neverleft wrote:
This just released:9/19/16 7:30 am

BREAKING: NYPD Seeks 28-Year-Old Ahmad Khan Rahami in Connection With Manhattan Bombing

SOS wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
And Hillary wants to open our arms to these people. It's not racist to want to vet the people who want to come here to kill us.

"These People"? The suspect is a U.S. citizen of Afghan descent

SOS wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
And Hillary wants to open our arms to these people. It's not racist to want to vet the people who want to come here to kill us.

"These People"? The suspect is a U.S. citizen of Afghan descent

Monroe wrote:
And Hillary wants to open our arms to these people. It's not racist to want to vet the people who want to come here to kill us.

MDM wrote:
So we have a full blown Europe like Islamic terror cell here in the NY metro area? I wonder what Trump's polls will look like by the end of this week.

The saving grace for us seems to be these guys suck at making reliable triggering devices.


Edit: Per a news report I read, the guy who stabbed 8 people in MN in the name of Allah is a Somali refugee we let in a decade ago.

neverleft wrote:
This just released:9/19/16 7:30 am

BREAKING: NYPD Seeks 28-Year-Old Ahmad Khan Rahami in Connection With Manhattan Bombing

Christine wrote:
If this story shakes out as this link suggests, can we all then agree that it is dangerous to jump to conclusions that erroneously point the finger at an ENTIRE race or religion?


http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/m ... nifesto-article-1.2796907

Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
A bomb or suspicious device was found on the train tracks in Elizabeth.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/09/1 ... ious-device-train-tracks/

Five people were also arrested in connection with the Chelsea bombing.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/f ... bombing-article-1.2797378

We will find out if it was ISIS or other Muslims.

Christine wrote:
If this story shakes out as this link suggests, can we all then agree that it is dangerous to jump to conclusions that erroneously point the finger at an ENTIRE race or religion?


http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/m ... nifesto-article-1.2796907

Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
A bomb or suspicious device was found on the train tracks in Elizabeth.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/09/1 ... ious-device-train-tracks/

Five people were also arrested in connection with the Chelsea bombing.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/f ... bombing-article-1.2797378

We will find out if it was ISIS or other Muslims.

JCMan8 wrote:
A bomb or suspicious device was found on the train tracks in Elizabeth.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/09/1 ... ious-device-train-tracks/

Five people were also arrested in connection with the Chelsea bombing.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/f ... bombing-article-1.2797378

We will find out if it was ISIS or other Muslims.

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

Example: The people that attacked abortion clinics in the name of christianity or personal beliefs are deemed terrorists

And you're quoting the US Code of Federal Regulations... why exactly?

There are ridiculous and self-serving laws that are created all of the time. We can go over countless examples if you'd like..

I like quoting THE LAW as it was written and not peoples individual interpretations or personal opinions of what it should be in their minds!

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

Example: The people that attacked abortion clinics in the name of christianity or personal beliefs are deemed terrorists

And you're quoting the US Code of Federal Regulations... why exactly?

There are ridiculous and self-serving laws that are created all of the time. We can go over countless examples if you'd like..

fat-ass-bike wrote:
The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

Example: The people that attacked abortion clinics in the name of christianity or personal beliefs are deemed terrorists

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

HelenaJC wrote:
Historically, the term 'terrorism' refers to a deadly act done in the name of political, racial, or religious ideology. A large-scale killing perpetuated for the sake of violence is not the same thing as terrorism, although both are reprehensible and both cause terror.

For this reason, it is customary for most officials to wait to label it until a motive is established.

It is fine to dispute the need for such distinctions, but you can't pretend that this distinction doesn't exist.

Personally, I don't see the harm in waiting to make pronouncements until more information is available. It's not as if every lead won't be examined, etc. To me, this just shows prudence and level-headedness on the part of authorities.




Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
We don't have a clue who did it, but Comrade de Blasio has no clue if he's saying that there is no link to terrorism. It may not be Muslims, or some right or left wing nutjob, but it was meant to cause terror.

I thought the same thing... on the one hand he states in no uncertain terms that the device and explosion were on purpose, but then goes on to deny it has any links to terrorism. I don't think he understands the meaning of that word. Perhaps he meant to say that there is no known link to terrorist organizations, or Islamic terrorism, but a premeditated bomb explosion is terrorism, no ifs or buts about it.

I have to disagree with you. Yes, the legal definition of terrorism is indeed somewhat more narrowly defined to specify that the act was conducted for political, religious or other ideological reasons. But, the more general understanding of terrorism is that it is an act meant to foster, propagate, or spread, fear [terror] among the population at large. Whether the act was conducted for political or ideological reasons is simply a distinction without a difference: the public at large is now more prone to live with a heightened sense of fear and more wary of their surroundings.

And the general understanding of terrorism is commonly misunderstood because people continually don't make the distinction. A deranged, irrational serial killer causes fear - that doesn't make him a terrorist.

