NationStates Jolt Archive

"You're far more likely to be harmed in an attack by a right-wing domestic terrorist than anyone from Al Qaeda."

I encountered this statement while reading Orcinus, a blog written by David Neiwert. (If you haven't checked it out before, I strongly recommend it. Very interesting stuff.) Neiwert has a long history of addressing American domestic terrorism, particularly terrorism that is related to race and culture issues.

Neiwert also says, "Since the early 1990s, the vast majority of planned terrorist acts on American soil -- both those that were successfully perpetrated and those apprehended beforehand -- have involved white right-wing extremists. Between 1995 and 2000, over 42 such cases (some, like Eric Rudolph, involving multiple crimes) were identifiable from public records."

Myself, I'm always amazed by the way that acts of terror are reported by the media. If a white Christian tries to blow up an abortion clinic, you won't hear the word "terrorist" in the mainstream press. But if a brown-skinned non-Christian tries to shoot somebody, you'll get the T-word dropped like confetti.


NOTE: I have included a poll which is segregated based on whether or not you are American. This is because the bolded statement at the top of this post specifically refers to America and Americans. I am completely aware that there are other countries in the world, and I don't mean to slight any of you, but this happens to be a topic specifically about terrorism (foreign and domestic) and the USA. If you want to hate on Americo-centric thinking, I can make you a separate thread for that. :D

From the folder labeled "Things you probably already knew if you'd thought about it". The media downplays domestic terrorism, it's more fun to go after the foreigners. Works up the xenophobia mojo.

If nothing else, domestic terrorists are more dangerous in that they don't have any trouble getting into the country.

never heard a dam thing about them if we have them

I have to go with the final poll option. White people don't commit crimes in America, much less terrorism.

I have to go with the final poll option. White people don't commit crimes in America, much less terrorism.

http://www.dsfanboy.com/media/2006/02/Sarcasm.jpg

http://www.dsfanboy.com/media/2006/02/Sarcasm.jpg

Don't do that ... you'll give me away. Nice picture, though.

I have to go with the final poll option. White people don't commit crimes in America, much less terrorism.
Unless they're liberals.

Since the intent of "terrorism" is to spread terror, I'd say we should be concerned more about the form of terrorism most terrifying.

Unless they're liberals.

Liberals aren't people :p

Which should Americans be more concerned about?

Car accidents. Those kill a lot more people.

Since the intent of "terrorism" is to spread terror, I'd say we should be concerned more about the form of terrorism most terrifying.
And do you feel that foreign terrorism is more or less terrifying than domestic terrorism? Or are they equally terrifying?

I'm not American, but I do understand the media's role in things like this. It's just always easier to blame people that don't belong to your 'group' (racial, religious, you name it). Your own criticism towards what you hear on the news is the best defence against that fear trap.

And do you feel that foreign terrorism is more or less terrifying than domestic terrorism? Or are they equally terrifying?

Neither bothers me terribly.

Really, it depends on who you are who who the terrorists intend to terrify. A white, right-wing Christian has no reason to be terrified by white, right-wing Christian terrorists... Meanwhile, those foreign buggers who actively want to kill said white, right-wing Christians may be a tad more terrifying. Of course, the paranoid among us and those others prone to chronic terror may find mailmen to be the most sinister and terrifying force in the world - and rightly so.

Neither bothers me terribly.

So basically what you're getting at here is that both groups are terrible at terrorism?

So basically what you're getting at here is that both groups are terrible at terrorism?

Precisely. :)

Why, a terrorist who fails to terrify, well... isn't.

I think USians have more important things to worry about.

Don't more people get harmed and killed by improper use of farm machinery than terrorism of any sort?

Any terrorism related threat to the US citizenry is more likely to come from the government, in some sort of response to an apparent terrorist threat, than from a terrorist, in my opinion.

I think USians have more important things to worry about.

I happen to agree. However, I am asking a question specifically comparing two concerns.

Whether or not there are other, greater concerns is beside my point.

so your saying there are no Americans in Al Qaeda?

also no terrorism isn't something I care about, I am however deeply paranoid of the power of the government (http://www.toadking.com/6x9=42/bananamatrix.jpg)

never heard a dam thing about them if we have them

QFT.

The difference is that right-wing extremist groups are already heavily monitored, investigated, and infiltrated by US Government agents.

We're nowhere near the level of monitoring, investigation, and infiltration of Islamic groups.

It's easier to get white guys into a right-wing extremist organization that speaks English.

It's nearly impossible to get white guys who speak English into an Islamic terrorist group (well, John Walker Lindh managed to get in, but he spent a lot of time studying Arabic to get in).

The difference is that right-wing extremist groups are already heavily monitored, investigated, and infiltrated by US Government agents.


You mean the US government is infiltrated by right wing extremist agents :p

(and for anyone who is planning on taking this comment serious: don't :) )

You mean the US government is infiltrated by right wing extremist agents :p

(and for anyone who is planning on taking this comment serious: don't :) )

dam and here i was thinking only our lot are :p

dam and here i was thinking only our lot are :p

They are........ everywhere! but hush *shifty eyes*

One could go further and say that everyday crime could be terrorism too. It has the intent to hurt and instil fear in the hearts of the people.

ter·ror·ism /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ Pronunciation[ter-uh-riz-uhm]
–noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

If course, I could just be blowing out my ass, but if you look at how some of the religious groups approach controversial topics like abortion and gay marriage and how they treat certain groups who support these concepts, you suddenly have another branch of terrorists.

Hell who's a bigger terrorist threat than PETA? ;)

so your saying there are no Americans in Al Qaeda?

No, I don't believe I said that.

There is no such thing as "domestic terrorists" in the United States. Those you are labeling as such are "violent activists". Terrorists are foreign opposers who want to topple the power of the most magnificent nation in the world. Domestic violent activists may have some problems regarding how they want to pull their agenda, but they aren't terrorists, after all they are american citizens, and as such, deserve a measure of respect, instead of foreigners that attempt to eliminate the american citizens.

All americans that label violent activists as terrorists are traitors to their country, and no less.

There is no such thing as "domestic terrorists" in the United States. Those you are labeling as such are "violent activists". Terrorists are foreign opposers who want to topple the power of the most magnificent nation in the world. Domestic violent activists may have some problems regarding how they want to pull their agenda, but they aren't terrorists, after all they are american citizens, and as such, deserve a measure of respect, instead of foreigners that attempt to eliminate the american citizens.

All americans that label violent activists as terrorists are traitors to their country, and no less.

So, we call Timothy McVeigh a "violent activist" then?

Car accidents. Those kill a lot more people.

Yeah. I voted for "domestic terrorists" in the poll, but terrorism itself really isn't a major cause of death. If they spent half as much on, say, treating or preventing heart disease or cancer, road safety, fire prevention, or any number of other things, they'd save far more lives.

FIGHTING THE WAR ON CANCER, anybody?

So, we call Timothy McVeigh a "violent activist" then?

No, he's called a "corpse".

There is no such thing as "domestic terrorists" in the United States. Those you are labeling as such are "violent activists". Terrorists are foreign opposers who want to topple the power of the most magnificent nation in the world. Domestic violent activists may have some problems regarding how they want to pull their agenda, but they aren't terrorists, after all they are american citizens, and as such, deserve a measure of respect, instead of foreigners that attempt to eliminate the american citizens.

All americans that label violent activists as terrorists are traitors to their country, and no less.

Youre...being sarcastic, right *laughs nervously*

right?

There is no such thing as "domestic terrorists" in the United States. Those you are labeling as such are "violent activists". Terrorists are foreign opposers who want to topple the power of the most magnificent nation in the world. Domestic violent activists may have some problems regarding how they want to pull their agenda, but they aren't terrorists, after all they are american citizens, and as such, deserve a measure of respect, instead of foreigners that attempt to eliminate the american citizens.

All americans that label violent activists as terrorists are traitors to their country, and no less.

So, we call Timothy McVeigh a "violent activist" then?
I think this is sarcasm.

There is no such thing as "domestic terrorists" in the United States. Those you are labeling as such are "violent activists". Terrorists are foreign opposers who want to topple the power of the most magnificent nation in the world. Domestic violent activists may have some problems regarding how they want to pull their agenda, but they aren't terrorists, after all they are american citizens, and as such, deserve a measure of respect, instead of foreigners that attempt to eliminate the american citizens.

All americans that label violent activists as terrorists are traitors to their country, and no less.

