I don't think we're all that free of terrorism, given that we had at least 7,783 cases in 2008 alone.
Hell, The Southern Poverty Law Center has concluded that the militia that was just rounded up is mainstream among militias.
Expanding the definition of terrorist to cover every hate crime is stretching the bounds of credibility. Some hate crimes might be terrorism, but the vast majority do not meet the definition. You're moving the goalposts, essentially.
Well the problem is that "terrorist" has a "brown" modifier in it lately.
If 9 muslims had been found in Michigan planning on killing a police officer and then bombing the funeral, do you think Fox would have called them a militia, or possible terrorists?
That's because a significant majority of terrorist attacks against US interests in recent years have been perpetrated by Islamist groups. It's tough to ignore reality.
I'm not sure what you're getting at in connection with the terminology. None of the recent Islamist groups would really qualify as militias. That's really a label attached to homegrown anti-government groups, usually with a far-right and/or white supremacist ideology.
I don't think we're all that free of terrorism, given that we had at least 7,783 cases in 2008 alone.
Hell, The Southern Poverty Law Center has concluded that the militia that was just rounded up is mainstream among militias.
Expanding the definition of terrorist to cover every hate crime is stretching the bounds of credibility. Some hate crimes might be terrorism, but the vast majority do not meet the definition. You're moving the goalposts, essentially.
Well the problem is that "terrorist" has a "brown" modifier in it lately.
If 9 muslims had been found in Michigan planning on killing a police officer and then bombing the funeral, do you think Fox would have called them a militia, or possible terrorists?
That's because a significant majority of terrorist attacks against US interests in recent years have been perpetrated by Islamist groups. It's tough to ignore reality.
I'm not sure what you're getting at in connection with the terminology. None of the recent Islamist groups would really qualify as militias. That's really a label attached to homegrown anti-government groups, usually with a far-right and/or white supremacist ideology.
I don't think we're all that free of terrorism, given that we had at least 7,783 cases in 2008 alone.
Hell, The Southern Poverty Law Center has concluded that the militia that was just rounded up is mainstream among militias.
Expanding the definition of terrorist to cover every hate crime is stretching the bounds of credibility. Some hate crimes might be terrorism, but the vast majority do not meet the definition. You're moving the goalposts, essentially.
Well the problem is that "terrorist" has a "brown" modifier in it lately.
If 9 muslims had been found in Michigan planning on killing a police officer and then bombing the funeral, do you think Fox would have called them a militia, or possible terrorists?
That's because a significant majority of terrorist attacks against US interests in recent years have been perpetrated by Islamist groups. It's tough to ignore reality.
I'm not sure what you're getting at in connection with the terminology. None of the recent Islamist groups would really qualify as militias. That's really a label attached to homegrown anti-government groups, usually with a far-right and/or white supremacist ideology.
"A significant majority"? Really? A significant majority?
Talk about moving the goal posts. The only way the "significant majority" of terrorist acts against the US could be perpetrated by Islamist groups is if you intentionally restrict the definition of "terrorist" to brown people.
I'm gonna need a citation on this one, otherwise you're just talking out of your ass and making shit up, as usual.
I'm not sure what you're getting at in connection with the terminology. None of the recent Islamist groups would really qualify as militias. That's really a label attached to homegrown anti-government groups, usually with a far-right and/or white supremacist ideology.
Under certain circumstances the word Militia and the words Terrorist Cell can be interchanged.
I would, in fact, classify most terrorist cells as simply militia groups that aren't based in America.
I mean, we trained the Taliban exactly like you'd train an insurgent militia group. We just had targets in mind that weren't us.
Is there any evidence that they're self inflicted?
Not that I've seen. I suspect the temptation for some to do so is strong, though. There's a lot of clout in claiming victimhood status.
Just something to keep in mind.
Is this supposed to be ironic? "There's no evidence that any of this was staged but man IT COULD HAVE BEEN STAGED that totally makes sense maybe it was staged."
I mean, we don't have any evidence that Peter Principle isn't a militia member plant trying to change the subject away from right wing terrorism. But it totally makes sense that they'd send someone out to try and change the subject and divert attention away from them. Just something to keep in mind.
