NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/aug/25/police-investigate-possible-plot-kill-obama/

Authorities are investigating a possible threat against presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.

Aurora police arrested a longtime drug user Sunday afternoon during a routine traffic stop where the man was seen "weaving," sources said. Two possible other accomplices also were arrested, according to police.

Police found four weapons, including two rifles and two handguns, in a rented pickup.

That arrest then led authorities to a second man staying at the Cherry Creek Hotel at 600 South Colorado Blvd in Glendale. When authorities knocked on the man's door, they say he jumped out of his sixth floor window, landing on an awning and running from the scene. They say they soon found him with a broken ankle. He too was arrested.

One of the suspects has been identified as 28-year-old Tharin Gartrell.

Police found a rifle in the man's pickup and methamphetamine. The man allegedly made comments about Sen. Obama, but sources wouldn't say what they were.

It was enough, however, to make police believe the man might have been plotting to somehow harm Obama.

A second source told CBS4 News that they are concerned they may have come upon a possible "assasination plot."

Authorities were tight-lipped about the arrest, refusing to divulge details or confirm the man's name.

The man has not been charged with any plot to harm Obama, 47. The man is facing drug and weapons charges.

The Secret Service, ATF and U.S. Attorney's Office are investigating.

just passing this along, consider it breaking news.

also, apparently we've got ourselves some white right-wingers proving once again that only muslims are terrorists. pay no attention to the nazis behind the curtain.

In other news, water is wet...

He's the 1st black man in U.S. history with a real shot at the "front desk", white supremacists countrywide must be absolutely shitting themselves. Now, if you had said it was the 1st and/or only threat, now; THAT would be news!

Not surprising in the least.

What is surprising is that the guy could keep running after jumping out a six story window. Holy SHIT!

Has everyone noticed the large surge in Rightwing terrorism?

Guy attacks a Church for being a "Liberal" Faith.

Another Guy assassinates the Arkansas Democratic Chairman.

Now this.

I blame them no longer being able to deny the country's problems, so they resort to the old standby, "Blame someone else for your own self-inflicted wounds." C**tler, Robertson, Savage, and Oreilly help provide them choose the latter.

Also, neocons did WTC.

he is on meth. one thing i learned about meth users is they can not stop talking. it was just random bullshit from a methed out junkie. for all we know in his mind he was trying to protect obama from an assassination attempt. (given its meth and he is a redneck maybe not) but still not really a solid plot to kill the next pres.

most would-be assassins are morons too stupid to know how bad their plan is.

we dont have to worry about them, they reveal themselves

the people to worry about are the handful of smart people who are mean enough and organized enough to make a plan that can be carried out.

Not surprising in the least.

What is surprising is that the guy could keep running after jumping out a six story window. Holy SHIT!

You've apparently never done meth. Neither have I actually, but I've come into contact with people who have. If Barack Obama is assassinated I will assure you that their will be riots everywhere. There will be a revolution like none seen since our birth. The Rodney King riots will look like a 3 year old little girl's tea party. If white supremacists are behind the attacks we will hunt them and kill them wherever they lay. We will not accept terrorism from foreign or domestic sources. When swearing an oath and being commissioned I agreed to fight against all of America's enemies foreign or domestic. I will gladly rise up and take arms to destroy the terrorists among us, much as I did when I was called to go overseas. This is my pledge to my country and to all of you here. He dies we die too!

Has everyone noticed the large surge in Rightwing terrorism?

Guy attacks a Church for being a "Liberal" Faith.

Another Guy assassinates the Arkansas Democratic Chairman.

Now this.

I blame them no longer being able to deny the country's problems, so they resort to the old standby, "Blame someone else for your own self-inflicted wounds." C**tler, Robertson, Savage, and Oreilly help provide them choose the latter.

You are right in this regard. These people promote hate and make it feel right to commit violence against those who oppose you. They do not believe in democracy, but their way or the highway. This is not really new though. Anthrax attacks, Waco, Oklahoma City, etc. Homegrown terrorism by white people gets forgotten quickly in this country. If they are brown and Muslim then we remember every attack. It's sad.

You've apparently never done meth. Neither have I actually, but I've come into contact with people who have. If Barack Obama is assassinated I will assure you that their will be riots everywhere. There will be a revolution like none seen since our birth. The Rodney King riots will look like a 3 year old little girl's tea party. If white supremacists are behind the attacks we will hunt them and kill them wherever they lay. We will not accept terrorism from foreign or domestic sources. When swearing an oath and being commissioned I agreed to fight against all of America's enemies foreign or domestic. I will gladly rise up and take arms to destroy the terrorists among us, much as I did when I was called to go overseas. This is my pledge to my country and to all of you here. He dies we die too!

While Mann Coulter and the FOXNews bunch call the Obama assassination "a significant victory against islamofascism in the War on Terror".

most would-be assassins are morons too stupid to know how bad their plan is.

we dont have to worry about them, they reveal themselves

i don't know. they just need to get lucky with their bad plan, while we are mainly relying on their poor driving habits or whatever. that's how they caught the nazis with the nerve gas a couple years back, iirc

i don't know. they just need to get lucky with their bad plan, while we are mainly relying on their poor driving habits or whatever. that's how they caught the nazis with the nerve gas a couple years back, iirc
im not talking about ALL plots. or ALL desires to do bad things.

im only talking about the security of a presidential nominee protected by the secret service.

Police found a rifle in the man's pickup and methamphetamine. The man allegedly made comments about Sen. Obama, but sources wouldn't say what they were.

It was enough, however, to make police believe the man might have been plotting to somehow harm Obama.

"Police won't say what what comments the man said were, so we're going to make up some random headline grabbing bullshit. More after a word from our sponsers."

You've apparently never done meth. Neither have I actually, but I've come into contact with people who have. If Barack Obama is assassinated I will assure you that their will be riots everywhere. There will be a revolution like none seen since our birth. The Rodney King riots will look like a 3 year old little girl's tea party. If white supremacists are behind the attacks we will hunt them and kill them wherever they lay. We will not accept terrorism from foreign or domestic sources. When swearing an oath and being commissioned I agreed to fight against all of America's enemies foreign or domestic. I will gladly rise up and take arms to destroy the terrorists among us, much as I did when I was called to go overseas. This is my pledge to my country and to all of you here. He dies we die too!Lol...

Has everyone noticed the large surge in Rightwing terrorism?

Guy attacks a Church for being a "Liberal" Faith.

Another Guy assassinates the Arkansas Democratic Chairman.

Now this.