Are you actually trying to argue that American citizens cannot be terrorists?

So, we call Timothy McVeigh a "violent activist" then?

Both him and the "Unabomber" are perfect examples of what a "violent activist" is.

They are........ everywhere! but hush *shifty eyes*

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t69/zxc_047/poster9748928.jpg

Both him and the "Unabomber" are perfect examples of what a "violent activist" is.

No, they were terrorists.

Terrorists are foreign opposers who want to topple the power of the most magnificent nation in the world.

Which nation would that be ;) ?

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t69/zxc_047/poster9748928.jpg

*runs like the wind* (don't cross the street for the next minute or so okay ;) )

Aelosia, please tell me you're kidding...

I think this is sarcasm.
you never know now days
Aelosia, please tell me you're kidding...
i think they are not kidding
*runs like the wind* (don't cross the street for the next minute or so okay ;) )

i get about in Huey now days ;)

you never know now days

i think they are not kidding


i get about in Huey now days ;)

Just making sure.

And smart boy ;) *gives cookie*

Just making sure.

And smart boy ;) *gives cookie*

you just want me to land so you can get a ride in it don't you :p

There is no such thing as "domestic terrorists" in the United States. Those you are labeling as such are "violent activists". Terrorists are foreign opposers who want to topple the power of the most magnificent nation in the world. Domestic violent activists may have some problems regarding how they want to pull their agenda, but they aren't terrorists, after all they are american citizens, and as such, deserve a measure of respect, instead of foreigners that attempt to eliminate the american citizens.

All americans that label violent activists as terrorists are traitors to their country, and no less.

http://www.dsfanboy.com/media/2006/02/Sarcasm.jpg

Happy, people?

I thought you know me. I realize I need to post more.

Sorry Bottle, but can you send that to me in a memo entitled "Shit I already know"? :D

I agree. Domestic terrorists are a significantly greater threat than foreign terrorists.

Perhaps I should now proceed to detail the recipe for Hummus that I made last night and am eating now.

you just want me to land so you can get a ride in it don't you :p

yes *blushes*

Here! Cookie! Come fetch!

http://www.dsfanboy.com/media/2006/02/Sarcasm.jpg

Happy, people?

I thought you know me. I realize I need to post more.

Phew :) my beliefs were about to crumble to ruins!

Happy, people?

I thought you know me. I realize I need to post more.

I thought it was a little out of character for you, but without sarcasm tags I take posts at face value. This is NSG, after all, we thrive off of odd and inconsistent opinions.

I thought it was a little out of character for you, but without sarcasm tags I take posts at face value. This is NSG, after all, we thrive off of odd and inconsistent opinions.

Point taken. I'll use that image from now on.

http://www.dsfanboy.com/media/2006/02/Sarcasm.jpg

Happy, people?

I thought you know me. I realize I need to post more.
yes you do
yes *blushes*

Here! Cookie! Come fetch!

ha through so i'll land it in that park over there

I'm a white, heterosexual male. Right-wing terrorism is no threat to me.

yes you do


ha through so i'll land it in that park over there

Great -_- you just landed on my cat.

I'm a white, heterosexual male. Right-wing terrorism is no threat to me.

As long as you don't work near or commute by:

An abortion clinic
A post office
Any government facility/office.

If nothing else, domestic terrorists are more dangerous in that they don't have any trouble getting into the country.
I dont know why but that made me laugh, not because its wrong ...I guess because its so painfully obvious.

American
I voted Both.

The question about Concern...I am equally concerned about both because either no matter the chance of either happening to me is I end up dead or badly maimed or with dead or badly maimed family. That concerns me.

White seperatist violence(person or property) is terrorism.
ARA violence(person or property) is terrorism.
Animal Activist violence(person or property) is terrorism.
Extremist twisted Christian Crusader violence(person and property) is terrorism.
Blah blah blah.
Terrorism is a fecking buzz word nowadays.
I had a friend arrested on Threats of Terrorism. He said and I quote "I will burn you out of your fucking house and beat you down in front of your family"
Terrorism.

It does bother me when suddenly only BrownSkinned or Muslims are capable of terrorism.

If I plant a bomb I deserve my label just like anybody else.

Great -_- you just landed on my cat.

fudge :(

I'm a white, heterosexual male. Right-wing terrorism is no threat to me.
Innocent by-stander.
Sympathizer.

fudge :(

And she was pregnant!!!

Sorry Bottle, but can you send that to me in a memo entitled "Shit I already know"? :D

I agree. Domestic terrorists are a significantly greater threat than foreign terrorists.

I've asked a few people I know in person, and many were surprised at the question itself. They simply had never really given any thought to domestic terrorism, and some didn't even seem to know what I meant when I said "domestic terrorism." I had to provide examples (i.e. Oklahoma City, abortion clinic bombings, etc).

Yet everybody is very aware of "terrorism" as it is shown to us by mass media. "Terrorism" is brown people in turbans who don't speak our language. "Terrorism" is done to us because we're American and they hate our freedoms.

I know that by now I should not be bothered by the complete and utter failure of the American mainstream press. But I am.

The difference is that right-wing extremist groups are already heavily monitored, investigated, and infiltrated by US Government agents.

actually, the only thing that has prevented the nazis from pulling off the last couple chemical weapon attacks they've intended has been pure dumb luck. i think one of the dudes got pulled over for speeding.

and at this point it appears that sending anthrax to democrats and media personalities is treated sorta like a college parking violation (it seems you have to really fuck it up and be committing a hoax for them to do anything about it).

As long as you don't work near or commute by:

An abortion clinic
A post office
Any government facility/office.

don't forget jewish community centers, places where people of color can be found, restaurants, sporting events and schools.

Bottle just remember the press has turned the word "Terror/Terrorist/Terrorism" into ideological words...not what they really are. They are descriptive of crimes and or military tactics. Most never thought about it, and now the only example in their face is the wrong example. I remember years ago hearing about Abortion clinic bombings and it being called "Acts of Terrorism" but those days are gone. Now if your ideology isnt anti-american then you are not a terrorist...at least as far as mass opinion is concerned...I was always afraid of mass opinion anyway...it rarely seems to reflect what any one individual actually thinks or believes.

don't forget jewish community centers, places where people of color can be found, restaurants, sporting events and schools.

Churches, dont forget churches. People love to walk into churches and shoot up kids bible studies.

Or burned down African American Protestant churches.

I know that by now I should not be bothered by the complete and utter failure of the American mainstream press. But I am.

You should be bothered, but not surprised...

And she was pregnant!!!

fudge *4 :(

oh hey, what do you know, the guy that just went on a shooting rampage in the town i recently left in idaho (http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking/story.asp?ID=9985) was a member of the aryan nations. color me unsurprised. equally unsurprising is that the nazi fuck with domestic violence convictions had both a concealed carry license and a federal permit for automatic weapons. what was that about carefully monitoring again?

oh hey, what do you know, the guy that just went on a shooting rampage in the town i recently left in idaho (http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking/story.asp?ID=9985) was a member of the aryan nations. color me unsurprised. equally unsurprising is that the nazi fuck with domestic violence convictions had both a concealed carry license and a federal permit for automatic weapons. what was that about carefully monitoring again?
That's actually the story that led me to Neiwert's blog this morning. :(

That's actually the story that led me to Neiwert's blog this morning. :(

moscow has been a rather violent place recently. so has pullman for that matter. hooray for the safety of small towns in the middle of nowhere, i guess.

moscow has been a rather violent place recently. so has pullman for that matter. hooray for the safety of small towns in the middle of nowhere, i guess.

actually, i wonder what the place was like before the aryan nations lost their compound in hayden? i think cat-tribe was in the area then - anyone seen him around recently?

Domestic terrorists - they have far easier access. This is true for almost anywhere.

Domestic terrorists - they have far easier access. This is true for almost anywhere.

also, they often have either direct support from factions within the ruling elite or indirect support in the form of training with the nation's military. which helps them greatly in the domestic setting.

The difference is that right-wing extremist groups are already heavily monitored, investigated, and infiltrated by US Government agents.

We're nowhere near the level of monitoring, investigation, and infiltration of Islamic groups.

It's easier to get white guys into a right-wing extremist organization that speaks English.

It's nearly impossible to get white guys who speak English into an Islamic terrorist group (well, John Walker Lindh managed to get in, but he spent a lot of time studying Arabic to get in).