WOW... I guess that definition is really owned by the person or persons being victimized by acts of violence?

WOW... not at all. Terrorism has a clear and specific meaning. It's not my fault you're using the word incorrectly.

Terrorism is using violence to achieve a political purpose. That's it.

Can't argue with a narrow mind.... you are right!

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

HelenaJC wrote:
Historically, the term 'terrorism' refers to a deadly act done in the name of political, racial, or religious ideology. A large-scale killing perpetuated for the sake of violence is not the same thing as terrorism, although both are reprehensible and both cause terror.

For this reason, it is customary for most officials to wait to label it until a motive is established.

It is fine to dispute the need for such distinctions, but you can't pretend that this distinction doesn't exist.

Personally, I don't see the harm in waiting to make pronouncements until more information is available. It's not as if every lead won't be examined, etc. To me, this just shows prudence and level-headedness on the part of authorities.




Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
We don't have a clue who did it, but Comrade de Blasio has no clue if he's saying that there is no link to terrorism. It may not be Muslims, or some right or left wing nutjob, but it was meant to cause terror.

I thought the same thing... on the one hand he states in no uncertain terms that the device and explosion were on purpose, but then goes on to deny it has any links to terrorism. I don't think he understands the meaning of that word. Perhaps he meant to say that there is no known link to terrorist organizations, or Islamic terrorism, but a premeditated bomb explosion is terrorism, no ifs or buts about it.

I have to disagree with you. Yes, the legal definition of terrorism is indeed somewhat more narrowly defined to specify that the act was conducted for political, religious or other ideological reasons. But, the more general understanding of terrorism is that it is an act meant to foster, propagate, or spread, fear [terror] among the population at large. Whether the act was conducted for political or ideological reasons is simply a distinction without a difference: the public at large is now more prone to live with a heightened sense of fear and more wary of their surroundings.

And the general understanding of terrorism is commonly misunderstood because people continually don't make the distinction. A deranged, irrational serial killer causes fear - that doesn't make him a terrorist.

WOW... I guess that definition is really owned by the person or persons being victimized by acts of violence?

WOW... not at all. Terrorism has a clear and specific meaning. It's not my fault you're using the word incorrectly.

Terrorism is using violence to achieve a political purpose. That's it.

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

HelenaJC wrote:
Historically, the term 'terrorism' refers to a deadly act done in the name of political, racial, or religious ideology. A large-scale killing perpetuated for the sake of violence is not the same thing as terrorism, although both are reprehensible and both cause terror.

For this reason, it is customary for most officials to wait to label it until a motive is established.

It is fine to dispute the need for such distinctions, but you can't pretend that this distinction doesn't exist.

Personally, I don't see the harm in waiting to make pronouncements until more information is available. It's not as if every lead won't be examined, etc. To me, this just shows prudence and level-headedness on the part of authorities.




Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
We don't have a clue who did it, but Comrade de Blasio has no clue if he's saying that there is no link to terrorism. It may not be Muslims, or some right or left wing nutjob, but it was meant to cause terror.

I thought the same thing... on the one hand he states in no uncertain terms that the device and explosion were on purpose, but then goes on to deny it has any links to terrorism. I don't think he understands the meaning of that word. Perhaps he meant to say that there is no known link to terrorist organizations, or Islamic terrorism, but a premeditated bomb explosion is terrorism, no ifs or buts about it.

I have to disagree with you. Yes, the legal definition of terrorism is indeed somewhat more narrowly defined to specify that the act was conducted for political, religious or other ideological reasons. But, the more general understanding of terrorism is that it is an act meant to foster, propagate, or spread, fear [terror] among the population at large. Whether the act was conducted for political or ideological reasons is simply a distinction without a difference: the public at large is now more prone to live with a heightened sense of fear and more wary of their surroundings.

And the general understanding of terrorism is commonly misunderstood because people continually don't make the distinction. A deranged, irrational serial killer causes fear - that doesn't make him a terrorist.

WOW... I guess that definition is really owned by the person or persons being victimized by acts of violence?

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

HelenaJC wrote:
Historically, the term 'terrorism' refers to a deadly act done in the name of political, racial, or religious ideology. A large-scale killing perpetuated for the sake of violence is not the same thing as terrorism, although both are reprehensible and both cause terror.

For this reason, it is customary for most officials to wait to label it until a motive is established.

It is fine to dispute the need for such distinctions, but you can't pretend that this distinction doesn't exist.

Personally, I don't see the harm in waiting to make pronouncements until more information is available. It's not as if every lead won't be examined, etc. To me, this just shows prudence and level-headedness on the part of authorities.




Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
We don't have a clue who did it, but Comrade de Blasio has no clue if he's saying that there is no link to terrorism. It may not be Muslims, or some right or left wing nutjob, but it was meant to cause terror.