I blame them no longer being able to deny the country's problems, so they resort to the old standby, "Blame someone else for your own self-inflicted wounds." C**tler, Robertson, Savage, and Oreilly help provide them choose the latter.

Four posts before the first lame ass attempt to blame this on Conservatives. Fail

:hail: You are the master debater.

Spoilers: Hillary organized it :p

I'm just being silly, of course. We all know that Hillary's assassination attempt would (will?) be far better planned.

Lol...

Okay, I like being funny. I wasn't really going for humor at this point. Barack dies and I would be willing to give my life to destroy those who sought to harm him.

Four posts before the first lame ass attempt to blame this on Conservatives. Fail

:hail: You are the master debater.

I don't think they were making the point that it is the fault of conservatives. I think he was just highlighting the recent attacks on "liberal" establishments. Are you denying these events?

Spoilers: Hillary organized it :p

I'm just being silly, of course. We all know that Hillary's assassination attempt would (will?) be far better planned.

Yeah, seriously. If Hillary were behind it, not only would it have worked but they would have used a black assassin.

If Obama is assassinated, he'll become a martyr, resulting in McCain's chance being assassinated as well, so to speak, which would keep the world safe from Republicans once again as Biden is sworn in.

I don't think they were making the point that it is the fault of conservatives. I think he was just highlighting the recent attacks on "liberal" establishments. Are you denying these events?

It seemed more like an attempt to rebuild the "vast right-wing conspiracy" myth from back in the 90's. I doubt that was the intention, of course.

Truth is, I think the crazies on the right are simply better armed than the ones on the left and now's their time to shine. Not to mention there hasn't been as prime a candidate for assassination than Barack Obama in a long time, which no doubt further fans the flames. By murdering him, these clowns almost certainly think it would trigger a "race war" or some other fantasy allowing them to live out The Turner Diaries firsthand.

Four posts before the first lame ass attempt to blame this on Conservatives. Fail

:hail: You are the master debater.

So, you're assuming that someone who would kill Obama would vote for... Nader?

Come on, wake up and smell the burning cross!

So, you're assuming that someone who would kill Obama would vote for... Nader?

Come on, wake up and smell the burning cross!



He also seems to be denying that Conservatives would breathe a collective sigh of relief were Obama to be assassinated.

He also seems to be denying that Conservatives would breathe a collective sigh of relief were Obama to be assassinated.

To be sure, it would be short-lived, as such an assassination would all but guarantee Biden as a president.

Four posts before the first lame ass attempt to blame this on Conservatives.

um, i did it in the first post. because they are. it's fucking always right-wingers who pull this shit.

He also seems to be denying that Conservatives would breathe a collective sigh of relief were Obama to be assassinated.

I wouldn't. People who believe that are idiots...seriously, moral issues aside, his assassination would simply ensure the passage of all of his major political projects and probably guarantee the reelection of his vice president in the next election just like Kennedy/Johnson.

From any standpoint, even an evilly Machiavellian perspective, it's a terrible thing.

Truth is, I think the crazies on the right are simply better armed than the ones on the left and now's their time to shine.

it can't be just a question of being better armed. its pretty easy to get armed. there is something more fundamental at work.

it can't be just a question of being better armed. its pretty easy to get armed. there is something more fundamental at work.

Nah, there are plenty of left-wing nuts in other countries that have done things far worse and far more successfully. I think the US just happens to have a much stronger right wing than left wing, and that means on average there are more right-wing extremists willing and capable of using violence to advance their political agenda. It's our particular political imbalance that produces such acts.

From any standpoint, even an evilly Machiavellian perspective, it's a terrible thing.

For conservatives.

is something more fundamental at work.

Yeah, not being hateful, not to mention batshit.

For conservatives.

Well, yeah. But then again, a person rooting for their candidate's assassination in order to make political gains is pretty messed up in and of themselves. Either way, nobody benefits from the murder of an innocent person...I mean, it's not like the Democrats nominated Reinhard Heydrich or something.

a person rooting for their candidate's assassination in order to make political gains is pretty messed up in and of themselves.

Or, maybe, just maybe, desperate out of fear that the most powerful nation in the world will keep on attacking countries at random, treating the rest of the world like its backyard, and destroying the environmment? Just a thought, because America, under Bush, turned into the national-level equivalent of a psychopath with rage issues. Just a thought.

Mind you, I don't root for his assassination, mainly because I think he can beat McCain alive.

It seemed more like an attempt to rebuild the "vast right-wing conspiracy" myth from back in the 90's. I doubt that was the intention, of course.

Truth is, I think the crazies on the right are simply better armed than the ones on the left and now's their time to shine. Not to mention there hasn't been as prime a candidate for assassination than Barack Obama in a long time, which no doubt further fans the flames. By murdering him, these clowns almost certainly think it would trigger a "race war" or some other fantasy allowing them to live out The Turner Diaries firsthand.

It will bring a race war against those who committed the act. Every brother in America will be hunting them and their families. It will not bring about a larger race war pitting white against black. On that I agree.

Nah, there are plenty of left-wing nuts in other countries that have done things far worse and far more successfully. I think the US just happens to have a much stronger right wing than left wing, and that means on average there are more right-wing extremists willing and capable of using violence to advance their political agenda. It's our particular political imbalance that produces such acts.

except that bomb for bomb, i think the right-wingers in other countries typically comes out ahead too.

except that bomb for bomb, i think the right-wingers in other countries typically comes out ahead too.

As a Southern American, I can attest to that.

While it doesn't suprise me that there are people trying to kill celebretard politicians this strikes me as more a bunch of meth junkies ranting than a coordinated plot to assisnate a famous political figure.

And congrats to Free Soviets for a GodWIN in the OP.

While it doesn't suprise me that there are people trying to kill celebretard politicians this strikes me as more a bunch of meth junkies ranting than a coordinated plot to assisnate a famous political figure.

Just ranting? No man. You can rant. I can rant. This forum is ALL about ranting. There's nothing wrong or particularly insidious about just ranting.

This is rather different:

Police found four weapons, including two high-powered, scoped rifles along with camouflage clothing, walkie-talkies, a bulletproof vest, a spotting scope, licenses in the names of other people and methamphetamine.

...

CBS4 reported one of the suspects told authorities they were "going to shoot Obama from a high vantage point using a ... rifle … sighted at 750 yards."

Law-enforcement sources told CBS4 that one of the suspects "was directly asked if they had come to Denver to kill Obama. He responded in the affirmative."

And congrats to Free Soviets for a GodWIN in the OP.

And congrats to you for your ability to correctly identify that Godwin's Law mentions nazis, as did Free Soviets.