Hasn't the FBI been very successful in getting inside Islamic terror groups in the US? The Fort Dix Six. The Miami Seven. Of course, these groups have been so pathetic they've needed the FBI to plan for them and get them materials and such, but still...

I've asked a few people I know in person, and many were surprised at the question itself. They simply had never really given any thought to domestic terrorism, and some didn't even seem to know what I meant when I said "domestic terrorism." I had to provide examples (i.e. Oklahoma City, abortion clinic bombings, etc).

Yet everybody is very aware of "terrorism" as it is shown to us by mass media. "Terrorism" is brown people in turbans who don't speak our language. "Terrorism" is done to us because we're American and they hate our freedoms.

I know that by now I should not be bothered by the complete and utter failure of the American mainstream press. But I am.

I'm guessing that the kid from Liberty University who was off to blow up some protesters at the Falwell funeral won't be charged with terrorism either. You hate to reduce this kind of stuff to matters of religious or ethnic bias, but that's really what it comes down to, it seems.

Of course, these groups have been so pathetic they've needed the FBI to plan for them and get them materials and such

this is the one general bright side here - the main people of any sort attracted to terrorism as a tactic here (that don't work for the state, at least) are just stupid. for example, we have a significant nazi problem in the country, but since they are all such incompetent boobs, they rarely pull off anything particularly horrifying.

oh hey, what do you know, the guy that just went on a shooting rampage in the town i recently left in idaho (http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking/story.asp?ID=9985) was a member of the aryan nations. color me unsurprised. equally unsurprising is that the nazi fuck with domestic violence convictions had both a concealed carry license and a federal permit for automatic weapons. what was that about carefully monitoring again?

So I got to under go a FBI check through the TSA for my HAZMAT and domestic CHARGE not conviction can stop me from entering a CNA course but this guy had convictions and had a federal auto permit??? Wow.

this is the one general bright side here - the main people of any sort attracted to terrorism as a tactic here (that don't work for the state, at least) are just stupid. for example, we have a significant nazi problem in the country, but since they are all such incompetent boobs, they rarely pull off anything particularly horrifying.

And yet they're the master race.

"You're far more likely to be harmed in an attack by a right-wing domestic terrorist than anyone from Al Qaeda."

I encountered this statement while reading Orcinus, a blog written by David Neiwert. (If you haven't checked it out before, I strongly recommend it. Very interesting stuff.) Neiwert has a long history of addressing American domestic terrorism, particularly terrorism that is related to race and culture issues.

Neiwert also says, "Since the early 1990s, the vast majority of planned terrorist acts on American soil -- both those that were successfully perpetrated and those apprehended beforehand -- have involved white right-wing extremists. Between 1995 and 2000, over 42 such cases (some, like Eric Rudolph, involving multiple crimes) were identifiable from public records."

Myself, I'm always amazed by the way that acts of terror are reported by the media. If a white Christian tries to blow up an abortion clinic, you won't hear the word "terrorist" in the mainstream press. But if a brown-skinned non-Christian tries to shoot somebody, you'll get the T-word dropped like confetti.


NOTE: I have included a poll which is segregated based on whether or not you are American. This is because the bolded statement at the top of this post specifically refers to America and Americans. I am completely aware that there are other countries in the world, and I don't mean to slight any of you, but this happens to be a topic specifically about terrorism (foreign and domestic) and the USA. If you want to hate on Americo-centric thinking, I can make you a separate thread for that. :D

well it looks like domestic terrorism is a bigger threat because of the number attacks....I vote Domestic

Errr neither is a risk.

And yet they're the master race.

it's probably just performance anxiety. it's a lot of pressure knowing that you are inherently superior in every way, you know.

this probably also explains nazi erectile dysfunction.

it's probably just performance anxiety. it's a lot of pressure knowing that you are inherently superior in every way, you know.

this probably also explains nazi erectile dysfunction.

I don't think they have trouble getting their penises hard. It's just that, once they're hard, they still can't find them with both hands and a microscope.

I'm more afraid of getting my head bashed in with a bat for having a FSM magnet on my car, than getting blown up by a foreign terrorist.

If I was a woman, I would be nervous walking into an abortion clinic because of all the nut jobs.

Of course, lets not forget the radical right-wing Christians who want to restrict human and civil rights, which is just as bad, if not worse than terrorism in my opinion.

Domestic terrorism is more of a threat than foreign terrorism.

9/11 definitely tipped the balance toward foreign, or at least Muslim, terrorists.

Some people are difficult to classify, take John Muhammad, the 'beltway sniper' - was he a muslim terrorist or a 'domestic terrorist?'

Balkan kid who shot up the mall in Utah this year, he was a Muslim, but was he a Muslim or domestic terrorist?

I don't think they have trouble getting their penises hard. It's just that, once they're hard, they still can't find them with both hands and a microscope.

true enough. though it was my understanding that they have difficulty in that area with the ladies, unless they can get them to dress up "like jews that control the media"

Umm, obviously foreign. I don't remember the last time a Christian (I don't know why you are classifying them as right-wing) terrorist in America killed 3,000 people. The blogger is an idiot and Bottle, along with everyone who voted for the domestic option, has lost my respect.

Umm, obviously foreign. I don't remember the last time a Christian (I don't know why you are classifying them as right-wing) terrorist in America killed 3,000 people. The blogger is an idiot and Bottle, along with everyone who voted for the domestic option, has lost my respect.

I'm sure they'll be terribly upset by that :)

9/11 definitely tipped the balance toward foreign, or at least Muslim, terrorists.

Some people are difficult to classify, take John Muhammad, the 'beltway sniper' - was he a muslim terrorist or a 'domestic terrorist?'

Balkan kid who shot up the mall in Utah this year, he was a Muslim, but was he a Muslim or domestic terrorist?

Um... "Muslim terrorist"? You're missing the mark here.

John Muhammad would certainly be a domestic terrorist. A muslim domestic terrorist, but a domestic terrorist nonetheless.

I can't remember if the Balkan kid was a US national or not.

Umm, obviously foreign. I don't remember the last time a Christian (I don't know why you are classifying them as right-wing) terrorist in America killed 3,000 people.
First of all the only Christians who are terrorists are right-wing, and Christian terrorist attacks continue to happen, while the last attack by foreign terrorists was on 9/11.

Terrorism is about instilling fear (hence the terror), not about how many people you kill.

along with everyone who voted for the domestic option, has lost my respect.
What ever will I do without your respect?

First of all the only Christians who are terrorists are right-wing, and Christian terrorist attacks continue to happen, while the last attack by foreign terrorists was on 9/11.

7/7? The other multitude of terrorist attacks that were thwarted? The daily al-qaeda attacks in Iraq? And I'm quite sure that the death toll involved in Christian attacks is much much less than Islamic attacks. Finally, your statement that the only Christians who are terrorists are right-wing is the dumbest thing that I've ever heard. What about a Christian anarchist or Marxist?

No shit.

7/7? The other multitude of terrorist attacks that were thwarted?
Multitude? Exaggerating numbers now I suppose. Anyway, they were thwarted, yet the Christian attacks and threats are not.

The daily al-qaeda attacks in Iraq? And I'm quite sure that the death toll involved in Christian attacks is much much less than Islamic attacks.
First of all the Al-Qaeda in Iraq is different from the Al-Qaeda that attacked that us. Second of all, we are talking about domestic terrorism, not terrorism in other countries that have been engulfed in violence for thousands of years.

Finally, your statement that the only Christians who are terrorists are right-wing is the dumbest thing that I've ever heard. What about a Christian anarchist or Marxist?
When was the last time a Christian blew something up in the name of Anarchy/Communism? Also, if they did blow something up for a reason aside from their religious convictions, they are terrorists, not Christian terrorists.

Multitude? Exaggerating numbers now I suppose. Anyway, they were thwarted, yet the Christian attacks and threats are not.
Yet you have no proof of any of what you say. It is just what you want to believe.

First of all the Al-Qaeda in Iraq is different from the Al-Qaeda that attacked that us. Second of all, we are talking about domestic terrorism, not terrorism in other countries that have been engulfed in violence for thousands of years.
Umm, yes they are the same. That's like saying that the Navy is not a part of the military.

When was the last time a Christian blew something up in the name of Anarchy/Communism? Also, if they did blow something up for a reason aside from their religious convictions, they are terrorists, not Christian terrorists.

When was the last time and anti-abortion terrorist killed many people. They have only managed to kill 7 since 1977. I'm shaking in my boots. And if you want liberal terrorist groups then look at Earth Liberation Front and The Weatherman. I'm sure that there were Christians in those groups. Also the bombing of an LA times building in the name of unions. The wall street bombing by an anarchist.