I thought the same thing... on the one hand he states in no uncertain terms that the device and explosion were on purpose, but then goes on to deny it has any links to terrorism. I don't think he understands the meaning of that word. Perhaps he meant to say that there is no known link to terrorist organizations, or Islamic terrorism, but a premeditated bomb explosion is terrorism, no ifs or buts about it.

I have to disagree with you. Yes, the legal definition of terrorism is indeed somewhat more narrowly defined to specify that the act was conducted for political, religious or other ideological reasons. But, the more general understanding of terrorism is that it is an act meant to foster, propagate, or spread, fear [terror] among the population at large. Whether the act was conducted for political or ideological reasons is simply a distinction without a difference: the public at large is now more prone to live with a heightened sense of fear and more wary of their surroundings.

And the general understanding of terrorism is commonly misunderstood because people continually don't make the distinction. A deranged, irrational serial killer causes fear - that doesn't make him a terrorist.

jerseymom wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
There was also just an explosion in a Virginia mall.

And an earlier explosion in a garbage in NJ.

Could be ISIS or another Muslim group.

STOP - THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IT IS A MUSLIM GROUP - JUST STOP IT ALREADY!

Yvonne wrote:
For 19 years, I walked on that block getting the PATH train going to work and returning home. I know that block quite well, there is a School for the Blind located there as well as St. Vincent de Paul Catholic Church. That church has a homeless ministry.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

HelenaJC wrote:
Historically, the term 'terrorism' refers to a deadly act done in the name of political, racial, or religious ideology. A large-scale killing perpetuated for the sake of violence is not the same thing as terrorism, although both are reprehensible and both cause terror.

For this reason, it is customary for most officials to wait to label it until a motive is established.

It is fine to dispute the need for such distinctions, but you can't pretend that this distinction doesn't exist.

Personally, I don't see the harm in waiting to make pronouncements until more information is available. It's not as if every lead won't be examined, etc. To me, this just shows prudence and level-headedness on the part of authorities.




Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
We don't have a clue who did it, but Comrade de Blasio has no clue if he's saying that there is no link to terrorism. It may not be Muslims, or some right or left wing nutjob, but it was meant to cause terror.

I thought the same thing... on the one hand he states in no uncertain terms that the device and explosion were on purpose, but then goes on to deny it has any links to terrorism. I don't think he understands the meaning of that word. Perhaps he meant to say that there is no known link to terrorist organizations, or Islamic terrorism, but a premeditated bomb explosion is terrorism, no ifs or buts about it.

I have to disagree with you. Yes, the legal definition of terrorism is indeed somewhat more narrowly defined to specify that the act was conducted for political, religious or other ideological reasons. But, the more general understanding of terrorism is that it is an act meant to foster, propagate, or spread, fear [terror] among the population at large. Whether the act was conducted for political or ideological reasons is simply a distinction without a difference: the public at large is now more prone to live with a heightened sense of fear and more wary of their surroundings.

jerseymom wrote:
Quote:

heights wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
I knew it. And Governor Cuomo has publicly rebuked the clueless "progressive" DeBlasio, who was so quick to pretend terrorism had nothing to do with the bombing last night.

New York blast 'obviously an act of terrorism,' governor says

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/18/us/new-york-explosion/

Don't forget about Clueless Jerseymom.

?I am sore wounded but not slain
I will lay me down and bleed a while
And then rise up to fight again?

John Dryden

Meanwhile in Gotham, has the bomber revealed him/herself?

Edit - 2pm - the tumblr page has been taken down - here is the "manifesto" content that was posted:

Manufacturing Test Explosives

Hi.

You probably have all seen the news by now,
the explosives detonated in New York City, that was me. Those were just some tests, I know where I have made errors and I will not make the same mistake next time.
I did it because I cannot stand society.
I cannot live in a world where homosexuals like myself as well as the rest of the LGBTQ+ community are looked down upon by society.

It is 2016 and we are still being viewed as mentally ill, sinners, attention seekers, and just plain weirdos in general. I am not going to stand by while under classed and underprivileged people are oppressed. I am not going to stand by while there is inequality in my country such as the racism being seen in white police officers all over the country. I am not going to live in a country where it is OK to have a misogynist, xenophobic, racist Islamophobic, republican candidate running for President of The United States! That?s implying that republicans in general should even be taken seriously as they are all cisgendered privileged white people.

This is not the end, this is just the beginning. I will be remembered. I will make a difference. I will eliminate my targets before it is too late.

newyork bombing lgbt lgbtpride equality thebeginning

Taking a human life

I don?t know exactly how I feel about taking human lives
However, what I do know is that If I don?t do what needs to be done nobody will pay attention. LGBTQ+ people are much more likely to commit suicide than straight cisgendered people. It seems that nobody cares, however what if people from the LGBTQ+ community started lashing out in response to the violence and oppression we face with violence and possibly oppression? I?m sure that would give people a reason to not stand by while so many people are being oppressed. I suppose I?m just going to have to move forward knowing that what I am doing had a purpose and will in fact make a difference. I?ll keep you all posted.