All right, I can admit when I'm wrong. I was going off the quoted text when making my post and hadn't bothered to read through the entire linked article. Still, this is hardly the first time a presidential candidate has had people trying to kill them and it will certainly not be the last.

Also the reason that I brought up the Godwin in the OP was that the mention of Nazis didn't seem relevent just yet. I saw nothing in the quoted portion of the article that suggested these people were members of an American Nazi party. I believe that words like Nazi, fascist, commie or communist, socialist, and others are used too often these days to characterize opposing views as something they're not, something worse than they really are.

All right, I can admit when I'm wrong. I was going off the quoted text when making my post and hadn't bothered to read through the entire linked article. Still, this is hardly the first time a presidential candidate has had people trying to kill them and it will certainly not be the last.

True, but I think we can all agree that Obama will face more of that kind of hostility than other candidates, based on:

1. "Obama" sounds like "Osama."
2. He's painted as a Muslim (and therefore terrorist)
3. He's black.

Also the reason that I brought up the Godwin in the OP was that the mention of Nazis didn't seem relevent just yet. I saw nothing in the quoted portion of the article that suggested these people were members of an American Nazi party. I believe that words like Nazi, fascist, commie or communist, socialist, and others are used too often these days to characterize opposing views as something they're not, something worse than they really are.

Well, you don't have to be a Nazi to be a nazi. ;)

Okay, I like being funny. I wasn't really going for humor at this point. Barack dies and I would be willing to give my life to destroy those who sought to harm him.

so you will give you life to destroy meth users ???? wow your big on the war on drugs you sure your not a republican ???

And congrats to Free Soviets for a GodWIN in the OP.

$20 says they are 'white nationalists'

Yeah, seriously. If Hillary were behind it, not only would it have worked but they would have used a black assassin.

The way she operates, there'd be no "assassin" - Obama'd be a "suicide, a la Vince Foster.

I wouldn't. People who believe that are idiots...seriously, moral issues aside, his assassination would simply ensure the passage of all of his major political projects and probably guarantee the reelection of his vice president in the next election just like Kennedy/Johnson.

From any standpoint, even an evilly Machiavellian perspective, it's a terrible thing.

Well, from a Machiavellian perspective of someone who LIKES his policies . . .

Just to piss a racist off I would vote for Obama. Then again I dont know what Obama stands for. Also I usually vote for a right wing minority or loosing party.

And the big point that Im not American so my opinion about US politics really dosnt matter since i wont even be a citizen let alone register let alone vote

The utter tediousness that would ensue if there was an assassination is too horrific to contemplate - crap conspiracy theories, pointless dogpiling on American society, the whole gun debate - I couldn't bear it.

Debates on NSG alone...

I'd ask, in the name of sanity, that any potential assassin consider the outcome.

It's just not worth it.

he is on meth. one thing i learned about meth users is they can not stop talking. it was just random bullshit from a methed out junkie. for all we know in his mind he was trying to protect obama from an assassination attempt. (given its meth and he is a redneck maybe not) but still not really a solid plot to kill the next pres.

If he was on a hallucinogen, I might buy this, but then, a man on a hallucinogen with a lot of guns is a safety threat to everyone. But if you think someone using meth can't be coherent, calculating and focused enough to make a serious attempt on someone's life, you've never seen a meth user clean an apartment. Tell you about focus, you'll be able to see your reflection in the linoleum.

If he was on a hallucinogen, I might buy this, but then, a man on a hallucinogen with a lot of guns is a safety threat to everyone. But if you think someone using meth can't be coherent, calculating and focused enough to make a serious attempt on someone's life, you've never seen a meth user clean an apartment. Tell you about focus, you'll be able to see your reflection in the linoleum.

Of course the meth seeps into everything in the apartment even after the lab's been cleaned up, but most meth cookers don't have the means or time to be that thorough.

Of course the meth seeps into everything in the apartment even after the lab's been cleaned up, but most meth cookers don't have the means or time to be that thorough.

I was just talking about a user, not a cook. I don't know any meth cookers, what I hear they're mostly out in the Central Valley, Modesto and those kind of towns.

$20 says they are 'white nationalists'
The French of the late 18th century could have been described as white nationalists. They were mostly white and nationalists engaging in a violent popular revolt. Racists would probably be a more fitting title.

I hate it when people throw around political labels like they were insults. What kind of liberal are you talking about when you call someone a liberal? Words like Communist and Fascist are not insults, they respresent serious ideas. A lot of people don't even know what Fascism or Communism really are or how similar the two are even though they and their followers claim to be opposed.

Communism and communists like to throw around the word proletariat as a term to identify 'the people' of the lower classes. Nationalism holds that 'the people' are the nation and that only states founded by them are legit. The CCCP was nationalist because 'the people' rose up in rebellion to give the old government the boot and establish a new state with 'the people' at the helm. It was imperialistic because it invaded and annexed territory to create an empire.

While the ideas may be different, the methods and results are pretty much the same. Life sucks and people die while a crazy, oppressive government grabs up land and resources to enrich those at the top while claiming to help the little guy.

Both Hitler and Stalin called themselves socialist. Both were anti-semitic, racist, genocidal megalomaniacs. Both created and used common enemies - scapegoats - to unite the people of their respective nations. Fascism and Communism are two sides of the same evil, forced collectivism coin.

Racists would probably be a more fitting title.

"White Nationalist" is what these pro-Aryan racist organizations call themselves. I'd link you websites like the Stormfront White Nationalist Community, the White Nationalist Party, or White Nationalist Future, but I fear they might be verboten. He wasn't recklessly throwing around political titles he does not understand. He was implying they were racists by calling them by the political title that white racists have affixed to themselves.

The French of the late 18th century could have been described as white nationalists. They were mostly white and nationalists engaging in a violent popular revolt. Racists would probably be a more fitting title.

I hate it when people throw around political labels like they were insults. What kind of liberal are you talking about when you call someone a liberal? Words like Communist and Fascist are not insults, they respresent serious ideas. A lot of people don't even know what Fascism or Communism really are or how similar the two are even though they and their followers claim to be opposed.

Communism and communists like to throw around the word proletariat as a term to identify 'the people' of the lower classes. Nationalism holds that 'the people' are the nation and that only states founded by them are legit. The CCCP was nationalist because 'the people' rose up in rebellion to give the old government the boot and establish a new state with 'the people' at the helm. It was imperialistic because it invaded and annexed territory to create an empire.

While the ideas may be different, the methods and results are pretty much the same. Life sucks and people die while a crazy, oppressive government grabs up land and resources to enrich those at the top while claiming to help the little guy.

