Was the Oklahoma beheading terrorism ?

[ForumMember77]

I heard it said there was no political motivation, ergo not terrorism

I was under the impression that the catalyst was him arguing that adulterous women should be killed in line with Islam. It would seem there might be a way to link this with terrorism if I were willing to join a few dots.

Assuming this is just a technicality with the American legal system and the discussion merely academic, is this terrorism in your eyes?

The act itself seems to have become a staple of Islamic terrorism.
The reason for this, because the barbaric act is supposed to instil a sense of terror and fear among those that see/hear of it.

To me it was terrorism, he choose to go beyond murder and perform an act of mutilation.

The best I can argue against this is, he might have been unaware of the implications of an act. But then arguing a terrorist is ignorant of the fact doesn't mean he is any less a terrorist.

The act is supposed to intimidate, in my view, and is such terrorism with a hideous undertone that;

If you make a Muslim unhappy this could happen to you, make sure a Muslim never has a bad day or else. Don't fire him and criticise the Quran, be overly courteous.

As I said, terrorism for me.

Agree/Disagree ?

Also HI.......... can't seem to find a waving smiley.

[Heywood]

I heard it said there was no political motivation, ergo not terrorism

I was under the impression that the catalyst was him arguing that adulterous women should be killed in line with Islam. It would seem there might be a way to link this with terrorism if I were willing to join a few dots.

Assuming this is just a technicality with the American legal system and the discussion merely academic, is this terrorism in your eyes?

The act itself seems to have become a staple of Islamic terrorism.
The reason for this, because the barbaric act is supposed to instil a sense of terror and fear among those that see/hear of it.

To me it was terrorism, he choose to go beyond murder and perform an act of mutilation.

The best I can argue against this is, he might have been unaware of the implications of an act. But then arguing a terrorist is ignorant of the fact doesn't mean he is any less a terrorist.

The act is supposed to intimidate, in my view, and is such terrorism with a hideous undertone that;

If you make a Muslim unhappy this could happen to you, make sure a Muslim never has a bad day or else. Don't fire him and criticise the Quran, be overly courteous.

As I said, terrorism for me.

Agree/Disagree ?

Also HI.......... can't seem to find a waving smiley.

Terrorism is just a motivation for actual crimes. We should punish people for what they actually do, not what they think.

[ForumMember77]

I don't understand.

The brutality of the act itself is designed to strike terror and fear into people.

How is this not terrorism ?

[freedeepthink]

Did anyone see this guys Facebook account which showed a picture of an islamic terrorist cutting off the head of an "infadel" and statement glorifying these acts stating, "I will instill terror in the hearts of the unbelievers".

My vote is that this guy is clearly a terrorist. I can't believe the feds trying to label this workplace violence and not terrorism. PC gone mad.

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/09/media-...-oklahoma/

[Thumpalumpacus]

If it quacks like a duck and acts like a duck ... put him in Supermax and forget about it -- er, him.

[Heywood]

I don't understand.

The brutality of the act itself is designed to strike terror and fear into people.

How is this not terrorism ?

I think you can argue that it is terrorism. I just don't see what difference it makes. Lets say the sicko cut off the woman's head so he could shrink it and hang it from his rear view mirror. The act would still strike terror and fear into people who witnessed it or learned of it.

[ForumMember77]

I think you can argue that it is terrorism. I just don't see what difference it makes. Lets say the sicko cut off the woman's head so he could shrink it and hang it from his rear view mirror. The act would still strike terror and fear into people who witnessed it or learned of it.

No, it wouldn't. You are missing my point, maybe I am not explaining myself properly.

If he had been a Christian driven to murder, or any other demographic, the chances of him killing someone in this way would have greatly diminished.

He done it because within the context of Islam, this is some what normative/can be justified.

Islam condones this because it makes other people fearful of crossing Muslims. Christians/Jews/Hindus/Atheists kill people.
Muslims execute people in a unilateral way.

That is to say, you could go to any part of the world and Muslims would be beheading people for any number of reasons, the act itself is (or is becoming) a terror tactic irrespective of the reasons the Muslim is doing it.

We would expect the next beheading in the news to be perpetrated by a Muslim, before we have heard all the facts.

[Heywood]

I think you can argue that it is terrorism. I just don't see what difference it makes. Lets say the sicko cut off the woman's head so he could shrink it and hang it from his rear view mirror. The act would still strike terror and fear into people who witnessed it or learned of it.

No, it wouldn't. You are missing my point, maybe I am not explaining myself properly.

If he had been a Christian driven to murder, or any other demographic, the chances of him killing someone in this way would have greatly diminished.

He done it because within the context of Islam, this is some what normative/can be justified.

Islam condones this because it makes other people fearful of crossing Muslims. Christians/Jews/Hindus/Atheists kill people.
Muslims execute people in a unilateral way.

That is to say, you could go to any part of the world and Muslims would be beheading people for any number of reasons, the act itself is (or is becoming) a terror tactic irrespective of the reasons the Muslim is doing it.

We would expect the next beheading in the news to be perpetrated by a Muslim, before we have heard all the facts.

Okay its terrorism. Does that mean we prosecute the terrorist with more vigor than the head shrinker?

[Mudhammam]

No. It was not terrorism. It was a murder probably stoked by getting fired from his job on top of an already unstable personality fueled by religious nonsense. Terrorism is classically (and roughly) defined as acts of violence intended towards a political aim, such as those repeatedly committed by Islamofascists and the U.S. military, to cite two prominent examples.

[ForumMember77]

No. It was not terrorism. It was a murder probably stoked by getting fired from his job on top of an already unstable personality fueled by religious nonsense. Terrorism is classically (and roughly) defined as acts of violence intended towards a political aim, such as those repeatedly committed by Islamofascists and the U.S. military, to cite two prominent examples.

If he had been non-Muslim and driven to murder, would he have been more or less inclined to try and behead someone in your opinion ?