7/7?

Domestic much?

edit: doublechecked. 7/7 was quite domestic.

The daily al-qaeda attacks in Iraq?

Is it Iraqis attacking Iraqis?

If so: Domestic.

Um... "Muslim terrorist"? You're missing the mark here.

John Muhammad would certainly be a domestic terrorist. A muslim domestic terrorist, but a domestic terrorist nonetheless.

I can't remember if the Balkan kid was a US national or not.


I think that citizen/non citizen is a distinction without a difference when talking about terrorism, since the citizenship of the terrorist doesn't necessarily have anything to do with his motives. I wouldn't consider Seung Cho to be a 'foreign terrorist,' even though he was a foreigner and apparently had some sort of quasi-political agenda and manifesto.

Islamic-inspired terrorism ought not be considered 'domestic terrorism' if a meaningful distinction is to be made, since it is part of an international, nation-ignoring movement and not rooted domestically.

I would consider right-wing christian, anti-government, anti-tax &c terrorism to be 'home-grown' and 'domestic' significantly, and islamic anti-western anti-secular terrorism to be significantly foreign.

When was the last time and anti-abortion terrorist killed many people. They have only managed to kill 7 since 1977. I'm shaking in my boots. And if you want liberal terrorist groups then look at Earth Liberation Front and The Weatherman. I'm sure that there were Christians in those groups. Also the bombing of an LA times building in the name of unions. The wall street bombing by an anarchist.

Anarchists aren't necessarily right-wing or left-wing, as far as I know ELF is responsible for the deaths of...let's check Wikipedia...

No one. ELF has never killed a single person. In fact, they are supposed to take special precautions against harming any human or animal.

Although I wouldn't expect you to know any of the above, since it might have challenged your views.

The Weathermen/Weather Underground have bombed a whole bunch of stuff, but the death tolls for these bombings are not on Wikipedia.

Oh, right, I forgot, Wikipedia has a liberal bias. :rolleyes:

Umm, obviously foreign. I don't remember the last time a Christian (I don't know why you are classifying them as right-wing) terrorist in America killed 3,000 people.

two issues:
1) statistical outliers are not a solid place to ground anything. especially ones as extremely far from the norm as that.
2) they are called right-wing because they are right-wing

I think that citizen/non citizen is a distinction without a difference when talking about terrorism, since the citizenship of the terrorist doesn't necessarily have anything to do with his motives. I wouldn't consider Seung Cho to be a 'foreign terrorist,' even though he was a foreigner and apparently had some sort of quasi-political agenda and manifesto.

Islamic-inspired terrorism ought not be considered 'domestic terrorism' if a meaningful distinction is to be made, since it is part of an international, nation-ignoring movement and not rooted domestically.

I would consider right-wing christian, anti-government, anti-tax &c terrorism to be 'home-grown' and 'domestic' significantly, and islamic anti-western anti-secular terrorism to be significantly foreign.

The difference between domestic and international terrorism is that domestic terrorists have a greater understanding of what needs to be done to terrorize. They are already there and don't need permission to be there or get in.

It's plainly easier to carry out an attack on the US or any other country by being in the US or in the respective country.

Yet you have no proof of any of what you say. It is just what you want to believe.
I don't feel like linking the dozens if not hundreds of links to abortion clinic bombings. Just Google "Abortion Clinic Bombings". There is your proof.

Umm, yes they are the same. That's like saying that the Navy is not a part of the military.
No, they are not. The Al-Qaeda in Iraq has a completely different mission and belief than the Al-Qaeda who carried out 9/11.

When was the last time and anti-abortion terrorist killed many people. They have only managed to kill 7 since 1977. I'm shaking in my boots.
Where do you get your facts? Regardless of how many people have been killed, terrorism is not all about killing a bunch of people, its about intimidation to achieve a goal. The way they accomplish this does not matter.

And if you want liberal terrorist groups then look at Earth Liberation Front and The Weatherman. I'm sure that there were Christians in those groups.
Fair enough. I retract my statement that all Christian terrorists are right-wing. Only the vast majority are.

Also the bombing of an LA times building in the name of unions.
Unions are unions, they have nothing to do with Liberals.

The wall street bombing by an anarchist.
Obviously an anarchist is not a Liberal.

The wall street bombing by an anarchist.

while we'll take it (yay, we invented the car bomb!), that remains unsolved, no? and seriously, reaching back to 1920?

while we'll take it (yay, we invented the car bomb!), that remains unsolved, no? and seriously, reaching back to 1920?

Hell, if he can reach way the fuck back, why can't we?

EXPLAIN THIS BUSINESS WITH THE SPANISH INQUISITION!

"Hurry! Get in the car..."

I don't feel like linking the dozens if not hundreds of links to abortion clinic bombings. Just Google "Abortion Clinic Bombings". There is your proof.
I did and I found that there have only been 7 deaths in 30 years.


No, they are not. The Al-Qaeda in Iraq has a completely different mission and belief than the Al-Qaeda who carried out 9/11.
Psyche.

Where do you get your facts? Regardless of how many people have been killed, terrorism is not all about killing a bunch of people, its about intimidation to achieve a goal. The way they accomplish this does not matter.
Yes it does. It is what we are talking about. How big of a threat something is relates directly to killings.

Unions are unions, they have nothing to do with Liberals.
That is so dumb that it's not even funny. Unions are clearly a liberal institution.

Obviously an anarchist is not a Liberal.
Let me explain this to you slowly. Totalitarian is on the far right, and no gov't is the far left.

two issues:
1) statistical outliers are not a solid place to ground anything. especially ones as extremely far from the norm as that.
2) they are called right-wing because they are right-wing

Terrorism relies on statistical outliers. They can't possible sustain any violence in an unfriendly country for very long. And you can read the other posts about number two.

Let me explain this to you slowly. Totalitarian is on the far right, and no gov't is the far left.

So... the Soviet Union was far right?

Does that make the Republicans = Communists?

I did and I found that there have only been 7 deaths in 30 years.

Yet you brought up a alleged bombing by liberals that happened over EIGHTY years ago. Why don't you go back 80 years and see how many terrorist attack have been perpetrated by right-wingers.

Also, you still have not addressed the fact that ELF has never killed anyone.


That is so dumb that it's not even funny. Unions are clearly a liberal institution.

If not for unions, the second you left the military you claim to be in you would be working 6 days a week for basically no pay in high risk conditions. So why don't you do a little research and come back.


Let me explain this to you slowly. Totalitarian is on the far right, and no gov't is the far left.

Bullshit. Weren't the Oklahoma City Bombers (Or whatever...the guys who blew up that federal building) Anarchists?

That is so dumb that it's not even funny. Unions are clearly a liberal institution.
You've yet to define "liberal", so... No.

Anarchists aren't necessarily right-wing or left-wing, as far as I know ELF is responsible for the deaths of...let's check Wikipedia...

No one. ELF has never killed a single person. In fact, they are supposed to take special precautions against harming any human or animal.
Which supports my view that domestic terrorism is not as great of a threat. And I'm going to define domestic as no foreign influence. 7/7 bombers were aided by people in Pakistan to my knowledge. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The Weathermen/Weather Underground have bombed a whole bunch of stuff, but the death tolls for these bombings are not on Wikipedia.

We'll have to find that info.

Get back on topic please, this is about domestic terrorists :p Not left or right, muslim or christian.

It's just about domestic versus international terrorism.

The biggest terrorist in America today is people that don't know how to drive and fast food outlets. Consider the amount of people killed in car accidents and from the variety of ailments you can get from fast food.

So... the Soviet Union was far right?

Does that make the Republicans = Communists?

The USSR obviously didn't follow the true Marxist communist ideal of complete equality perfectly. Or at all.

So... the Soviet Union was far right?

Does that make the Republicans = Communists?

First of all, he claimed that totalitarianism is a far-right ideology, which, by convention, is accepted to be true by almost all political scientists. However, a state is a complex organization which defies attempts at categorization by simply one measure; others also have to be taken into account. For example, although the USSR was authoritarian, it adhered to radical-left economic principles. That mixture of authoritarianism and radical leftism is deemed "communism." However, center-right parties in the US, such as the Republican Party, can neither be termed "far-right" nor can they be called "communist."

