies against the US - due process ending is the hemp necktie process.

BTW - 2 German spies escaped the hemp necktie after being captured. Read about Erich Gimpel and William Colepaugh. Gimpel lived to a 100 years. Some people are just plain lucky - always,

Okay, I keep reading it over and over, so I’ll point out that like all words, “lone wolf” is a matter of definition. Up until people started getting themselves upset over the term, its obvious intended meaning was that the individual acted without the assistance of anyone else. My Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the term as “a person who prefers to work, act, or live alone” [emphasis added]. It has nothing to do with inspiration or motivation.

JFK’s murderer was motivated by his support for Communism and opposition to the US’s policies toward Cuba. He acted, however, on his own; no one who knew what he planned assisted him in acquiring his rifle or talked to him directly to urge him to kill the President. In my opinion that made him a “lone wolf” by any traditional meaning of the term.

These Muslim fanatics are also motivated by their beliefs that they share among themselves, but if we say that merely sharing a belief with someone else is the same as acting in consort with them (e.g., the San Bernardino or Paris events), then “lone” has completely lost its meaning. If a politician or employee of the BS media comes right out and claims that a terrorist wasn’t motivated to commit his acts by following the tenets of Islam, then I can understand the ire, but to point out the obvious fact that someone acted alone isn’t something I can get excited about.

^ exactly.

Some of them are indeed, by definition, lone wolves, intentionally and strategically acting alone, unofficial sleeper agents of sorts, splinter cells of one, "directed" by others in only the most indirect sense such as broad suggestions devoid of times, places, specific targets, etc, by their extremist literature that they rise up and take matters into their own hands.

I don't know what the fear or objection is to considering them as such. One can most certainly be a lone wolf and an Islamic extremist at the same time. It doesn't take a team of them to rent a truck and run people over. No explosives had to be sourced or made, no cache of automatic weapons was needed, no meaningful coordination was required, no "orders" needed.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: 46and2,

Good discussion about Lone Wolf vs. "Known" Wolf included in the entire segment here:

http://www.mikeonline.com/dr-z...-muslims-in-the-usa/

It's all mute in the end...doesn't matter. I can just hear Sam Kennison yelling, "CLOSE THE FUCKING BORDER!!!!!!"

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:

I don't know what the fear or objection is to considering them as such. One can most certainly be a like wolf and an Islamic extremist at the same time. It doesn't take a team of them to rent a truck and run people over. No explosives had to be sourced or made, no cache of automatic weapons was needed, no meaningful coordination was required, no "orders" needed.

It's all about "The Narrative." Leftists, and their msm sycophants, blather on about "Lone Wolf" this and "Lone Wolf" that, trying to distract the public from the REAL problem (which, of course, is the rise and continuing threat of radical islamicists). By saying "It was a Lone Wolf attack," they diminish the impact of what was done. For example, in NYC, they are essentially saying "Don't worry about more attacks; this was *just* a Lone Wolf." When, in fact, we SHOULD be concerned and take measures so that this doesn't happen again.


This is incredibly dangerous, as we have had many such attacks over the past few years, with many more likely just over the horizon. We need to address radical islam, but leftists REFUSE to do so. You can clearly see the hypocrisy in play. Look at the Vegas shooting. Crazy white guy. They IMMEDIATELY start spewing forth about the threat of 'angry white males' and the 'easy access to firearms,' trying their best to demonize the former and ban the latter. In the case of the NYC attack, NOBODY is really clamoring for ANY kind of action. Nobody who anybody takes seriously is calling for banning rental trucks. Nobody is calling out the dangers of 'muslim military-aged males.' Instead, we get stories warning us (mostly us conservative white males) against perpetrating 'backlash' against the poor, innocent, peace-loving muslims. Therefore, they shift the attention away from the muslim perpetrators towards the fictional white male 'backlashers.'

Can you see the difference? Demonizing the Vegas shooter fits the narrative. Demonizing the muslim guy does not.

The term "Lone Wolf" simply means there is no detectable NETWORK in play. These idiots can search the internet and get all the 'radicalization' they need, along with encouragement and suggested targets/methods to carry out such attacks. Networked attacks are harder to conceal, as the more people involved means more chances of somebody letting something slip, or being followed/noticed by an intel agency. Networking also involves two-way communication, such as physical meetings, phone calls, internet chat, etc, most (if not all) of which can be potentially intercepted and monitored. These lone wolfs are therefore no less dangerous than the networked attacks, as we have seen from Vegas and NYC.

But, we will continue to see these claims from the msm. It's really quite predictable.

First, they will say "There is no way to discern the killer's motive" (unless he's a white male, at which time they will blame the NRA, Judeo-Christian beliefs, guns, etc).

Secondly, when you see they aren't posting any photographs of the killer(s), you can safely assume he is some kind of minority (either black or muslim). They plaster the faces of white male killers everywhere immediately.

Thirdly, when cornered with no believable alternatives, they will admit he was a muslim (maybe posting photos of him that were doctored to look more white; this is NOT the first time I've seen this), but then immediately state that "We can't judge the whole based on the isolated actions of one person" (even though they do just this when it's a white dude and it fits their narrative).