I had no idea mild skepticism was so controversial.
Peter Principle on
"A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business." - Eric Hoffer, _The True Believer_
I don't think we're all that free of terrorism, given that we had at least 7,783 cases in 2008 alone.
Hell, The Southern Poverty Law Center has concluded that the militia that was just rounded up is mainstream among militias.
Expanding the definition of terrorist to cover every hate crime is stretching the bounds of credibility. Some hate crimes might be terrorism, but the vast majority do not meet the definition. You're moving the goalposts, essentially.
Actually almost every hate crime is going to be terroristic in nature.
ter·ror·ism
/ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ Show Spelled[ter-uh-riz-uhm]
–noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
How can a hate crime not be terrorism? Terrorism isn't "brown people blowing things up."
When most people think of terrorism, they look for some sort of political agenda. A bunch of drunk rednecks out queer-bashing probably haven't thought out the political aspects of what they're doing. They aren't trying to get their victim to change their political direction, they just want to beat them to a pulp.
On the other hand, acts of terrorism aren't automatically hate crimes- When ELF burned down a bunch of luxury homes out West, that was terrorism, but not a hate crime.
Posting a list of 7000 hate crimes and claiming that they are all terrorism isn't terribly convincing.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Over the course of American history, how many people have been killed by domestic terrorists? A few thousand, tops. Per year, you're probably talking a handful of incidents, total, with many years where there were no incidents of domestic terrorism whatsoever.
So, yeah, I'm comfortable with my statement that we seem to be pretty good at resolving our political disputes peacefully. Even the big bad Tea Partiers are, at worst, behind a handful of incidents of vandalism and a disputed attack by spitting.
Pretty good at resolving our political disputes peacefully compared to where, exactly? Canada? England? Rwanda? Israel? Japan? Somalia? Without any context, your statement is incredibly vague.
I'm also a bit confused as to why you're mentioning the Tea Partiers and not the folks who, for example, assassinated abortion providers, murdered police officers, or flew airplanes into IRS offices.
true enough MM. I think the point people are trying to make is we're very quick to call anything done by a Muslim person terrorism but not so much when it's white christians.
If we swapped things and this was a group of Ughandan Muslim Americans planning to bomb a funeral would our media be calling them terrorists?
How can a hate crime not be terrorism? Terrorism isn't "brown people blowing things up."
How is a "hate crime" terrorism?
Most, if not all crimes, involve threats and intimidation.
Hate crime is perpetrated for the express purpose of threatening the targeted communities.
But that's not the definition of a hate crime. A hate crime is a crime done against a single person or a group because of a bias against them. It becomes an act of terrorism if there's an overarching political goal in mind.
Simply saying "hate crime = terrorism" is a pretty short sighted, generalized, and stupid way of going about it.
If you are gonna play fast and loose with the definitions then you're basically saying that anyone on this board that calls someone else a "stupid fuck" because one simply disagrees with the other is committing a hate crime and is also a terrorist.
Is there any evidence that they're self inflicted?
Not that I've seen. I suspect the temptation for some to do so is strong, though. There's a lot of clout in claiming victimhood status.
Just something to keep in mind.
Is this supposed to be ironic? "There's no evidence that any of this was staged but man IT COULD HAVE BEEN STAGED that totally makes sense maybe it was staged."
I mean, we don't have any evidence that Peter Principle isn't a militia member plant trying to change the subject away from right wing terrorism. But it totally makes sense that they'd send someone out to try and change the subject and divert attention away from them. Just something to keep in mind.
I had no idea mild skepticism was so controversial.
If it's completely baseless, it can be.
It's like responding to a rape charge with "well maybe she was dressed like a slut?", it's essentially a backhanded way to go "well what if it's the victim's fault!" without coming right out and declaring it is the victim's fault. If you have any evidence or recent history of said group doing such things, bring it up! Otherwise, it's victim blaming, plain and simple.
How can a hate crime not be terrorism? Terrorism isn't "brown people blowing things up."
How is a "hate crime" terrorism?
Most, if not all crimes, involve threats and intimidation.