Both Hitler and Stalin called themselves socialist. Both were anti-semitic, racist, genocidal megalomaniacs. Both created and used common enemies - scapegoats - to unite the people of their respective nations. Fascism and Communism are two sides of the same evil, forced collectivism coin.
I agree with you up to a point, but I would argue that what you're talking about there is Soviet-style communism. There are other forms of communism that are more democratic and far more just.

Then there's weirdos like me who operate on a sort of democratic social-capitalism kind of philosophy that's really confusing sounding.

I agree with you up to a point, but I would argue that what you're talking about there is Soviet-style communism. There are other forms of communism that are more democratic and far more just.

Then there's weirdos like me who operate on a sort of democratic social-capitalism kind of philosophy that's really confusing sounding.

Your ideas about the role of government can't be accurately and completely defined by one of the preexisting labels, such as "libertarian" or "commie"? You must be doing it wrong.

Your ideas about the role of government can't be accurately and completely defined by one of the preexisting labels, such as "libertarian" or "commie"? You must be doing it wrong.

If democratic social-capitalism is wrong, I don't want to be right!

Its not really much of a surprise that someone would want to shoot Obama, him being the first black person with a chance of becoming the president. I figure that he may actually survive till at least after the election, everyone will assume that because he is black someone else will already be going to assassinate him, and in the end no-one who has the realistic ability to do so will.

As a side note - I blame the high-chance of assassination on America's gun laws, but i'm sure we already have plently of threads on that.

EDIT: I think i must support Obama, Typo of Chance -> Change... *sighs*

It seems a bit early to make the conclusion that this was actually going to be an assassination attempt, let alone a racially motivated one. Potential assassins have had a reputation for rather unusual reasons for trying to bump off politicans.

The French of the late 18th century could have been described as white nationalists. They were mostly white and nationalists engaging in a violent popular revolt.
They were nationalists who were white (and even them 'nationalist' might not be the most fitting title for the Jacobins), they weren't arguing for white supremecy.



It seems a bit early to make the conclusion that this was actually going to be an assassination attempt, let alone a racially motivated one.
Indeed, as far as I'm aware, there isn't any indication that the guy was trying to kill Obama (or anybody else, for that matter). He was 'just' off his face and holding guns.

I hate it when people throw around political labels like they were insults.
"White Nationalist" is a label they come up for themselves, mainly to differentiate themselves from "White Supremacists" who want to rule the "lesser peoples" whereas "White Nationalists" want them out of their neighborhoods/state/country. Semantics, basically, but a label they came up with by themselves.

I hate it when people throw around political labels like they were insults.

then go find someone who was doing so to complain about. i know my fucking shit and i don't use terms lightly.

so you will give you life to destroy meth users ???? wow your big on the war on drugs you sure your not a republican ???

Maybe I was a little unclear. I am not willing to give my life to destroy meth users. I am willing to give my life to destroy those who would kill the POTUS. I've already risked my life for GWB (feels icky inside). I'd be more willing to go after people who actually assassinated Obama. I am actually a registered Republican. I consider myself more of a Social Libertarian with conservative economic policies.

Maybe I was a little unclear. I am not willing to give my life to destroy meth users. I am willing to give my life to destroy those who would kill the POTUS. I've already risked my life for GWB (feels icky inside). I'd be more willing to go after people who actually assassinated Obama. I am actually a registered Republican. I consider myself more of a Social Libertarian with conservative economic policies.

It's okay. You kept him from becoming a martyr (thus helping Republicans) and Cheney from becoming President. And yes, just to make myself clear, those are the only reasons why I think he should live.

Pray tell, though, how DID you risk your life to protect Dubya?

Four posts before the first lame ass attempt to blame this on Conservatives. Fail

:hail: You are the master debater.
Well I can back my things up. It's already clear that the first two incidents were commited by conservatives.

Well I can back my things up. It's already clear that the first two incidents were commited by conservatives.

And given the frequent conservative logic of "all Muslims are terrorists/sympathizers because of the actions of a few", the conservatives must now decide if they call THEMSELVES terrorists or if they admit few Muslims are ACTUALLY terrorists/sympathizers.

So Mumakata Dos is free to tell us which claim he'll support now. This is fun! :D

And given the frequent conservative logic of "all Muslims are terrorists/sympathizers because of the actions of a few"...
So you're complaining about how folks assume a group acts and thinks in exactly the same way, by assuming a group acts and thinks in exactly the same way...

Hypocrite, much?

So you're complaining about how folks assume a group acts and thinks in exactly the same way, by assuming a group acts and thinks in exactly the same way...

Hypocrite, much?

Maybe so, but we've seen many conservatives here who DO hold such beliefs. Me being a hypocrite wouldn't preclude me being right. ;)

Maybe so, but we've seen many conservatives here who DO hold such beliefs.
And many, many, more who don't.

Why resort to idiotic stereotypes?

Me being a hypocrite wouldn't preclude me being right.
Except you're both wrong and a hypocrite.

And many, many, who don't.

Why resort to idiotic stereotypes?


Except you're both wrong and a hypocrite.

Okay: If I replace "frequent" with "occasional", and name a few names, will you get off my back?

Okay: If I replace "frequent" with "occasional", and name a few names, will you get off my back?
If you stop portraying all conservatives as ignorant, Islamaphobic nutjobs, then yes I will.

If you stop portraying all conservatives as ignorant, Islamaphobic nutjobs, then yes I will.

There's a reason I said "frequent", as opposed to "perennial" or "always present".

There's a reason I said "frequent", as opposed to "perennial" or "always present".
I saw that, but you also used in that post (and have used frequently prior to this incident) the term "the conservatives", talking as if "the conservatives" were one big group of identical thinkers.

I realise you may have less extreme views, but you certainly come across on the forum as someone who views anyone right-of-centre as a dangerous maniac; your in danger in my eyes at least, if not in others', as becoming the 'new' Andaras of the forum.

I saw that, but you also used in that post (and have used frequently prior to this incident) the term "the conservatives", talking as if "the conservatives" were one big group of identical thinkers.

I realise you may have less extreme views, but you certainly come across on the forum as someone who views anyone right-of-centre as a dangerous maniac; your in danger in my eyes at least, if not in others', as becoming the 'new' Andaras of the forum.

Well, given the useless war the US are currently fighting because of a right-wing president who IS a genocidal maniac...

But I digress. Not all conservatives are maniacs, just the figureheads of the movement.

And given the frequent conservative logic of "all Muslims are terrorists/sympathizers because of the actions of a few", the conservatives must now decide if they call THEMSELVES terrorists or if they admit few Muslims are ACTUALLY terrorists/sympathizers.