Fourthly, they will then come out with warnings against backlash and maybe a sob-story about a young hijab-wearing mother with small children, bullied and threatened by a big white conservative wearing a MAGA hat (which is probably manufactured, but that doesn't matter to the sheep). . .

Another great journalistic 'correction' for the hall of fame.

^^^^ Well that's hilarious.

So, they just parrot shit without thinking / checking on what they write? Typical brainless twits.

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
It's all about "The Narrative." Leftists, and their msm sycophants, blather on about "Lone Wolf" this and "Lone Wolf" that, trying to distract the public from the REAL problem (which, of course, is the rise and continuing threat of radical islamicists). By saying "It was a Lone Wolf attack," they diminish the impact of what was done.

PERFECTLY stated Hound Dog, as is the rest of your post. The LEFT is fantastic at administering slow anesthesia to lull EVERYONE'S senses. First time they did it was when they started getting gay marriage passed. Look where we are today...

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:...One can most certainly be a lone wolf and an Islamic extremist at the same time....

Exactly, they are not mutually exclusive. And one does not need to be a faithful practicing Muslim to be an extremist. I have a good friend, born and raised Muslim in India, moved to the UK then to the US. He converted to Christianity, his father called and told him "if I ever see you again I will kill you".

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
Another great journalistic 'correction' for the hall of fame.

Made my day!

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
It's all about "The Narrative."

I understand all that, but I still believe that overuse of an otherwise innocuous term is hardly something to become spun up over given everything else that the BS media is guilty of. In fact, I’d be ecstatic if that was the only thing to find fault with in their reporting. Just how many people who are now sitting on the fence about whether Islamic terrorism is a real danger to our nation will suddenly think, “Oh, the BSM called him a ‘loner,’ so I’m sure all those other people chanting ‘Death to America’ are really nothing to worry about”?

As for where the term came from in current discussions about terrorism, I first ran across it in security and law enforcement notices. The reason for using the term was to serve as an alert that lone actors who were not affiliated with any radical groups, who hadn’t been radicalized by attending meetings or mosques, and who didn’t meet any of the previous threat indicators might still warrant concern. “Yeah, he’s bought lots of fertilizer and now just rented a big truck, but he’s not on any watch lists and doesn’t match a typical terrorist profile, so we’re not worried about him.” Yes, “That’s not much to go on,” I can hear people saying, and that’s true, but it’s still important to recognize and keep in mind. And whatever term we might use, “lone wolf,” “solitary actor,” or “unaffiliated shitbag,” needs to make it clear that not everyone is going to be caught making plans with like-minded buds.

The BS media’s adoption of a term and then running it into the ground is hardly new; they do that all the time. But that’s not the only reason the term doesn’t bother me. I believe it is actually beneficial by helping spotlight the elephant in the room that they and others of their ilk studiously ignore.

When someone who was allowed to immigrate here and has lived in and benefited from our society and culture for several years suddenly decides to mow down a bunch of strangers merely because they don’t share his religious beliefs, it begins to narrow the range of excuses apologists for the terrorists can cite for his actions. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that the root cause of the otherwise inexplicable acts by these people is their religious beliefs, not because they don’t have jobs or clean water. When someone who has a job and all the clean water he wants commits a crime like this it increases—however slightly—the probability that even those without an ounce of sense will come to the same realization.

quote:

Originally posted by erj_pilot:
First time they did it was when they started getting gay marriage passed. Look where we are today...

A free-er society where gay people can marry?

Yeah, that's terrible. However will we survive?

(eye roll)

And Hound Dog, who is distracted or doesn't think there's a problem with radical Islam? No one who matters or is paying attention or who will change their mind, that's who... Do you honestly believe you're reaching or convincing anyone by way of those word choices?

It's quite easy to recognize the lone wolf status of some particular asshat unofficially influenced by Islam, and also recognize the broader problem of radical Islam itself, and further - the direct threat of truly ISIS led attacks and other similar organizations, and to do so in parallel, in equal measure, even. It's absurdly easy to see and do, actually.

Your attempts to control the narrative, or battle their attempts - as you seem to be saying, are accomplishing nothing beyond twisting an otherwise accurate description. Those who are confused or who refuse to see aren't swayed by such linguistic nuances anyway. And just about everyone on the actual right agrees radical Islam is a huge problem.

So who, exactly, do you think such language tricks, so to speak, are having a useful effect upon? Who is changing their mind based on whether or not this asshole and those like him are referred to as a lone wolf or not? What is the actual, practical, useful benefit of such a linguistic strategy? Can you cite any recent examples of its usefulness?

well 46 and 2, your support for gay marriage is well documented. I have never said whether I support or don't on here. But in answer to the question you bought up in the last sentence of your last post is some ironic.

The words "gay" and "marriage" were never ever uttered in the same sentence until a couple of decades ago. So the "usefulness" for the "linguistic strategy" is one in the same for both topics. An now you know the rest of the story