To be more specific, terrorism generally means violence and intimidation for political purposes. Hate crimes are going to dovetail with that. I wouldn't say every instance of a hate crime should be explicitly labelled as terrorism, but there's obviously a correlation between "I will blow up a school because AMERICA IS EVIL!" and "I will attack a <target> because HOMOS / JEWS / BLACKS ARE INFERIOR / LIBRULS TAKIN' MY GUNS / etc. etc."
What's problematic is the idea that something isn't terrorism unless its perpetrated by an Islamic militant. A group of crazy people who hate the government and are willing to conspire to attack police officers in an attempt to shatter the peace and overthrow the system. If that's a group of Americans they're militia members, if its a group of Iraqis they're terrorists.
That's because a significant majority of terrorist attacks against US interests in recent years have been perpetrated by Islamist groups. It's tough to ignore reality.
I'm not sure what you're getting at in connection with the terminology. None of the recent Islamist groups would really qualify as militias. That's really a label attached to homegrown anti-government groups, usually with a far-right and/or white supremacist ideology.
Let's see. We have 9/11 and?
WTC bombing during the Clinton administration.
USS Cole is the other typically mentioned, after the two separate WTC attacks.
But really the only way to have Islamic groups perpertrating a majority of terrorist attacks is to count by death toll. Then 3000 from 9/11 immediately pushes them to the top. Otherwise there are too many relatively minor incidents.
I'm not sure what you're getting at in connection with the terminology. None of the recent Islamist groups would really qualify as militias. That's really a label attached to homegrown anti-government groups, usually with a far-right and/or white supremacist ideology.
Under certain circumstances the word Militia and the words Terrorist Cell can be interchanged.
I agree. Though, milita groups can engage in their activities without violating the law. Hanging out in compounds in the woods, being anti-government and planning for some future race war/revolution/end of the world isn't illegal, in of itself. A terrorist cell is, by its nature, an ongoing criminal conspiracy.
Of course, a militia group can turn into a terrorist organization through its actions.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Is there any evidence that they're self inflicted?
Not that I've seen. I suspect the temptation for some to do so is strong, though. There's a lot of clout in claiming victimhood status.
Just something to keep in mind.
Is this supposed to be ironic? "There's no evidence that any of this was staged but man IT COULD HAVE BEEN STAGED that totally makes sense maybe it was staged."
I mean, we don't have any evidence that Peter Principle isn't a militia member plant trying to change the subject away from right wing terrorism. But it totally makes sense that they'd send someone out to try and change the subject and divert attention away from them. Just something to keep in mind.
I had no idea mild skepticism was so controversial.
Just keep walking that back. "I'm not accusing anybody, I'm just wondering out loud if my weird accusations offered without a shred of evidence could be true, because it makes sense if they were."
Generally making a broad accusation without a shred of truth makes you a liar. "Liar" and "mild skeptic" are different words.
I'm not sure what you're getting at in connection with the terminology. None of the recent Islamist groups would really qualify as militias. That's really a label attached to homegrown anti-government groups, usually with a far-right and/or white supremacist ideology.
Under certain circumstances the word Militia and the words Terrorist Cell can be interchanged.
I agree. Though, milita groups can engage in their activities without violating the law. Hanging out in compounds in the woods, being anti-government and planning for some future race war/revolution/end of the world isn't illegal, in of itself. A terrorist cell is, by its nature, an ongoing criminal conspiracy.
Of course, a militia group can turn into a terrorist organization through its actions.
Depends when you consider something a terrorist cell. A bunch of guys talking about getting guns and blowing up a building counts as a terrorist cell, regardless of ability to do so. A bunch of guys getting drunk in the woods talking about blowing up a building is a militia.
I just think there's a somewhat mobile line that crosses from boys will be boys to intent to carry out an act. And there's also a decidedly different media narrative between the two when the feds come down on them. The Miami 7 were pretty much mauled in the media for essentially no threat. These guys are getting puzzled reporters trying to fathom why a bunch of white guys in the woods would want to kill americans.
Is there any evidence that they're self inflicted?
