2 Queens Women Plead Guilty to Terrorism

[Ana the Ist]

2 Queens Women Plead Guilty To Terrorism Charges, Plotting To Bomb Government Buildings In 2015

Velentzas was “obsessed with pressure cookers since the Boston Marathon attacks in 2013,” and was caught on recordings made by the undercover in 2014 ranting against the United States and saying she and Siddiqui were “citizens of the Islamic State,” prosecutors said in court papers. When the women were arrested, investigators discovered propane gas tanks, soldering tools, jihadist propaganda and machetes in their homes, they said.

Well, the FBI stopped another radical muslim terrorist attack....this time it was two women in NY.

Law enforcement gets a lot of criticism for not going after this group or that person....but it's hard to argue with results like this.

 

[~Zao~]

2 Queens Women Plead Guilty To Terrorism Charges, Plotting To Bomb Government Buildings In 2015



Well, the FBI stopped another radical muslim terrorist attack....this time it was two women in NY.

Law enforcement gets a lot of criticism for not going after this group or that person....but it's hard to argue with results like this.

ahh, the queens was misleading. ... i’ll remove the rating and read the article later.

 

[Zoii]

2 Queens Women Plead Guilty To Terrorism Charges, Plotting To Bomb Government Buildings In 2015



Well, the FBI stopped another radical muslim terrorist attack....this time it was two women in NY.

Law enforcement gets a lot of criticism for not going after this group or that person....but it's hard to argue with results like this.

I had to re-read this to understand they were not women working for the Queen, but rather they came from a city...or is it a town....called Queens

Ugh. Fundamentalism/radicalism of any type is a danger to everyone. I dont know why - but I find it all the worse when I see an example of women acting radically. I'm sure there is some psychological reason behind why many of us find it so much worse when women are recruited.

 

[Aussie Pete]

I had to re-read this to understand they were not women working for the Queen, but rather they came from a city...or is it a town....called Queens

Ugh. Fundamentalism/radicalism of any type is a danger to everyone. I dont know why - but I find it all the worse when I see an example of women acting radically. I'm sure there is some psychological reason behind why many of us find it so much worse when women are recruited.

That may be because women are generally less aggressive than men, although that is changing. We do not expect women to be violent. It's not surprising. Women have been agitating for decades to be equal to men. It's slowly happening and the result is about what you would expect. Women are starting to behave more like men.

 

[~Zao~]

That may be because women are generally less aggressive than men, although that is changing. We do not expect women to be violent. It's not surprising. Women have been agitating for decades to be equal to men. It's slowly happening and the result is about what you would expect. Women are starting to behave more like men.

The real problem is that men believe what men have taught that women are supposed to be. So when they/many for the first time hear the voice of women that it sounds strangely like any human would speak.

 

[Aussie Pete]

The real problem is that men believe what men have taught that women are supposed to be. So when they/many for the first time hear the voice of women that it sounds strangely like any human would speak.

I was brought up to believe that women were inherently morally superior to men. They were kinder, gentler, more tolerant, patient and less aggressive. For many years I had no reason to doubt this. I am seeing a real change. I don't believe it is for the better.

 

[~Zao~]

I was brought up to believe that women were inherently morally superior to men. They were kinder, gentler, more tolerant, patient and less aggressive. For many years I had no reason to doubt this. I am seeing a real change. I don't believe it is for the better.

Your qualities point to the Holy Spirit’s fruit quite exactly ... what does that say in the comparison?

 

[Zoii]

That may be because women are generally less aggressive than men, although that is changing. We do not expect women to be violent. It's not surprising. Women have been agitating for decades to be equal to men. It's slowly happening and the result is about what you would expect. Women are starting to behave more like men.

Well Pete, in order to stay on track and not allow this to slip into an anti-female discussion, can we discuss radicalization in all its forms - Islam, Christianity, sovereign citizens, you name it.

The OP has cited the radicalization of two women which, as you highlighted, goes the trend; that is, it is usually men committing such crimes. But why does it happen? Whether it's some nut job strapping on a bomb in the name of Allah, or some guy disaffected with liberals and so drives his vehicle through a group.... or whether its a person firing with a semiautomatic assault rifle into a gathering in Las Vegas. What's going on in our world that this is occurring. Or has it always been this way?