So Mumakata Dos is free to tell us which claim he'll support now. This is fun! :D

I guarantee you I can find more Muslims who cheered the WTC attacks then conservatives who support some crazy shooting Obama. If you choose to delude yourself otherwise that's your problem.

Well, given the useless war the US are currently fighting because of a right-wing president who IS a genocidal maniac...

But I digress. Not all conservatives are maniacs, just the figureheads of the movement.

I suppose you have evidence of this fictional genocide?

How about the dead 1 million or so Iraqis?

My local news station (1010 WINS) announced that there was no credible attempt on Obama's life, and that the suspects are charged only with weapons possession, not conspiracy or attempted murder.

I guarantee you I can find more Muslims who cheered the WTC attacks then conservatives who support some crazy shooting Obama. If you choose to delude yourself otherwise that's your problem.


I suppose you have evidence of this fictional genocide?

1- No, you can't. If you choose to delude yourself otherwise that's your problem.

2- Started a war under false pretenses, resulting in the murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. But I suppose they're brown, so it's okay, right?

And thanks, Adunabar.

Eh, the violently looney left had its heyday, and they've been off of the scene for a while. Somebody's got to pick up the slack, obviously, the only option is right-wing meth freaks.

Eh, the violently looney left had its heyday, and they've been off of the scene for a while. Somebody's got to pick up the slack, obviously, the only option is right-wing meth freaks.

Well, you've already have a right-wing alcoholic coke-snorter in the White House, so, I guess...

My local news station (1010 WINS) announced that there was no credible attempt on Obama's life, and that the suspects are charged only with weapons possession, not conspiracy or attempted murder.
The coverage, I think, is silly, and most of the headlines misleading one way or another.

There was definitely a plot of sorts to assassinate Obama, to judge by the quotes made by the suspects. It's way too early for the investigation to have wrapped up; it was a random pull. The statement that there wasn't a credible threat simply means that in the judgment of the FBI/Secret Service/etc, there wasn't a very good chance of said plot being executed successfully.

Not that "crackpots," as they are being described, haven't pulled off successful acts of destruction before...

It's good to know that cartoon characters are just ridiculous caricatures of ignorance, and not at all like the real thing.

http://instituteofdesign.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/cletus.jpghttp://media.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/content/img/photos/2008/08/25/Nathan_Johnson_t220.jpg

...
oh wow

yeeeehaw - lets turn the south into glass - yukyukyuk

If he was on a hallucinogen, I might buy this, but then, a man on a hallucinogen with a lot of guns is a safety threat to everyone. But if you think someone using meth can't be coherent, calculating and focused enough to make a serious attempt on someone's life, you've never seen a meth user clean an apartment. Tell you about focus, you'll be able to see your reflection in the linoleum.

I didnt say they weren't a threat. I was just saying getting the real reason they had guns out of them would be difficult. also seems unlikely theyw ere part of a larger plot. as most of your plotting organizations can afford assassins who don't smoke meth.

Me being a hypocrite wouldn't preclude me being right. ;)

No, but your statements do.

Meth is a left wing drug, as are all drugs, except the prescription drugs rich housewives abuse. Those are more centrists.

Meth is a left wing drug, as are all drugs

You're flamebaiting, and I'm telling.

No, but your statements do.

Made your choice between "All/most Muslims are terrorists/sympathizers" and "not all/most Conservatives are terrorists/sympathizers" yet? I made mine: Most conservatives aren't terrorists/sympathizers, and neither are most Muslims. Did you make yours?

Meth is a left wing drug, as are all drugs

Caffeine goes to pro-communist rallies?

Meth is a left wing drug, as are all drugs, except the prescription drugs rich housewives abuse. Those are more centrists.

Nice flamebait jr. It must be nice living in a world where everything is so black and white and easy to pigeon hold.

Caffeine goes to pro-communist rallies?

X is more anarchist than communist though. Bourgeois scum that it is.

X is more anarchist than communist though. Bourgeois scum that it is.

Someone call the mods, K's been possessed by Angry Internet Stalinist and we need an exorcism, now!!

:D

Nice flamebait jr. It must be nice living in a world where everything is so black and white and easy to pigeon hold.

http://www.naco.org/Template.cfm?Section=Library&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=24797

• Users of meth are changing.
– Sixty percent of sheriffs report increased use by women and 49 percent report increased use by teens during the last three years.

Women and young voters are more likely to vote Democrat, aren't they?

It's pretty obvious from the report that the meth use is ignoring whether you're rural, suburban, or urban. So that's a wash there.

The only thing that sticks out is more women and more teens.

Pardon me whilst I gibber and froth about class wars!

http://74.125.95.104/search?q=cache:A81RixmoM_cJ:www.idcounties.org/vertical/Sites/%257B971BB846-EA97-469D-BEEA-D69CC59B07F3%257D/uploads/%257BDEE255C8-22E2-4382-9959-BA3861A87997%257D.DOC+meth+demographics&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=14&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Hmmm...

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Jim Philipps
August 23, 2007 202-942-4220, jphilipps@naco.org
More teens, women, and minorities abusing meth
New NACo survey show changing demographic of methamphetamine abusers in America

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Methamphetamine abuse remains a national epidemic and more teens, women and minorities are abusing the highly-addictive and deadly drug in communities across America, according to a national survey released today by the National Association of Counties (NACo).

NACo’s survey of 500 county law enforcement officials in 44 states found that 61 percent of counties have seen an increase during the last three years in the number of women abusing meth. In addition, 49 percent reported an increase in meth abuse among teenagers and 36 percent reported an increase of meth abuse among minorities during the same period.

http://www.naco.org/Template.cfm?Section=Library&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=24797



Women and young voters are more likely to vote Democrat, aren't they?

It's pretty obvious from the report that the meth use is ignoring whether you're rural, suburban, or urban. So that's a wash there.

The only thing that sticks out is more women and more teens.


*Federal Legislation is working
-81 percent of sheriffs report ability to produce meth locally is down.
*Meth abuse is not decreasing
-50 percent of sheriffs say abuse of the drug has stayed the same 30 percent report it has increased.

So 81% say it's down, and 80% say it's up or the same. OOokay.

*Federal Legislation is working
-81 percent of sheriffs report ability to produce meth locally is down.
*Meth abuse is not decreasing
-50 percent of sheriffs say abuse of the drug has stayed the same 30 percent report it has increased.

So 81% say it's down, and 80% say it's up or the same. OOokay.

The "ability to produce locally" is down.

Because the Mexicans are shipping it here now, the abuse of the drug still remains.

The "ability to produce locally" is down.

Because the Mexicans are shipping it here now, the abuse of the drug still remains.