A level of federal focus on international terrorists , especially Al-Qaeda associated groups, comparable to domestic terrorists is warranted for several reaons. First is their international nature, which is specifically relegated to the the federal domain, as compared to the ability of the states themselves to be able to handle with domestic terrorists, whose crimes are rarely interstate.

Second is the focus of groups, especially Al Qaeda, on carrying out mega-attacks cannot be disregarded. Most of the domestic terrorists (with a few exceptions) tend to operate on a small and low visibility basis. Let's face it, bombing an abortion clinic in Tucson and killing a small handful of people at most is not on the same level as leveling the World Trade Center and killing nearly three thousand. Not all terrorist events are equal.

Risk is a function of likelihood and potential damage, and when discussing domestic, vs. international terrorism it is impossible to overcome many of these facts.

Which supports my view that domestic terrorism is not as great of a threat. And I'm going to define domestic as no foreign influence. 7/7 bombers were aided by people in Pakistan to my knowledge. Correct me if I'm wrong.

That's just a stupid definition. It involved domestic terrorists and they were clearly the main threat. Had you removed the domestic terrorists, it wouldn't have occurred. Hence, it is domestic terrorism. Also, Pakistan is part of the Commonwealth (eh, can someone confirm this for me? I'm not entirely sure who decided not to be part of the commonwealth, but they definitely used to be) and technically part of Great Britain by proxy (if it holds true).

First of all, he claimed that totalitarianism is a far-right ideology, which, by convention, is accepted to be true by almost all political scientists. However, a state is a complex organization which defies attempts at categorization by simply one measure; others also have to be taken into account. For example, although the USSR was authoritarian, it adhered to radical-left economic principles. That mixture of authoritarianism and radical leftism is deemed "communism." However, center-right parties in the US, such as the Republican Party, can neither be termed "far-right" nor can they be called "communist."

Eh, republicans aren't center-right. Democrats are. Republicans are merely right.

Which supports my view that domestic terrorism is not as great of a threat.

Bullshit. You were just saying left-wing terrorist organizations such as ELF were more dangerous then abortion clinic bombers.

You claim abortion clinic bombers have killed seven people in the past twenty years, whereas ELF has killed none.

Mathematically, this means that right-wing abortion clinic bombers have killed INFINITELY more people then left-wing ELF members.

A level of federal focus on international terrorists , especially Al-Qaeda associated groups, comparable to domestic terrorists is warranted for several reaons. First is their international nature, which is specifically relegated to the the federal domain, as compared to the ability of the states themselves to be able to handle with domestic terrorists, whose crimes are rarely interstate.

Second is the focus of groups, especially Al Qaeda, on carrying out mega-attacks cannot be disregarded. Most of the domestic terrorists (with a few exceptions) tend to operate on a small and low visibility basis. Let's face it, bombing an abortion clinic in Tucson and killing a small handful of people at most is not on the same level as leveling the World Trade Center and killing nearly three thousand. Not all terrorist events are equal.

Risk is a function of likelihood and potential damage, and when discussing domestic, vs. international terrorism it is impossible to overcome many of these facts.

While I agree that, on a federal level, it makes more sense to hunt international terrorists, that doesn't change that domestic terrorists are a greater risk overall.

Yes it does. It is what we are talking about. How big of a threat something is relates directly to killings.
Foreign terrorism hasn't done as much to our country as internal terrorism has. Thus, even if it doesn't kill people, it affected us, hence achieving a goal.

That is so dumb that it's not even funny. Unions are clearly a liberal institution.
Conservatives are in unions and own unions also.

Let me explain this to you slowly. Totalitarian is on the far right, and no gov't is the far left.
Let me reiterate your own words, then explain their meaning slowly.

-You said you would give an example of "Liberal terrorism"
-You listed an anarchist bombing

Now, lets explain a parallel. If a totalitarian bombs a court house, do I say the totalitarian was a conservative? No, because he is totalitarian, not conservative.

Yet you brought up a alleged bombing by liberals that happened over EIGHTY years ago. Why don't you go back 80 years and see how many terrorist attack have been perpetrated by right-wingers.

Also, you still have not addressed the fact that ELF has never killed anyone.
Yes i did. Look up.


If not for unions, the second you left the military you claim to be in you would be working 6 days a week for basically no pay in high risk conditions. So why don't you do a little research and come back.
This isn't a thread about economic theories. It is about terrorism. And I'm either looking for a gov't job in the next year or so or making a career of it so it's really not an issue for me.


Bullshit. Weren't the Oklahoma City Bombers (Or whatever...the guys who blew up that federal building) Anarchists?
That is up to debate. According to wiki some claim that he began having those feelings during the Gulf War but others say that that is disproved when he decided to try to make SF.

Now, lets explain a parallel. If a totalitarian bombs a court house, do I say the totalitarian was a conservative? No, because he is totalitarian, not conservative.

That doesn't make any sense. Why would a totalitarian bomb a gov't building?

Bullshit. You were just saying left-wing terrorist organizations such as ELF were more dangerous then abortion clinic bombers.

You claim abortion clinic bombers have killed seven people in the past twenty years, whereas ELF has killed none.

Mathematically, this means that right-wing abortion clinic bombers have killed INFINITELY more people then left-wing ELF members.

No, I was saying that not all domestic terrorists are right-wing. And it was in the past 30 years. I got it off of wiki if you want to see it also.

That doesn't make any sense. Why would a totalitarian bomb a gov't building?
I just picked a random building. Switch court house to a building that opposes the government. Happy?

That's just a stupid definition. It involved domestic terrorists and they were clearly the main threat. Had you removed the domestic terrorists, it wouldn't have occurred. Hence, it is domestic terrorism. Also, Pakistan is part of the Commonwealth (eh, can someone confirm this for me? I'm not entirely sure who decided not to be part of the commonwealth, but they definitely used to be) and technically part of Great Britain by proxy (if it holds true).

The reason behind the terrorism is much more important than who did it. If al-qaeda recruited an American to bomb a subway would it be domestic terrorism? I wouldn't call it that. Plus we all know that the OP was talking about Islamic terrorism vs all other terrorism. And I'm fairly sure that Pakistan withdrew in '47.

I just picked a random building. Switch court house to a building that opposes the government. Happy?

Then the answer to your question is yes. You would call them an extreme conservative. AKA fascist or totalitarian.

The reason behind the terrorism is much more important than who did it. If al-qaeda recruited an American to bomb a subway would it be domestic terrorism? I wouldn't call it that.
If someone from the country commits an act of terror in his country, it is domestic terrorism. Who recruited him and convinced him to blow up a subway does not matter.

Plus we all know that the OP was talking about Islamic terrorism vs all other terrorism.
If that was his intention, he would not have said domestic terrorism. You are aware that there are more terrorists than Islam extremists, right?

Then the answer to your question is yes. You would call them an extreme conservative. AKA fascist or totalitarian.
That doesn't make any sense. He did it in the name of totalitarianism, not conservatism.

The reason behind the terrorism is much more important than who did it. If al-qaeda recruited an American to bomb a subway would it be domestic terrorism? I wouldn't call it that. Plus we all know that the OP was talking about Islamic terrorism vs all other terrorism. And I'm fairly sure that Pakistan withdrew in '47.

And no, the OP was Not talking about Islamic terrorism vs all other terrorism. I'm not either.

It's very clear that domestic terrorists are a greater threat, because they have an infinitely higher interest in changing things than international terrorists do. Just check out the IRA or the ETA.

Eh, republicans aren't center-right. Democrats are. Republicans are merely right.

If anything, Republicans are centrists whereas Democrats range from center-left to far-left.

If anything, Republicans are centrists whereas Democrats range from center-left to far-left.

No, really, try living here and then you'll know what left means. America barely has a hint of left in its politics.

For example: Do you have free education? Do you pay students to study? Do you have free healthcare?

More importantly: Do you encourage people to occupy houses that aren't being used by anyone? Do you support unions, minimum-wage and giving the employee more power than the employer? Does 'Christiania' have a right to exist as it does?

My guess is that, for most democrats, the answer to a lot of those question is "no" with some of them being "yes" which puts them, at best, on center.

That doesn't make any sense. Why would a totalitarian bomb a gov't building?

because the government is zionist occupied, usually. or so they can blame it on the commies.

If anything, Republicans are centrists whereas Democrats range from center-left to far-left.

so whose puppet are you again?

because the government is zionist occupied, usually. or so they can blame it on the commies.

Heh heh. Are you really so blinded by your Islamic faith that you believe that tripe?