Perhaps we could say that actually, the world is better. I mean you can't get more radicalized then WWII with the rise of Nazism. OR the apartheid in South Africa. So, while shocking, are we actually a better society, though at times we may not feel like it is.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I had to re-read this to understand they were not women working for the Queen, but rather they came from a city...or is it a town....called Queens

Ugh. Fundamentalism/radicalism of any type is a danger to everyone. I dont know why - but I find it all the worse when I see an example of women acting radically. I'm sure there is some psychological reason behind why many of us find it so much worse when women are recruited.

Probably some deep seeded cultural bias towards the idea that killing is a man's work.

I know what you mean though...my stomach turns a little whenever I see a child soldier too.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Your qualities point to the Holy Spirit’s fruit quite exactly ... what does that say in the comparison?

I don't understand your point. The qualities that I believed women possessed were relative to men, not to the fruit of the Spirit. I was generalising, not speaking about Christians.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Well Pete, in order to stay on track and not allow this to slip into an anti-female discussion, can we discuss radicalization in all its forms - Islam, Christianity, sovereign citizens, you name it.

The OP has cited the radicalization of two women which, as you highlighted, goes the trend; that is, it is usually men committing such crimes. But why does it happen? Whether it's some nut job strapping on a bomb in the name of Allah, or some guy disaffected with liberals and so drives his vehicle through a group.... or whether its a person firing with a semiautomatic assault rifle into a gathering in Las Vegas. What's going on in our world that this is occurring. Or has it always been this way?

Perhaps we could say that actually, the world is better. I mean you can't get more radicalized then WWII with the rise of Nazism. OR the apartheid in South Africa. So, while shocking, are we actually a better society, though at times we may not feel like it is.

I wish I could agree. The world rose up against the Nazis and defeated them. What has happened since the end of apartheid? South Africa has the highest murder rate in the world. No, I'm not trying to justify apartheid. There is conflict in far more places. Nigeria, Rwanda, Yemen (I lived there briefly), Sudan, Syria, Israel are all in violent conflict. Could the world stop it? I doubt it. Christians are being persecuted in ever increasing numbers. Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, India, North Korea, China - need I go on? I believe (although I know I can come across as misogynistic) that liberating women in these countries would make them more tolerant. It's always been a minority that creates the real trouble. Most Germans were not Nazis. They were bullied and brainwashed into war. The Japanese? I am not so sure about their motivations. The Italians were dragged in by Mussolini. Then we had Korea. Malaya. Then Vietnam. And so on and so forth. What did Jefferson say about peace? Something about the time when people stop fighting to reload their weapons.

 

[Zoii]

I wish I could agree. The world rose up against the Nazis and defeated them. What has happened since the end of apartheid? South Africa has the highest murder rate in the world. No, I'm not trying to justify apartheid. There is conflict in far more places. Nigeria, Rwanda, Yemen (I lived there briefly), Sudan, Syria, Israel are all in violent conflict. Could the world stop it? I doubt it. Christians are being persecuted in ever increasing numbers. Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, India, North Korea, China - need I go on? I believe (although I know I can come across as misogynistic) that liberating women in these countries would make them more tolerant. It's always been a minority that creates the real trouble. Most Germans were not Nazis. They were bullied and brainwashed into war. The Japanese? I am not so sure about their motivations. The Italians were dragged in by Mussolini. Then we had Korea. Malaya. Then Vietnam. And so on and so forth. What did Jefferson say about peace? Something about the time when people stop fighting to reload their weapons.

heck - Ok lemme dissect that a bit without going into some long diatribe.

All those areas you mentioned - Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Tutsi massacres in Rwanda - They were radicalization. You argue that heck it wasn't radicalization, it was brainwashing. That's exactly what radicalization is. A strong influence that totally convinces that the abominable is acceptable. How else did the average person in Germany feel anti-Semitic to the point of ejecting them from their homes and business? How else did Hutus feel so empowered to kill each and every Tutsi? Brainwashing = radicalization, except this type of brainwashing, endows the individual with a belief that the unacceptable is now acceptable.