Not that I've seen. I suspect the temptation for some to do so is strong, though. There's a lot of clout in claiming victimhood status.
Just something to keep in mind.
Is this supposed to be ironic? "There's no evidence that any of this was staged but man IT COULD HAVE BEEN STAGED that totally makes sense maybe it was staged."
I mean, we don't have any evidence that Peter Principle isn't a militia member plant trying to change the subject away from right wing terrorism. But it totally makes sense that they'd send someone out to try and change the subject and divert attention away from them. Just something to keep in mind.
I had no idea mild skepticism was so controversial.
Just keep walking that back. "I'm not accusing anybody, I'm just wondering out loud if my weird accusations offered without a shred of evidence could be true, because it makes sense if they were."
Generally making a broad accusation without a shred of truth makes you a liar. "Liar" and "mild skeptic" are different words.
To be fair, it's not lying. It's expressing a statement in the form of a question to make it something they're just throwing out there for people to think about. I believe Fox has this patented.
How can a hate crime not be terrorism? Terrorism isn't "brown people blowing things up."
How is a "hate crime" terrorism?
Most, if not all crimes, involve threats and intimidation.
Hate crime is perpetrated for the express purpose of threatening the targeted communities.
But that's not the definition of a hate crime. A hate crime is a crime done against a single person or a group because of a bias against them. It becomes an act of terrorism if there's an overarching political goal in mind.
Simply saying "hate crime = terrorism" is a pretty short sighted, generalized, and stupid way of going about it.
If you are gonna play fast and loose with the definitions then you're basically saying that anyone on this board that calls someone else a "stupid fuck" because one simply disagrees with the other is committing a hate crime and is also a terrorist.
Hate crimes aren't "extra illegal" (for lack of a better term) because it is bad to hate people. Hate crimes are on the books because of the fact that they DO carry an extra level of threat (or "terror") to the hated group in question.
How can a hate crime not be terrorism? Terrorism isn't "brown people blowing things up."
How is a "hate crime" terrorism?
Most, if not all crimes, involve threats and intimidation.
To be more specific, terrorism generally means violence and intimidation for political purposes. Hate crimes are going to dovetail with that. I wouldn't say every instance of a hate crime should be explicitly labelled as terrorism, but there's obviously a correlation between "I will blow up a school because AMERICA IS EVIL!" and "I will attack a <target> because HOMOS / JEWS / BLACKS ARE INFERIOR / LIBRULS TAKIN' MY GUNS / etc. etc."
What's problematic is the idea that something isn't terrorism unless its perpetrated by an Islamic militant. A group of crazy people who hate the government and are willing to conspire to attack police officers in an attempt to shatter the peace and overthrow the system. If that's a group of Americans they're militia members, if its a group of Iraqis they're terrorists.
I largely agree with you.
Terrorism should be reserved for people who have a genuine political message to make towards large groups of people. A homophobe beating up a homosexual because of the morals established in him is different than a Pro Lifer blasting a doctor away to send a message to other doctors, politicians, and women considering abortions.
I don't think we're all that free of terrorism, given that we had at least 7,783 cases in 2008 alone.
Hell, The Southern Poverty Law Center has concluded that the militia that was just rounded up is mainstream among militias.
Expanding the definition of terrorist to cover every hate crime is stretching the bounds of credibility. Some hate crimes might be terrorism, but the vast majority do not meet the definition. You're moving the goalposts, essentially.
Well the problem is that "terrorist" has a "brown" modifier in it lately.
If 9 muslims had been found in Michigan planning on killing a police officer and then bombing the funeral, do you think Fox would have called them a militia, or possible terrorists?
That's because a significant majority of terrorist attacks against US interests in recent years have been perpetrated by Islamist groups. It's tough to ignore reality.
I'm not sure what you're getting at in connection with the terminology. None of the recent Islamist groups would really qualify as militias. That's really a label attached to homegrown anti-government groups, usually with a far-right and/or white supremacist ideology.
Let's see. We have 9/11 and?
The ones I can think of that suceeded were the USS Cole bombing and the attacks on various US embassies in Africa during the Clinton years.