Thank god for the securing the boarders that W did huh?

http://www.naco.org/Template.cfm?Section=Library&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=24797



Women and young voters are more likely to vote Democrat, aren't they?

It's pretty obvious from the report that the meth use is ignoring whether you're rural, suburban, or urban. So that's a wash there.

The only thing that sticks out is more women and more teens.

UCLA sez (http://www.methamphetamine.org/html/special-pops-women.html) women abuse meth at the same rate as men, so it would seem to be a guy thing that the chicks are just now catching on to, like voting Republican.:wink:

1- No, you can't. If you choose to delude yourself otherwise that's your problem.

2- Started a war under false pretenses, resulting in the murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. But I suppose they're brown, so it's okay, right?

And thanks, Adunabar.

1. I never said that all or even most Muslims supported terror, but there are more far more Muslim extremists then right wing fanatics and that's a fact. Let's do the math, there are 1.4 billion Muslims in the world, in contrast there are only about 300 million people in America and only a portion of them are even conservative. Do you honestly believe that out of 1.4 billion Muslims there are less terroritsts/terrorists supporters than there are in a group of less than 100 million Americans?

The fact that you are incapable to accepting reality is a personal problem.

Also, nice attempt to paint me as racist because I don't share your opinions, why let facts interfere with good rhetoric? :rolleyes:

2. Considering that a. the War in Iraq was started on faulty intelligence and not as a result of some vast conspiracy as you may believe and b. more Iraqis civillians have been killed by other Iraqis then foreign troops your argument isn't particularly valid. I suggest you Google "genocide".

Per Wikpedia:
Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

The loss of civllian life that occurs during a war, while a tragedy, is not genocide. The fact that you think it is is not evidence of anything.

Do you honestly believe that out of 1.4 billion Muslims there are less terroritsts/terrorists supporters than there are in a group of less than 100 million Americans?

1- No, what I DO believe is that the proportions, not the numbers, are similar.

2- Bush wanted the war, did he not? Bush started it, did he not? So, guess who IS to blame for the deaths.

Meth is a left wing drug, as are all drugs, except the prescription drugs rich housewives abuse. Those are more centrists.

Cool it with the baiting. It has no place in this debate.

Let me see. Small town makes an arrest of several meth heads/meth dealers. While high on meth, one blabbers about Obama. With the democratic party convention so near, and all those fed agencies; the local pd decides to make a press conference of a possible assassination attempt. After looking into the incident, the federal attorney decides that there was no attempt on the candidate's life.

I think what we have here is a case of grandstanding in front of the national media. After all, if there had been a credible threat against the candidate, don't you think that the fucking bumbling idiots (local slang for fbi) would have made their nationwide press conference already?

1- No, what I DO believe is that the proportions, not the numbers, are similar.

2- Bush wanted the war, did he not? Bush started it, did he not? So, guess who IS to blame for the deaths.

1. Then we can agree to disagree, I don't dispute that are plenty of right wing nutjobs, but most of them are harmless. These "militias" we see are nothing more than groups of rednecks who get together to drink beer, play soldier, and blame other people (usually blacks and Jews) for all their problems. Very few actually take action of any sort. I can't say the same for Muslim extremists.

2. Indirectly yes, I've felt the war was badly planned and led for years now, however had it been executed competently (Rumsfeld deserves most of the blame for that) it would have been one of the most decisive and least bloody conflicts in history (for all sides).

1. Then we can agree to disagree, I don't dispute that are plenty of right wing nutjobs, but most of them are harmless. These "militias" we see are nothing more than groups of rednecks who get together to drink beer, play soldier, and blame other people (usually blacks and Jews) for all their problems. Very few actually take action of any sort. I can't say the same for Muslim extremists.

2. Indirectly yes, I've felt the war was badly planned and led for years now, however had it been executed competently (Rumsfeld deserves most of the blame for that) it would have been one of the most decisive and least bloody conflicts in history (for all sides).

1- You do realize that there have been about 4 or 5, off the top of my head alone, internal terrorism incidents related to the Right wing in the US in the last 10, 20 years? You can argue that the Muslim terrorists are more COMPETENT (In that they killed more people), not more proportionally numerous.

2- There shouldn't BE a war!

1- You do realize that there have been about 4 or 5, off the top of my head alone, internal terrorism incidents related to the Right wing in the US in the last 10, 20 years? You can argue that the Muslim terrorists are more COMPETENT (In that they killed more people), not more proportionally numerous.

2- There shouldn't BE a war!

1 - 9/11, the Khobar Towers bombing, the USS Cole, the first WTC bombing, etc. There are hundreds of attacks linked Muslim terrorists. Also, I don't see training camps full of right wing terrorists operating in the US. There are camps full of al-Qaieda (and other groups) operatives in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, the Bekka Valley.
I can even take it further and bring up the SLA, Weather Underground, and the ALF as examples of far left wing terror groups.

Nobody has a monolopy fanatics, but Islam is the current leader.

Let me see. Small town makes an arrest...

...and he's down at the first hurdle. so close, and yet so far.

Also, I don't see training camps full of right wing terrorists operating in the US.

look harder?

I can even take it further and bring up the SLA, Weather Underground, and the ALF as examples of far left wing terror groups.

shit, that's 30+ years of old news and a non-terrorist group. nicely done

Nobody has a monolopy fanatics, but Islam is the current leader.

we are grouping by religion alone now? fair enough. now how about backing it up with some actual evidence?

[
also, apparently we've got ourselves some white right-wingers proving once again that only muslims are terrorists. pay no attention to the nazis behind the curtain.

I don't see what this has to do with terrorism. You're assuming the guy on meth is opposed to the possibility of Barack Obama being president, and not just nuts.

I don't see what this has to do with terrorism. You're assuming the guy on meth is opposed to the possibility of Barack Obama being president, and not just nuts.

Well, when he threatened to kill Obama and was found with plans to do so as well as a number of high-powered weapons, the former is far more likely.

It's good to know that cartoon characters are just ridiculous caricatures of ignorance, and not at all like the real thing.

http://instituteofdesign.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/cletus.jpghttp://media.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/content/img/photos/2008/08/25/Nathan_Johnson_t220.jpg

:eek2: that's too eerily similar to be just a coincidence.

Well, when he threatened to kill Obama and was found with plans to do so as well as a number of high-powered weapons, the former is far more likely.

not really most meth heads with means stock pile weapons. they live the turner diaries in their head. as for the "plans" it was police coached just like the vast majority of confessions. just a lot easier since you start a meth head on a tangent verbally they normally finish it.