It seems men are more prone to violent expressions of radicalization and Id be interested to know why that is. Perhaps it's just the testosterone that makes their views turn violent.

 

[Aussie Pete]

heck - Ok lemme dissect that a bit without going into some long diatribe.

All those areas you mentioned - Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Tutsi massacres in Rwanda - They were radicalization. You argue that heck it wasn't radicalization, it was brainwashing. That's exactly what radicalization is. A strong influence that totally convinces that the abominable is acceptable. How else did the average person in Germany feel anti-Semitic to the point of ejecting them from their homes and business? How else did Hutus feel so empowered to kill each and every Tutsi? Brainwashing = radicalization, except this type of brainwashing, endows the individual with a belief that the unacceptable is now acceptable.

It seems men are more prone to violent expressions of radicalization and Id be interested to know why that is. Perhaps it's just the testosterone that makes their views turn violent.

Semantics at play here. Europe has been anti-Semitic since the diaspora. Nothing new about that. Hitler played on that to enable his genocide plot to be carried out. Hitler played on the German's anger at being treated so badly at the Treaty of Versailles. He had the added bonus of a Europe that had become war weary and complacent. The signs were obvious but the leaders of Europe indulged in a deal of wishful thinking. I see radicalisation as being on a more individual or small group level. Most Muslims are normal people, unless you get them upset. Don't mock Allah or the Koran and its all good. A few are incited to take the Koran literally and they declare war on what is not of Islam. They even fight other Muslims for not being Muslim enough or of the wrong brand. Hindus are becoming radicalised in India, courtesy of incitement at the top. Again, it is a relative few that are responsible for the violence. White supremacists are a tiny minority. Yet they cause all kinds of trouble.

I think women are generally less aggressive than men. Perhaps it is because they treasure their families. It's hard to be a good mother when you are blowing yourself up. It is changing. More women are becoming violent. If that is progress, I preferred the old days myself.

Just one more thing. The Germans generally changed completely once the war was lost. They realised that they'd been conned. Radicals are near impossible to convince that they are wrong. It does happen but it is really, really hard.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Just one more thing. The Germans generally changed completely once the war was lost. They realised that they'd been conned. Radicals are near impossible to convince that they are wrong. It does happen but it is really, really hard.

Germany is a better example of the effects of thought bubbles and punishing people who held dissenting views. Those who disagreed with punishing Jews and other minorities had to stay quiet or risk everything. Those who disagreed with the war had to do the same. It's a hard situation to imagine if you live somewhere that protects freedom of speech.

 

[Zoii]

@Ana the Ist and Aussie Pete Would you say sovereign citizens are radicalized. They may not be violent but they have a belief thats errant, that noone can shift.

 

[Zoii]

To me, radical means you take a philosophy, and then take it to an extreme end. The Islamist who wears a suicide vest may feel outraged at wrongs done to their peers in places like Yemen - but then many moslems would feel that way; they just wouldn't take it to the point of murdering people or suiciding.

 

[Ana the Ist]

@Ana the Ist and Aussie Pete Would you say sovereign citizens are radicalized. They may not be violent but they have a belief thats errant, that noone can shift.

They're a weird group....I guess radicalism is an accurate description.

It's weird to see a group of people who have such a mistrust in government also have this rigid belief, born out of ignorance in legalese, that the government will behave a certain way when confronted a certain way.

 

[Aussie Pete]

@Ana the Ist and Aussie Pete Would you say sovereign citizens are radicalized. They may not be violent but they have a belief thats errant, that noone can shift.

Sovereign citizens are radical. The word radicalise has changed in meaning somewhat. Anyone who wants a major change to the status quo can be considered a radical. If they propose to do it by force, it becomes terrorism. I am a radical. I want to see the citizens of the anti-Christ system in which I live turn to Christ and be saved. I do not intend to do that by force.

Being a radical is not necessarily a bad thing. That's one of the subtle changes in meaning that is used to suppress free speech and anyone who is not PC.

 

[essentialsaltes]

@Ana the Ist and Aussie Pete Would you say sovereign citizens are radicalized. They may not be violent

Some of them are violent and their antigovernment violence generally springs from their sovereign beliefs.