Since 9/11, there were a significant number of foiled terrorist attacks in the US, such as the shoe bomber, the Lackawanna Six, the Virginia Jihad Network, Jose Padilla, the Fort Dix Jihadis etc.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
To be fair, it's not lying. It's expressing a statement in the form of a question to make it something they're just throwing out there for people to think about. I believe Fox has this patented.
It is an effort to level a false accusation against a party without evidence, so I'd say that its a lie, but you're right its also a form of bullshit, so its probably better described as a hybrid of being a lie and bullshit.
Generally I believe almost everyone on this forum is intelligent enough to not fall for the "he wasn't actually accusing anyone, he was just making the accusation and saying how it really seems very reasonable and makes sense." You say it, you support it, you own it.
How can a hate crime not be terrorism? Terrorism isn't "brown people blowing things up."
How is a "hate crime" terrorism?
Most, if not all crimes, involve threats and intimidation.
Hate crime is perpetrated for the express purpose of threatening the targeted communities.
But that's not the definition of a hate crime. A hate crime is a crime done against a single person or a group because of a bias against them. It becomes an act of terrorism if there's an overarching political goal in mind.
Simply saying "hate crime = terrorism" is a pretty short sighted, generalized, and stupid way of going about it.
If you are gonna play fast and loose with the definitions then you're basically saying that anyone on this board that calls someone else a "stupid fuck" because one simply disagrees with the other is committing a hate crime and is also a terrorist.
Hate crimes aren't "extra illegal" (for lack of a better term) because it is bad to hate people. Hate crimes are on the books because of the fact that they DO carry an extra level of threat (or "terror") to the hated group in question.
And I disagree with that. But that's a different thread all together.
How can a hate crime not be terrorism? Terrorism isn't "brown people blowing things up."
How is a "hate crime" terrorism?
Most, if not all crimes, involve threats and intimidation.
To be more specific, terrorism generally means violence and intimidation for political purposes. Hate crimes are going to dovetail with that. I wouldn't say every instance of a hate crime should be explicitly labelled as terrorism, but there's obviously a correlation between "I will blow up a school because AMERICA IS EVIL!" and "I will attack a <target> because HOMOS / JEWS / BLACKS ARE INFERIOR / LIBRULS TAKIN' MY GUNS / etc. etc."
What's problematic is the idea that something isn't terrorism unless its perpetrated by an Islamic militant. A group of crazy people who hate the government and are willing to conspire to attack police officers in an attempt to shatter the peace and overthrow the system. If that's a group of Americans they're militia members, if its a group of Iraqis they're terrorists.
The think another piece fo the issue is the idea that terrorism can only be perpetrated against a government, because the fact is, attacking a government isn't terrorism anyway, it is an act of war.
Terrorism, in my mind, is an attack whose purpose is to intimidate RATHER THAN to actually deal with a specific threat.
Is there any evidence that they're self inflicted?
Not that I've seen. I suspect the temptation for some to do so is strong, though. There's a lot of clout in claiming victimhood status.
Just something to keep in mind.
Is this supposed to be ironic? "There's no evidence that any of this was staged but man IT COULD HAVE BEEN STAGED that totally makes sense maybe it was staged."
I mean, we don't have any evidence that Peter Principle isn't a militia member plant trying to change the subject away from right wing terrorism. But it totally makes sense that they'd send someone out to try and change the subject and divert attention away from them. Just something to keep in mind.
I had no idea mild skepticism was so controversial.
The think another piece fo the issue is the idea that terrorism can only be perpetrated against a government, because the fact is, attacking a government isn't terrorism anyway, it is an act of war.
Terrorism, in my mind, is an attack whose purpose is to intimidate RATHER THAN to actually deal with a specific threat.
Is that a broad term? sure. Some terms ARE broad.
But the current definition of Terrorism tends to lean heavily on the perpetrators having some form of political intent with their actions. That implicitly includes the government.
There really isn't much domestic terrorism in the US, whether from the left or the right. Civil War notwithstanding, we seem to be pretty good at resolving our political disputes peacefully.
You have written a lot of wrong things in your time on this forum, but this is the most hilariously wrong thing you've ever said.