Heh heh. Are you really so blinded by your Islamic faith that you believe that tripe?

Might just have been a way to explain why a totalitarian would bomb a government building :p

If I were a zionist fighting against an islamic state, both could be totalitarian. Switch it around and it still holds true. Hence why a totalitarian Can bomb a government building and Still be totalitarian.

And no, the OP was Not talking about Islamic terrorism vs all other terrorism. I'm not either.

It's very clear that domestic terrorists are a greater threat, because they have an infinitely higher interest in changing things than international terrorists do. Just check out the IRA or the ETA.

I believe that we are talking about America. If we look here then we see that domestic terrorists have killed something like 300 in the past decades whereas foreign terrorists have killed thousands.

If someone from the country commits an act of terror in his country, it is domestic terrorism. Who recruited him and convinced him to blow up a subway does not matter.
When I say foreign terrorism you know what I mean. That is all that matters.


That doesn't make any sense. He did it in the name of totalitarianism, not conservatism.
And totalitarianism=far far right=facism.

I believe that we are talking about America. If we look here then we see that domestic terrorists have killed something like 300 in the past decades whereas foreign terrorists have killed thousands.

Generally speaking, domestic terrorists are a far greater threat.

Heh heh. Are you really so blinded by your Islamic faith that you believe that tripe?

wha?

Generally speaking, domestic terrorists are a far greater threat.

Generally speaking, 300 is less than thousands.

Generally speaking, 300 is less than thousands.

Doesn't change the fact that the day domestic terrorists get a foothold in the US, you're far more screwed than you'll ever be today.

Doesn't change the fact that the day domestic terrorists get a foothold in the US, you're far more screwed than you'll ever be today.

Domestic terrorists, not so much. Insurgents. Yeah, then we have a problem.

I voted for domestic, since I believe domestic concerns are more important than foreign ones. However, as a conservative, I do not agree with your labelling of the 'right-wing'. edit: It's equally likely for a domestic terrorist to be an Al-Qaeda as any other.

I believe that we are talking about America. If we look here then we see that domestic terrorists have killed something like 300 in the past decades whereas foreign terrorists have killed thousands.

only because we have generally been quite successful at stopping the neo-nazi and white supremacist fucktards before they launch nerve gas attacks or blow up large propane facilities in northern california, etc. the sheer scale of the shit we've stopped these guys from blows al-q out of the water. again, you've got a sampling error placing way too much emphasis on a statistical outlier.

However, as a conservative, I do not agree with your labelling of the 'right-wing'.

pobrecito

only because we have generally been quite successful at stopping the neo-nazi and white supremacist fucktards before they launch nerve gas attacks or blow up large propane facilities in northern california, etc. the sheer scale of the shit we've stopped these guys from blows al-q out of the water. again, you've got a sampling error placing way too much emphasis on a statistical outlier.

This isn't a poll. It is a tally of every person that has died b/c of each. There are no outliers in terrorism. And some sources for those examples would be appreciated.

wha?

I think he thinks you're Sovietistan...

This isn't a poll. It is a tally of every person that has died b/c of each. There are no outliers in terrorism. And some sources for those examples would be appreciated.

tally of deaths caused thus far has fuck all to do with level of threat posed by each group

as for some sources, start with these:

http://www.kltv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1562621
Found in Noonday were hundreds of bombs and machine guns, and 500,000 rounds of ammunition. The inventory list of what was found is extensive. But the most startling discovery was the combination of sodium cyanide, acid and gunpowder. Mixed together it becomes a lethal chemical bomb capable of killing everyone inside a 30,000 square foot building. Authorities believed Krar a threat to national security, suspecting him of being a part of a "criminal scheme" to violently attack the U.S. Government.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/13/anti_government_white_supremacist_guilty/
A federal jury convicted a white supremacist Thursday of attempting to acquire chemical weapons and explosives to destroy government buildings.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/militia/militia22.html
Federal agents have arrested two anti-government militia members in connection with an alleged plan to blow up a huge propane storage facility, federal officials said Saturday. The arrests on Friday came after a nearly yearlong investigation by the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force into a potential threat against the Suburban Propane facility in Elk Grove and other targets in the Sacramento area, the U.S. Attorney's Office said in a statement

and so on. there are fucking tons of these kinds of things. not to mention the huge number of lesser hate crimes and bombing and shooting sprees the fucktards engage in continuously.

For example: Do you have free education?

Of course; the state provides 13 years of free education for every American child. We also have programs whereby especially talented college-bound seniors may receive scholarships, but we generally agree that only a GED is required to be a functioning member of the workforce and only exceptional students should be willing to spend money on college. Anything more would be a total waste of the taxpayers' money.

Do you pay students to study?

Certainly not! What an absurd idea! Are you honestly suggesting that we should pay someone else to encourage them to make something of their life? Hah!

Do you have free healthcare?

Indeed we do. Hospitals cannot deny someone entrance in a crisis solely because that person cannot afford the services rendered. We also have a number of free clinics which cost the patient nothing.

Do you encourage people to occupy houses that aren't being used by anyone?

The mechanism for such encouraging is called the "free market." If a house is unoccupied, then the landlord will act in order to maximize his profit; therefore, it will be sold to the highest bidder.

Do you support unions

Alas, the US does support such noxious monopolies on labor (although this is particularly sad, as they drain the life-blood of this country: private initiate and business).

minimum-wage

We do support such unemployment-increasing measures, yes, although I would prefer it if we rejected such socialist influences

giving the employee more power than the employer?

The employer has the right to decide whether or not to accept a given contract or not: thus, he possesses all the power. Our system is predicated upon free will; the employee can choose to terminate his employment at any given time, and thus has full power; the employer, however, must contend with numerous bureaucratic restrictions which restrain his business from attaining its full potential. This does need to be rectified by giving businesses more power: I do agree with you on that.

Does 'Christiania' have a right to exist as it does?

I am not aware of what "Christiania" is.

Define "Domestic Terrorist."

the problem is that most acts that you might want to lump into that are already called something else, and not because of racism or xenophobia.

If a zealot blows up an abortion clinic, that would strike me as an act of terrorism, but what about something less obvious, like a bunch of KKK freaks lynching a black man? You could argue it either way. Meant to scare minorities? Sure. Comparable to blowing up a buss full of people or a building full of people? not so much. I believe that's what they use the term "hate crime" for.

So maybe Terrorism is just a hate crime on steroids. If so, then the average American has to make his or her own judgement of their level of risk based upon their own demographic and location. if I were a black man living in Montanna, I might be more inclined to be concerned about KKK activity than an Al-Qaeda strike. If I were a white guy living near Harlem, same story. On the other hand if I'm working in or near a tempting International terrorist target, then it tends to change the perspective.

Of course; the state provides 13 years of free education for every American child. We also have programs whereby especially talented college-bound seniors may receive scholarships, but we generally agree that only a GED is required to be a functioning member of the workforce and only exceptional students should be willing to spend money on college. Anything more would be a total waste of the taxpayers' money.

Well, here's the funny thing: left would encourage higher education as well.

Certainly not! What an absurd idea! Are you honestly suggesting that we should pay someone else to encourage them to make something of their life? Hah!

Yes, in fact I am. That's exactly what I am being paid to do.

Indeed we do. Hospitals cannot deny someone entrance in a crisis solely because that person cannot afford the services rendered. We also have a number of free clinics which cost the patient nothing.

But you do not have generally free healthcare.

The mechanism for such encouraging is called the "free market." If a house is unoccupied, then the landlord will act in order to maximize his profit; therefore, it will be sold to the highest bidder.

Not sold, occupied.

Alas, the US does support such noxious monopolies on labor (although this is particularly sad, as they drain the life-blood of this country: private initiate and business).

Hardly. The most wealthiest nations are those with the strongest Union forces.

We do support such unemployment-increasing measures, yes, although I would prefer it if we rejected such socialist influences

And are, as such, not leftist.

I am not aware of what "Christiania" is.

Christiania is a free town in Copenhagen. It occupies abandoned military barracks that were, well, abandoned. They were given these buildings, but generally form their own laws and try to live seperately from the rest of society.

They're about as leftist as you can get.

Umm, obviously foreign. I don't remember the last time a Christian (I don't know why you are classifying them as right-wing) terrorist in America killed 3,000 people. The blogger is an idiot and Bottle, along with everyone who voted for the domestic option, has lost my respect.