Well, when he threatened to kill Obama and was found with plans to do so as well as a number of high-powered weapons, the former is far more likely.

He probably wanted to kill Barack Obama, but terrorism is violence designed to create mass terror, usually to further a particular ideology. Charles Guiteau (sp?) was certainly planning to kill President Garfield and was successful, but no one calls him a terrorist because he didn't kill Garfield to further any political idea or even to create terror.

It's okay. You kept him from becoming a martyr (thus helping Republicans) and Cheney from becoming President. And yes, just to make myself clear, those are the only reasons why I think he should live.

Pray tell, though, how DID you risk your life to protect Dubya?

Marines do not have a choice as to who they serve. We are bound by our honor and a lot of legal ramifications. I risked my life to protect the people of this country. I risked my life to do my duty as I promised I would. I did my duty to protect all of America, including the President. Civilians get the choice to determine where and when they will stand up for others. And yes, allowing Cheney to become President would have been similar to being relegating to the seventh circle of hell.

Marines do not have a choice as to who they serve. We are bound by our honor and a lot of legal ramifications. I risked my life to protect the people of this country. I risked my life to do my duty as I promised I would. I did my duty to protect all of America, including the President. Civilians get the choice to determine where and when they will stand up for others. And yes, allowing Cheney to become President would have been similar to being relegating to the seventh circle of hell.

Quite frankly, honor and "country" are both very funny concepts for me. But to each his own. And I do hope you realize that any action in Iraq isn't a "protection" by any means.

He probably wanted to kill Barack Obama, but terrorism is violence designed to create mass terror, usually to further a particular ideology. Charles Guiteau (sp?) was certainly planning to kill President Garfield and was successful, but no one calls him a terrorist because he didn't kill Garfield to further any political idea or even to create terror.

assassinating the first black president-to-be because he is the first black president-to-be isn't just standard political assassination. what makes it terrorism is that it is a 'message crime', aimed at all people of color (and race traitors like myself), and, like all of these nazis' actions, at a turner diaries hope of jump-starting the race war.

assassinating the first black president-to-be because he is the first black president-to-be isn't just standard political assassination. what makes it terrorism is that it is a 'message crime', aimed at all people of color (and race traitors like myself), and, like all of these nazis' actions, at a turner diaries hope of jump-starting the race war.

your assuming anyone who killed him would have race as a motivator could it just be a difference in political policy, or to gain acceptance of a communist country (J. F. Kennedy's), or just to get attention from Jodie Foster (the Reagan attempt)

your assuming anyone who killed him would have race as a motivator could it just be a difference in political policy, or to gain acceptance of a communist country (J. F. Kennedy's), or just to get attention from Jodie Foster (the Reagan attempt)

Get the odds, G&D.

your assuming anyone who killed him would have race as a motivator could it just be a difference in political policy, or to gain acceptance of a communist country (J. F. Kennedy's), or just to get attention from Jodie Foster (the Reagan attempt)

and i would be right in almost every case. the fact of the matter is that nazis make up the largest and most active cluster of terrorist groups in usia, and they are the ones who have made lots of threats already against obama, such that he has been under secret service protection for way longer than your typical presidential candidate.

I bet getting shot in the arm or leg would do wonders in the polls.

I bet getting shot in the arm or leg would do wonders in the polls.

I'd prefer a mere clear attempt in which the perpetrator misses. That way Obama keeps campaigning, and the effect is about the same.

look harder?

Those shitholes the far right calls "training camps" are wre nothing like the stuff al-Qaieda has. I've already addressed the concept of far right terror groups earlier, they're just a bunch a loud mouths as evidenced by their dearth of actual activity.


shit, that's 30+ years of old news and a non-terrorist group. nicely done

The ALF (and its clones) is still quite active and the SLA and weather Underground were terrorists despite what you and other far left fanatics may think.

we are grouping by religion alone now? fair enough. now how about backing it up with some actual evidence?

A large percentage of the terrorist atttacks in the world today are carried out by Muslims. Does that mean that Muslims are terrorists? No. Does that mean that all terrorists are Muslims? No, but there are more vilent Muslim extremists than of any other ideological bent at the moment. If you choose not to accept reality that's your choice.

Those shitholes the far right calls "training camps" are wre nothing like the stuff al-Qaieda has. I've already addressed the concept of far right terror groups earlier, they're just a bunch a loud mouths as evidenced by their dearth of actual activity.

they are responsible for the outright majority of terrorism in usia (as long as we exclude things that are insanely included like non-terroristic sabotage, etc)

The ALF (and its clones) is still quite active and the SLA and weather Underground were terrorists despite what you and other far left fanatics may think.

exactly backwards. the ones that actually engaged in what could be called terrorism are 30+ years old, while the ALF and ELF are clearly not terrorists by any non-stupid definition of the term.

A large percentage of the terrorist atttacks in the world today are carried out by Muslims. Does that mean that Muslims are terrorists? No. Does that mean that all terrorists are Muslims? No, but there are more vilent Muslim extremists than of any other ideological bent at the moment. If you choose not to accept reality that's your choice.

hard numbers, plox.

and i would be right in almost every case. the fact of the matter is that nazis make up the largest and most active cluster of terrorist groups in usia, and they are the ones who have made lots of threats already against obama, such that he has been under secret service protection for way longer than your typical presidential candidate.

well for one your neo nazis have a strict anti drug use policy. so these meth heads are ruled out there.
2 the largest post WWII group of nazis was sued out of existence in the year 2000.
and even then they only topped out at 200 members.

presidential and presidential candidates receive hundreds of threats. I am sure tons of drunk high people get pulled over and talk like they are going.

it would sort of like be saying the assignation of the Kennedys JFK and RFK were automatically anti Irish and Anti Catholic.

There is no threat of a assassination, anyone who is against Obama or against black people would be smart enough to know that by assassinating him they'll just make things so much worst.

And anyway this story just sounds like the media and/or government are trying to stir up some rubbish.

This has been blown out of all proportion. Even if Obama had been shot and killed, the resurrection would have occurred before the end of the Convention.

he probably provoked them

well for one your neo nazis have a strict anti drug use policy. There is no threat of a assassination, anyone who is against Obama or against black people would be smart enough to know that by assassinating him they'll just make things so much worst.

have you ever actually encountered any nazis?

have you ever actually encountered any nazis?

They like meth. A lot.

And they're stupid.

What sort of white dude shaves their head anyways? Just provides more space for sunburn. And I doubt nazis are the type to purchase SPF-45 sunscreen.

What sort of white dude shaves their head anyways?