Let's review:
The country was founded via a political dispute that ended up in a war.
There were numerous tax revolts early in our history, crushed by Washington.
Bleeding Kansas, Sumner gets his ass whooped, Civil War
Lynchings! Lots and lots of lynchings!
More anti-black violence (bombing churches, murdering Freedom Riders, people registering blacks to vote, etc.)
Lets not forget violence against immigrants!
Weather Underground, etc.
OKC bombing
Waco
The anti-abortion terrorist movement
Over the course of American history, how many people have been killed by domestic terrorists? A few thousand, tops. Per year, you're probably talking a handful of incidents, total, with many years where there were no incidents of domestic terrorism whatsoever.
So, yeah, I'm comfortable with my statement that we seem to be pretty good at resolving our political disputes peacefully. Even the big bad Tea Partiers are, at worst, behind a handful of incidents of vandalism and a disputed attack by spitting.
Lynching alone is about 5,000.
EDIT: Sorry, from 1880-1950 only. Statistics are shoddy before then. And the Civil Rights Movement got responded to with more conventional violence.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
How can a hate crime not be terrorism? Terrorism isn't "brown people blowing things up."
How is a "hate crime" terrorism?
Most, if not all crimes, involve threats and intimidation.
Hate crime is perpetrated for the express purpose of threatening the targeted communities.
But that's not the definition of a hate crime. A hate crime is a crime done against a single person or a group because of a bias against them. It becomes an act of terrorism if there's an overarching political goal in mind.
Simply saying "hate crime = terrorism" is a pretty short sighted, generalized, and stupid way of going about it.
If you are gonna play fast and loose with the definitions then you're basically saying that anyone on this board that calls someone else a "stupid fuck" because one simply disagrees with the other is committing a hate crime and is also a terrorist.
Hate crimes aren't "extra illegal" (for lack of a better term) because it is bad to hate people. Hate crimes are on the books because of the fact that they DO carry an extra level of threat (or "terror") to the hated group in question.
And I disagree with that. But that's a different thread all together.
When my synagogue had anti-semitic graffiti smeared all over it, the fear wasn't "oh no, people don't like Jews", it was "they did this because we are jewish, and they may go on to do it to other jews."
Depends when you consider something a terrorist cell. A bunch of guys talking about getting guns and blowing up a building counts as a terrorist cell, regardless of ability to do so. A bunch of guys getting drunk in the woods talking about blowing up a building is a militia.
Without some sort of act to go along with their talk, both of these situations are probably perfectly legal. Generally, to be criminally culpable for a conspiracy, the participants have to agree to do something and then engage in at least one substantive act towards that goal.
I just think there's a somewhat mobile line that crosses from boys will be boys to intent to carry out an act. And there's also a decidedly different media narrative between the two when the feds come down on them. The Miami 7 were pretty much mauled in the media for essentially no threat. These guys are getting puzzled reporters trying to fathom why a bunch of white guys in the woods would want to kill americans.
Legally, the lines are pretty clear. The media might move the goalposts around a lot, but that doesn't change the legal definition of terrorism and allow one group to be charged more easily than another.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
When my synagogue had anti-semitic graffiti smeared all over it, the fear wasn't "oh no, people don't like Jews", it was "they did this because we are jewish, and they may go on to do it to other jews."
The think another piece fo the issue is the idea that terrorism can only be perpetrated against a government, because the fact is, attacking a government isn't terrorism anyway, it is an act of war.
Terrorism, in my mind, is an attack whose purpose is to intimidate RATHER THAN to actually deal with a specific threat.
Is that a broad term? sure. Some terms ARE broad.
But the current definition of Terrorism tends to lean heavily on the perpetrators having some form of political intent with their actions. That implicitly includes the government.
Except that the "political" angle is not neccesary. A quick search shows that religious goals are also an acceptable substitute.
The point being that it is violence against civilians intended to bring about a goal is a pretty standard definition there. The idea that the goal MUST be political is needlessly restrictive.