I can't tell you how distraught that has made me. :rolleyes:

I can't tell you how distraught that has made me. :rolleyes:

Don't worry. As long as you're repentant, I'm sure you'll be forgiven for your flawed views. The important thing is admitting that you were wrong; nobody is perfect, and it would be foolish to hold someone to an impossible standard.

Domestic terrorism is the bigger threat, judging by the sheer numbers of attacks and thwarted attacks.

Don't worry. As long as you're repentant, I'm sure you'll be forgiven for your flawed views. The important thing is admitting that you were wrong; nobody is perfect, and it would be foolish to hold someone to an impossible standard.

Oh, I've been wrong before. Not on this, and not on much, but I have been wrong and I've admitted it. Of course, I spend much more time pointing out how you're wrong than I spend apologizing for my mistakes, but that's the ballpark I play in.

I'm an American and I voted "both/neither," by which I meant both AND neither.

I do not consider terrorism to be a major or particularly special or noteworthy threat at all, no matter where it comes from. It's not as if the US has never dealt with it before -- overwhelmingly domestic, btw -- and judging by the way Americans seem to have been totally ignorant of its existence in the past, we have obviously not felt threatened by it.

So I say, treat domestic and foreign terrorism exactly the same and put them both in their proper place in the spectrum of potential disasters. And that spectrum shifts depending on who you are, where you are and what you are doing. So, people living in the wastelands of the midwest should be far more concerned with tracking tornados than Arabs, while people in major cities should perhaps be a little more wary about opening other people's mail or kicking abandoned packages on the street. But it even varies from city to city. New Orleans is at far greater risk of major destruction from the ocean than from any terrorist of any kind.

Frankly, I can see no reason to rank foreign terrorism as more dangerous or in any way worse than domestic terrorism except as a tool for promoting war. In other words, a cheap, cynical, political ploy.

Umm, obviously foreign. I don't remember the last time a Christian (I don't know why you are classifying them as right-wing) terrorist in America killed 3,000 people. The blogger is an idiot and Bottle, along with everyone who voted for the domestic option, has lost my respect.
As crushed as I am by the loss of your respect (who are you, again?), I still feel compelled to suggest that you re-read the OP and think more closely about the points that were made. You appear to have missed the point.

Plus we all know that the OP was talking about Islamic terrorism vs all other terrorism.
Confirmed: you did miss the point.

You are wrong. The OP was not talking about Islamic terrorism vs. all other terrorism. If the OP had wanted to talk about that, the OP would say so.

I believe that we are talking about America. If we look here then we see that domestic terrorists have killed something like 300 in the past decades whereas foreign terrorists have killed thousands.

You're missing the point. If we want to know which is more likely to occur between foreign and domestic terrorism, we look up the amount of occurences and not the death toll.

You are telling us that oranges cost more than apples while we want to know which is more likely to be found in New Hampshire. While interesting to know, it does nothing to help us find our answer.

never heard a dam thing about them if we have them

We probably have a few, though most of what we have are some freaky groups that don't do violent stuff.

Perhaps I should now proceed to detail the recipe for Hummus that I made last night and am eating now.

Please do (just for kicks).

Don't more people get harmed and killed by improper use of farm machinery than terrorism of any sort?

They didn't on September 11, 2001.

Any terrorism related threat to the US citizenry is more likely to come from the government, in some sort of response to an apparent terrorist threat, than from a terrorist, in my opinion.

I agree with you on THAT one; it sounds just like our 'Dearly Beloved United States Federal Government' to classify people of a specific religion as terrorists and go after them tooth-and-toenail, while the REAL terrorists are not only allowed to come, they are actually INVITED in the name of 'multiculturalism' and 'cultural diversity', which is little more than LEFT-wing terrorism (and NO, 'left-wing terrorism' is NOT an oxymoron).

If you ask me, they're equally bad.

Please do (just for kicks).

2 15 oz cans of Chick Peas
2 cloves of garlic (I'm actually fairly certain cloves is the wrong word. In fact I'm fairly certain that clove means the entire thing of garlic, whereas I mean only 2 pieces from that clover. Indians...)
Salt as needed
Black Pepper as needed
Red Pepper as needed
Cumin Powder as needed
1 Teaspoon of Lemon Juice
2 Tablespoon of Tahini sauce
2 Tablespoons of Olive Oil (preferablly extra virgin)
1 cup water


Put chick peas and garlic into food processor, process until chopped. Add water, olive oil, and lemon juice and continue to process until it forms into a paste (you'll probably have to stop periodically to scrape the sides and keep it uniform) Taste. Add spices. Process. Taste, add spices, and process.

Store


Apparently the kids at my sisters school liked my hummus so much they ate it all and she got stuck with basically 50% of her lunch eaten by her friends. Made my happy that a bunch of strangers, some of which are familiar with hummus, loved my creation.

The real danger is these right-wing terrorists are actually the supposedly 'democratic' and 'legitimately elected' government, then they control the investigations of law, and then their terrorism is somehow legitimate because it is state-sponsored, murder and and aggressive invasion are somehow allowed, in such an environment now the terrorists are the law and the people the criminals. The greatest threat is this new right-wing extremist ideology called 'Neo Conservativism' which has infiltrated the US and even other countries. If we start to fear these phantom foreign enemies they create, then we are the victims of terrorism, and are nothing but tools of the state.

In terms of killed I'll confirm the right-wing neoconservatives have killed tens of thousands, possibly more in Iraq and elsewhere.

2 15 oz cans of Chick Peas
2 cloves of garlic (I'm actually fairly certain cloves is the wrong word. In fact I'm fairly certain that clove means the entire thing of garlic, whereas I mean only 2 pieces from that clover. Indians...)

It'd just be a single piece/clove

Salt as needed
Black Pepper as needed
Red Pepper as needed
Cumin Powder as needed
1 Teaspoon of Lemon Juice
2 Tablespoon of Tahini sauce
2 Tablespoons of Olive Oil (preferablly extra virgin)
1 cup water

Pepper=capsicum in this case?

Put chick peas and garlic into food processor, process until chopped. Add water, olive oil, and lemon juice and continue to process until it forms into a paste (you'll probably have to stop periodically to scrape the sides and keep it uniform) Taste. Add spices. Process. Taste, add spices, and process.

Have you tried it with everything put in at once?

It'd just be a single piece/clove

Ok, so two cloves of garlic

Pepper=capsicum in this case?

I use crushed red and black pepper. You'd have to dry the capsicum or it'd probably not chop/blend as well.

Have you tried it with everything put in at once?

Yes, but generally I add the spices once I've got the consistency right, so that I'm not adjusting the spice content a hundred times.
Consistency is key, the cup of water may turn out to be a cup and a half or two cups depending on how thick you want it. And that in turn affects the spice kick.

Nope. The OP is wrong. It's environmental terrorists so says the FBI.

I'm an American and I voted "both/neither," by which I meant both AND neither.

I do not consider terrorism to be a major or particularly special or noteworthy threat at all, no matter where it comes from. It's not as if the US has never dealt with it before -- overwhelmingly domestic, btw -- and judging by the way Americans seem to have been totally ignorant of its existence in the past, we have obviously not felt threatened by it.

So I say, treat domestic and foreign terrorism exactly the same and put them both in their proper place in the spectrum of potential disasters. And that spectrum shifts depending on who you are, where you are and what you are doing. So, people living in the wastelands of the midwest should be far more concerned with tracking tornados than Arabs, while people in major cities should perhaps be a little more wary about opening other people's mail or kicking abandoned packages on the street. But it even varies from city to city. New Orleans is at far greater risk of major destruction from the ocean than from any terrorist of any kind.

Frankly, I can see no reason to rank foreign terrorism as more dangerous or in any way worse than domestic terrorism except as a tool for promoting war. In other words, a cheap, cynical, political ploy.

Thank you for making my post for me. ;)

"You're far more likely to be harmed in an attack by a right-wing domestic terrorist than anyone from Al Qaeda."

I encountered this statement while reading Orcinus, a blog written by David Neiwert. (If you haven't checked it out before, I strongly recommend it. Very interesting stuff.) Neiwert has a long history of addressing American domestic terrorism, particularly terrorism that is related to race and culture issues.

Neiwert also says, "Since the early 1990s, the vast majority of planned terrorist acts on American soil -- both those that were successfully perpetrated and those apprehended beforehand -- have involved white right-wing extremists. Between 1995 and 2000, over 42 such cases (some, like Eric Rudolph, involving multiple crimes) were identifiable from public records."

