• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US man plots Church attack, "NOT a terrorist".

That's more like a nasty suck than a bite. I have been concerned about terrorism for a long time. I knew an American-sponsored one back in the late 'sixties.
 
I don't understand how "conspiracy to commit murder" isn't a charge.

How is this not a clear-cut case of "domestic terrorism"?
 
That's more like a nasty suck than a bite. I have been concerned about terrorism for a long time. I knew an American-sponsored one back in the late 'sixties.
:roll: your posting history says otherwise. So this guy is still facing 10 years but your fake outrage is that it isn't labeled "terrorism."

Maybe if an honest discussion was sought the OP would have more than just an inciteful statement.
 
Doggart needs to spend the rest of his life behind bars IMO


I grew up in the deep south during the 1960s

I remember the backwards dumbazz attitudes, the hate, and even at such a young age I intuitively knew it was not right

I love the musical statement Billie Holiday offered concerning the era .........

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98CxkS0vzB8
 
I don't understand how "conspiracy to commit murder" isn't a charge.

How is this not a clear-cut case of "domestic terrorism"?

It's like racism, scream it long enough and it gets watered down. Not saying that I agree there was no terror charge.
 
A perfect contrast to the terrorism debate is the difference in response a couple weeks ago when the Quebec shooter massacred a mosque the president had to be coaxed into noticing that was terrorism too.. But a lunatic Muslim with a knife and we get 20 tweets.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
So, do you believe he should at least charged with some level terrorism?
Yes. In my opinion he did in fact terrorize a local group of people. On top of that, hindered their freedom of religion. Maybe not "Patriot Act" terror but terror nonetheless.
 
What are you on about? The Patriot Act was passed and structured to allow intel agencies to do things with foreign entities that they would not otherwise be able to do with US citizens due to Constitutional constraints. This is new to you?
 
If you don't publically condemn the terrorism you support it...

A Coldjoint rule.

Never said that. Produce quotes or stop lying. That gives you 1 option.
 
Never said that. Produce quotes or stop lying. That gives you 1 option.

You complained that Muslims did not condemn terrorism therefore they must be for it (while ignoring cases where Muslims denounced terrorism) then stated that they don't fight terrorism (while ignoring the fact that the majority of boots on the ground fighting terrorism are Muslims).

You know the thread.

So, do you denounce this case of Christian terror?
 
What are you on about? The Patriot Act was passed and structured to allow intel agencies to do things with foreign entities that they would not otherwise be able to do with US citizens due to Constitutional constraints. This is new to you?
I guess if I didn't read the article I wouldn't directly quote anyone either. :roll:
A Tennessee man won't face terrorism charges for plotting an attack against an upstate New York mosque — and attorneys claim it's because federal terrorism statutes almost exclusively focus on foreign extremists.

Robert Doggart was arrested in April 2015 after authorities discovered that he had been trying to recruit people to burn down a mosque in "Islamberg," a self-named, predominantly Muslim community near Hancock, according to court records.

Doggart, 65, who ran for Congress as an Independent in 2014, allegedly went on right-wing online forums and openly talked about using AR-15 assault rifles to attack Muslims because he believed the small upstate community was an extremist training camp, records show. Authorities intercepted Doggart's alleged plot before anyone was hurt.

He's facing one count of solicitation to commit arson, one count of solicitation to commit a civil rights violation and two counts of threat in interstate commerce. But he's not facing any terrorism charges and has been on house arrest since his initial capture.

Attorneys representing the Islamberg community in a seperate civil lawsuit claim a loophole in federal law allows defendants such as Doggart to escape terrorism charges.

"There's a gap in the law," attorney Tahirah Amatul-Wadud told the Daily News on Monday evening. "Frankly, there is nothing on terrorism unless it's connected to a foreign element. You won't see the KKK charged with domestic terror even though that's what they do."

According to the Patriot Act from 2001, prosecutors can only charge a defendant with domestic terrorism if he or she had the intension to "intimidate" or "coerce" a civilian population, or influence the "policy of a government" to affect the conduct of government by "mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping."


Contrastingly, Amatul-Wadud claimed, the requirements are less stringent for pursuing terrorism charges if the alleged act has a foreign element to it, for example ties to international terror networks such as ISIS or al-Qaeda.


Amatul-Wadud and her colleague, Tahirah Clark, said they full heartedly believe Doggart should have been prosecuted on terrorism charges.


"He did it to intimidate Muslims throughout the country — a civilian population — and acted as if he was going to be the world police, which is very anti-government," Amatul-Wadud said, referencing requirements set forth by the Patriot Act.

Amatul-Wadud and Clark, who represent the Islamberg community in its attempt to get a permanent injunction against Doggart, said they're disappointed that terrorism charges aren't on the table. Nonetheless, they don't blame federal prosecutors, adding that they believe the high legal bar is to blame.

The government rested its case against Doggart on Monday, and the jury was expected to begin deliberations on Tuesday.

Queens ISIS wannabe pleads guilty to attacking FBI agent
Glad to help.
 
You complained that Muslims did not condemn terrorism therefore they must be for it (while ignoring cases where Muslims denounced terrorism) then stated that they don't fight terrorism (while ignoring the fact that the majority of boots on the ground fighting terrorism are Muslims).

You know the thread.

So, do you denounce this case of Christian terror?

Maybe when you prove Christian doctrine approves of terror.
 
Oh, wait! He talked about setting fire to the building while worshippers were inside, and using AR15s but it was only a Mosque. WTF?

Tenn. man who plotted NY mosque attack won?t face terror charges - NY Daily News
OMG you mean he wasn't a brown terrorist?. Just another white sandy hook misunderstood boy. I think we whites are still ahead of the Muslim terrorists in the death stakes since 9/11, about 75 each here? And 200000 murders and 1000000 rapes here since then. And we are paranoid about "being safe" !!!! boy Don really has conned us. His greatest con ever.
 
Coldjoint refuses to denounce acts of Christian terror.

Maybe when you prove Christian doctrine approves of terror.

Was my answer. Terror is not approved in Christianity therefore there is nothing to denounce. I understand that you are just fabricating another lie about me. Let's hope others see through you too.
 
Was my answer. Terror is not approved in Christianity therefore there is nothing to denounce. I understand that you are just fabricating another lie about me. Let's hope others see through you too.

Coldjoint continues to refuse to denounce acts of Christian terror.
 
Back
Top Bottom