Depends when you consider something a terrorist cell. A bunch of guys talking about getting guns and blowing up a building counts as a terrorist cell, regardless of ability to do so. A bunch of guys getting drunk in the woods talking about blowing up a building is a militia.
Without some sort of act to go along with their talk, both of these situations are probably perfectly legal. Generally, to be criminally culpable for a conspiracy, the participants have to agree to do something and then engage in at least one substantive act towards that goal.
Actually, you don't have to actually do anything substantial in order to be charged for sedition. You just have to be actively planning/conspiring against the government of the United States. Which, I guess counts as "substantial," in a sense.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
When my synagogue had anti-semitic graffiti smeared all over it, the fear wasn't "oh no, people don't like Jews", it was "they did this because we are jewish, and they may go on to do it to other jews."
Posts
Domestic Terrorism
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
Let's see. We have 9/11 and?
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
"A significant majority"? Really? A significant majority?
Talk about moving the goal posts. The only way the "significant majority" of terrorist acts against the US could be perpetrated by Islamist groups is if you intentionally restrict the definition of "terrorist" to brown people.
I'm gonna need a citation on this one, otherwise you're just talking out of your ass and making shit up, as usual.
I mean, we trained the Taliban exactly like you'd train an insurgent militia group. We just had targets in mind that weren't us.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Hate crime is perpetrated for the express purpose of threatening the targeted communities.
I had no idea mild skepticism was so controversial.
On the other hand, acts of terrorism aren't automatically hate crimes- When ELF burned down a bunch of luxury homes out West, that was terrorism, but not a hate crime.
Posting a list of 7000 hate crimes and claiming that they are all terrorism isn't terribly convincing.
Rigorous Scholarship
If I'm an arsonist, and I burn a guy's house down, I do it for thrills.
If I'm a Klan member, and I burn a cross on a guy's lawn, I do it to send a message to every black guy in the area.
Pretty good at resolving our political disputes peacefully compared to where, exactly? Canada? England? Rwanda? Israel? Japan? Somalia? Without any context, your statement is incredibly vague.
I'm also a bit confused as to why you're mentioning the Tea Partiers and not the folks who, for example, assassinated abortion providers, murdered police officers, or flew airplanes into IRS offices.
If we swapped things and this was a group of Ughandan Muslim Americans planning to bomb a funeral would our media be calling them terrorists?
But that's not the definition of a hate crime. A hate crime is a crime done against a single person or a group because of a bias against them. It becomes an act of terrorism if there's an overarching political goal in mind.
Simply saying "hate crime = terrorism" is a pretty short sighted, generalized, and stupid way of going about it.
If you are gonna play fast and loose with the definitions then you're basically saying that anyone on this board that calls someone else a "stupid fuck" because one simply disagrees with the other is committing a hate crime and is also a terrorist.
If it's completely baseless, it can be.
It's like responding to a rape charge with "well maybe she was dressed like a slut?", it's essentially a backhanded way to go "well what if it's the victim's fault!" without coming right out and declaring it is the victim's fault. If you have any evidence or recent history of said group doing such things, bring it up! Otherwise, it's victim blaming, plain and simple.
To be more specific, terrorism generally means violence and intimidation for political purposes. Hate crimes are going to dovetail with that. I wouldn't say every instance of a hate crime should be explicitly labelled as terrorism, but there's obviously a correlation between "I will blow up a school because AMERICA IS EVIL!" and "I will attack a <target> because HOMOS / JEWS / BLACKS ARE INFERIOR / LIBRULS TAKIN' MY GUNS / etc. etc."
What's problematic is the idea that something isn't terrorism unless its perpetrated by an Islamic militant. A group of crazy people who hate the government and are willing to conspire to attack police officers in an attempt to shatter the peace and overthrow the system. If that's a group of Americans they're militia members, if its a group of Iraqis they're terrorists.
USS Cole is the other typically mentioned, after the two separate WTC attacks.
But really the only way to have Islamic groups perpertrating a majority of terrorist attacks is to count by death toll. Then 3000 from 9/11 immediately pushes them to the top. Otherwise there are too many relatively minor incidents.
Of course, a militia group can turn into a terrorist organization through its actions.