Myself, I'm always amazed by the way that acts of terror are reported by the media. If a white Christian tries to blow up an abortion clinic, you won't hear the word "terrorist" in the mainstream press. But if a brown-skinned non-Christian tries to shoot somebody, you'll get the T-word dropped like confetti.


NOTE: I have included a poll which is segregated based on whether or not you are American. This is because the bolded statement at the top of this post specifically refers to America and Americans. I am completely aware that there are other countries in the world, and I don't mean to slight any of you, but this happens to be a topic specifically about terrorism (foreign and domestic) and the USA. If you want to hate on Americo-centric thinking, I can make you a separate thread for that. :D

Lol, obviously the idiot didn't read this (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0524072torture1.html).

Nope. The OP is wrong. It's environmental terrorists so says the FBI.

which would be amusing if it wasn't scary how badly they down play the fucking nazis that keep fucking killing people (recently including a multiple homicide a few blocks from the apartment i just moved out of) and hype something that isn't even terrorism under any meaningful definition.

NOTE: I have included a poll which is segregated based on whether or not you are American. This is because the bolded statement at the top of this post specifically refers to America and Americans. I am completely aware that there are other countries in the world, and I don't mean to slight any of you, but this happens to be a topic specifically about terrorism (foreign and domestic) and the USA. If you want to hate on Americo-centric thinking, I can make you a separate thread for that

what about those of us with dual natioanality? :p

I am glad you posted the link to that blog...interesting reading!

cheers!

I agree with you on THAT one; it sounds just like our 'Dearly Beloved United States Federal Government' to classify people of a specific religion as terrorists and go after them tooth-and-toenail, while the REAL terrorists are not only allowed to come, they are actually INVITED in the name of 'multiculturalism' and 'cultural diversity', which is little more than LEFT-wing terrorism (and NO, 'left-wing terrorism' is NOT an oxymoron).Er...how is multiculturalism and diversity terrorism?
Furthermore, the terrorists are already here, as the majority of them were born and raised here.

Nope. The OP is wrong. It's environmental terrorists so says the FBI.Because right-wing terrorist groups are frequently left off of those types of lists.

Lol, obviously the idiot didn't read this (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0524072torture1.html).

The arguement wasn't that Al Qaeda doesn't harm anybody, but that you're more likely to be harmed by domestic terrorist cause they are already here.

Lol, obviously the idiot didn't read this (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0524072torture1.html).
I've read that, and worse. Doesn't in any way impact the point I was making.

what about those of us with dual natioanality? :p

Clearly you hate America. ;)

"You're far more likely to be harmed in an attack by a right-wing domestic terrorist than anyone from Al Qaeda."

always has been. always will be.
and the repression of civil rights only breeds more of it.

which pseudo-conservative fear mongers know perfectly well
and count on most people to not realize

=^^=
.../\...

which would be amusing if it wasn't scary how badly they down play the fucking nazis that keep fucking killing people (recently including a multiple homicide a few blocks from the apartment i just moved out of) and hype something that isn't even terrorism under any meaningful definition.
Ah, I see. So blowing up houses, cars, spiking trees to kill loggers, etc. with the intent of scary people into behaving a certain way isn't terrorism? I'm just saying that the FBI says that environmental terrorism is at the top of the list for domestic terrorism.

Just because you support a cause doesn't mean that the actions taken by a specific group aren't terroristic in nature.

Ah, I see. So blowing up houses, cars, spiking trees to kill loggers, etc. with the intent of scary people into behaving a certain way isn't terrorism?

burning empty houses that are still under construction and burning cars at car dealerships are acts of sabotage, not terrorism. as for tree spiking, if it ever kills loggers it is because the spikers utterly failed at what they were doing. the point is to stop the trees from being cut, not to damage a logger's chainsaw. this is why spiking is always accompanied with informing the logging company that it has been done.

none of these actions are meaningfully terroristic, as they do not terrorize the general public or even any particular subset of it, nor do they aim violence at non-combatants in order to force others to behave differently. this is all sabotage, pure and simple.

burning empty houses that are still under construction and burning cars at car dealerships are acts of sabotage, not terrorism. as for tree spiking, if it ever kills loggers it is because the spikers utterly failed at what they were doing. the point is to stop the trees from being cut, not to damage a logger's chainsaw. this is why spiking is always accompanied with informing the logging company that it has been done.

none of these actions are meaningfully terroristic, as they do not terrorize the general public or even any particular subset of it, nor do they aim violence at non-combatants in order to force others to behave differently. this is all sabotage, pure and simple.
The American Heritage Dictionary defines terrorism as
"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

Sounds to me like environmentalists who bomb cars and torch homes fit that definition. Just like a clinic bomber. I wouldn't call him saboteur, I'd call him what he is, a terrorist. Simply telling people to stay away while he does his work doesn't make him anything less. His purpose is to instill fear and use it coerce others.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines terrorism as
"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

you'll note, of course, that that definition includes almost all military activities, as well as a significant portion of police activities. oh, and it actually seems to leave out so-called 'environmental terrorism', as such acts are neither intended to intimidate or coerce societies or governments, nor do they accomplish such. oops.

you'll note, of course, that that definition includes almost all military activities, as well as a significant portion of police activities. oh, and it actually seems to leave out so-called 'environmental terrorism', as such acts are neither intended to intimidate or coerce societies or governments, nor do they accomplish such. oops.
Yes, yes it does include military and police activites. The Chinese military used terrorism to fight the Japanese during WW2. And it worked.

And just because it leaves out specific forms of terrorism doesn't mean that they don't fall into the category of terrorism. Organizations such as the ELF, ALF, EF, and others do attempt to intimidate groups within communities and change society through their actions. I can understand your reluctance to accept that you're on the same side as a few terrorists but there's a terrorist group for just about every political issue. Extremists who, through acts of violence attempt to alter the actions of the individuals of the society in which they live. Sabotage is a form of terrorism if used for the purposes of instilling fear and changing a society or government.

I've read that, and worse. Doesn't in any way impact the point I was making.

I'm guessing some newblet decided he was being clever, and posted a link from a recent thread, thinking nobody would catch it. And of course that we would be:

"Oh my Gawd, you are right!"

Of course, that link doesn't disprove a damn thing at all as far as domestic terrorism being more a threat than international terrorism to the average citizen, but hey. Whatever.

Sabotage is a form of terrorism if used for the purposes of instilling fear and changing a society or government.

and what if it is used to add additional economic costs to certain actions?


seriously, what fear are they instilling?
"omg noes! teh elf is attack a car dealership at night when nobody are there!! runz for you leaves!1!"

Clearly you hate America. ;)

LOL! Clearly!

I do like Baskins & Robbins...does that count in my favour?

"You're far more likely to be harmed in an attack by a right-wing domestic terrorist than anyone from Al Qaeda."

I encountered this statement while reading Orcinus, a blog written by David Neiwert. (If you haven't checked it out before, I strongly recommend it. Very interesting stuff.) Neiwert has a long history of addressing American domestic terrorism, particularly terrorism that is related to race and culture issues.

Neiwert also says, "Since the early 1990s, the vast majority of planned terrorist acts on American soil -- both those that were successfully perpetrated and those apprehended beforehand -- have involved white right-wing extremists. Between 1995 and 2000, over 42 such cases (some, like Eric Rudolph, involving multiple crimes) were identifiable from public records."

Myself, I'm always amazed by the way that acts of terror are reported by the media. If a white Christian tries to blow up an abortion clinic, you won't hear the word "terrorist" in the mainstream press. But if a brown-skinned non-Christian tries to shoot somebody, you'll get the T-word dropped like confetti.


NOTE: I have included a poll which is segregated based on whether or not you are American. This is because the bolded statement at the top of this post specifically refers to America and Americans. I am completely aware that there are other countries in the world, and I don't mean to slight any of you, but this happens to be a topic specifically about terrorism (foreign and domestic) and the USA. If you want to hate on Americo-centric thinking, I can make you a separate thread for that. :D

It's not really any near as wide spread as it used to be in the 90s. Besides you would be suprised about how many potentialally devestating terrorist attacks were stopped in the middle east before they even got a chance to attack the USA. The US were well aware of a threat from terrorism well before 9/11.

Organizations such as the ELF, ALF, EF, and others do attempt to intimidate groups within communities and change society through their actions. I could see a case being made for the first two (not a valid case, but a case nonetheless), but how is squatting up in a tree or blocking roads terrorism? (The tactics that Earth First! typically uses.)