Rigorous Scholarship
Just keep walking that back. "I'm not accusing anybody, I'm just wondering out loud if my weird accusations offered without a shred of evidence could be true, because it makes sense if they were."
Generally making a broad accusation without a shred of truth makes you a liar. "Liar" and "mild skeptic" are different words.
Depends when you consider something a terrorist cell. A bunch of guys talking about getting guns and blowing up a building counts as a terrorist cell, regardless of ability to do so. A bunch of guys getting drunk in the woods talking about blowing up a building is a militia.
I just think there's a somewhat mobile line that crosses from boys will be boys to intent to carry out an act. And there's also a decidedly different media narrative between the two when the feds come down on them. The Miami 7 were pretty much mauled in the media for essentially no threat. These guys are getting puzzled reporters trying to fathom why a bunch of white guys in the woods would want to kill americans.
To be fair, it's not lying. It's expressing a statement in the form of a question to make it something they're just throwing out there for people to think about. I believe Fox has this patented.
Hate crimes aren't "extra illegal" (for lack of a better term) because it is bad to hate people. Hate crimes are on the books because of the fact that they DO carry an extra level of threat (or "terror") to the hated group in question.
I largely agree with you.
Terrorism should be reserved for people who have a genuine political message to make towards large groups of people. A homophobe beating up a homosexual because of the morals established in him is different than a Pro Lifer blasting a doctor away to send a message to other doctors, politicians, and women considering abortions.
Since 9/11, there were a significant number of foiled terrorist attacks in the US, such as the shoe bomber, the Lackawanna Six, the Virginia Jihad Network, Jose Padilla, the Fort Dix Jihadis etc.
Rigorous Scholarship
It is an effort to level a false accusation against a party without evidence, so I'd say that its a lie, but you're right its also a form of bullshit, so its probably better described as a hybrid of being a lie and bullshit.
Generally I believe almost everyone on this forum is intelligent enough to not fall for the "he wasn't actually accusing anyone, he was just making the accusation and saying how it really seems very reasonable and makes sense." You say it, you support it, you own it.
And I disagree with that. But that's a different thread all together.
The think another piece fo the issue is the idea that terrorism can only be perpetrated against a government, because the fact is, attacking a government isn't terrorism anyway, it is an act of war.
Terrorism, in my mind, is an attack whose purpose is to intimidate RATHER THAN to actually deal with a specific threat.
Is that a broad term? sure. Some terms ARE broad.
But the current definition of Terrorism tends to lean heavily on the perpetrators having some form of political intent with their actions. That implicitly includes the government.
If these guys were unconnected Muslims what would you be saying about them planning to bomb a funeral
Lynching alone is about 5,000.
EDIT: Sorry, from 1880-1950 only. Statistics are shoddy before then. And the Civil Rights Movement got responded to with more conventional violence.
We'd have to torture them, obviously.
When my synagogue had anti-semitic graffiti smeared all over it, the fear wasn't "oh no, people don't like Jews", it was "they did this because we are jewish, and they may go on to do it to other jews."
And that is part of why the Supreme court went on to include Jews as being protected under hate crime legislation: http://supreme.justia.com/us/481/615/case.html
Legally, the lines are pretty clear. The media might move the goalposts around a lot, but that doesn't change the legal definition of terrorism and allow one group to be charged more easily than another.
Rigorous Scholarship
Because the people who spray painted your synagogue were under the impression that what they were doing was perfectly legal?
Except that the "political" angle is not neccesary. A quick search shows that religious goals are also an acceptable substitute.
The point being that it is violence against civilians intended to bring about a goal is a pretty standard definition there. The idea that the goal MUST be political is needlessly restrictive.
Personally, this is my favorite definition:
Actually, you don't have to actually do anything substantial in order to be charged for sedition. You just have to be actively planning/conspiring against the government of the United States. Which, I guess counts as "substantial," in a sense.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Do hate criminals and terrorists believe that their actions are legal?
I'm not sure what you are saying.
Rigorous Scholarship
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
these guys allegedly wanted to spark an anti-government uprising through these crimes.
sounds kinda political to me