People with male pattern baldness?

have you ever actually encountered any nazis?

jerry Springer. it is the first thing most of them that get on TV say. no drugs or you get the boot. they also seemed to have a habit of targeting users to rehabilitate and at the same time blame their addiction on minorities.

What sort of white dude shaves their head anyways? Max Barry http://www.maxbarry.com/images/caticons/max.png

exactly backwards. the ones that actually engaged in what could be called terrorism are 30+ years old, while the ALF and ELF are clearly not terrorists by any non-stupid definition of the term.

Um, ALF and ELF are terrorists, unless you're one of those people whose definition of terrorism is "People were killed and those damn dirty Muslims did it".

Um, ALF and ELF are terrorists, unless you're one of those people whose definition of terrorism is "People were killed and those damn dirty Muslims did it".

I've only heard of property damage, have the nutbars actually killed anyone?

I've only heard of property damage, have the nutbars actually killed anyone?

not the usian branch, at least. and it is against their principles, which are the only things that make something an elf/alf act or not. they also don't aim to create terror, nor are targets chosen at random or for their purely symbolic message-sending value. they are saboteurs and direct actionists.

the distinction is pretty easy to follow, i think.

of course its inevitable there will be idiots wanting to take pot shots at him, just for not being a white male republican. i think that's pretty much inevitable. carter survived not having stayed completely bought by the corporate mafia some how, ghod only knows how, so there is at least a reasonable hope obama might too.

i think he'll be a moving target and keep them guessing too.

not the usian branch, at least. and it is against their principles, which are the only things that make something an elf/alf act or not. they also don't aim to create terror nor are targets chosen at random or for their purely symbolic message-sending value. they are saboteurs and direct actionists.

Oh really (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-080408-animal-rights-aug05,0,1550071.story)?

Not creation of terror (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jun/25/animalwelfare.world) to force capitulation to their demands?

Oh really (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-080408-animal-rights-aug05,0,1550071.story)?

Not creation of terror (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jun/25/animalwelfare.world) to force capitulation to their demands?

Remember, because they're not Muslim and they didn't kill anyone they're not terrorists. They're "Direct Actionists".

Oh really (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-080408-animal-rights-aug05,0,1550071.story)?

i guess this is the downside of having a non-existent organization - there isn't any message control. vlasak's ideas seem to inherently run counter to the defining principles of the ALF, but there isn't anyone to fire him, what with the utter lack of there actually being an ALF as a coherent entity. he certainly isn't speaking as an official representative of the ALF, in any case, because there aren't any.

i guess this is the downside of having a non-existent organization - there isn't any message control. vlasak's ideas seem to inherently run counter to the defining principles of the ALF, but there isn't anyone to fire him, what with the utter lack of there actually being an ALF as a coherent entity. he certainly isn't speaking as an official representative of the ALF, in any case, because there aren't any.

Vlasak is another oath-breaking douchebag in the vein of Paul Hill. And like Hill, I'm fairly damn certain Vlasak'll end up shooting someone dead, in this case a lab worker or someone else that handles animals for a living.

Remember, because they're not Muslim and they didn't kill anyone they're not terrorists. They're "Direct Actionists".

as i recall, you ran away from the argument last time when i showed that your definition of terrorism was nonsensical. you certainly don't seem to have improved, nor to remember my actual position.

There is no threat of a assassination, anyone who is against Obama or against black people would be smart enough to know that by assassinating him they'll just make things so much worst.


Funny, I could have sworn that racism was a sign of a lack of intelligence, not a sign of being smart.

Vlasak is another oath-breaking douchebag in the vein of Paul Hill. And like Hill, I'm fairly damn certain Vlasak'll end up shooting someone dead, in this case a lab worker or someone else that handles animals for a living.

oath-breaking?

also, maybe he will, but since any such action won't be an ALF action, it has nothing to do with this argument.

as i recall, you ran away from the argument last time when i showed that your definition of terrorism was nonsensical. you certainly don't seem to have improved, nor to remember my actual position.

How is forcing a desired change in belief or policy through intimidation and terror not terrorism?

Here's a couple of definitions courtesy of Merriam-Webster Online:

Terrorism (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Terrorism)

The systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.

Terror (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terror)

1: a state of intense fear
2 a: one that inspires fear : scourge b: a frightening aspect <the terrors of invasion> c: a cause of anxiety : worry d: an appalling person or thing; especially : brat
3: reign of terror
4: violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror>

Now where does it say that terror or terrorism has to involve killing to be defined as such? You're just another ALF apologist who wants to twist and mold the definition of terrorism into "Something that only Ebil Mozlems do, not ALF, no sirree."

:rolleyes:

not the usian branch, at least. and it is against their principles, which are the only things that make something an elf/alf act or not. they also don't aim to create terror, nor are targets chosen at random or for their purely symbolic message-sending value. they are saboteurs and direct actionists.

A terrorist is a non-state actor who seeks to create political or social change by initiating violent action. Targets need not be random, nor do they need to be purely symbolic. The September 11 attack against the Pentagon, for instance, fits this bill, as it interrupted the function of the US Department of Defense, and struck at a symbolic target. As for the creation of terror, the ALF and its affiliates are clearly quite interested in doing that. Burning buildings and homes certainly count.

A terrorist is a non-state actor who seeks to create political or social change by initiating violent action.

and thus every revolutionary group ever, including general washington's continental army, are 'terrorists'. if that is terrorism, then terrorism is often a positive thing in the world. which would tend to imply that there is something wrong with your definition.

How is forcing a desired change in belief or policy through intimidation and terror not terrorism?

is war always terrorism? is revolution? is the mob? how about countries that use their holding of nuclear weapons as a bargaining trump card?


btw, the terror in terrorism refers to a general climate of terror amongst the population at large (or at least among broad social categories), created by the essentially random and barely targeted violence employed by actual terrorists.

is war always terrorism? is revolution? is the mob? how about countries that use their holding of nuclear weapons as a bargaining trump card?

That's not just a straw man. That's a fucking huge Wicker Man you could roast both Edward Woodward and Nicholas Cage in together.

:rolleyes:


btw, the terror in terrorism refers to a general climate of terror amongst the population at large (or at least among broad social categories), created by the essentially random and barely targeted violence employed by actual terrorists.

And you're saying ALF and their likes aren't conducting terrorist campaigns against researchers?

Animal Rights Violence Spreads Fear Through U.K. Research Community (http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/97/21/1565)

US animal-rights extremists firebomb scientists' home, car (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080808-us-animal-rights-extremists-firebomb-scientists-home-car.html)

Animal rights, terror tactics (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/902751.stm)

To deny that eco-terrorism is still terrorism is blind dogma the likes of which have never been seen since Angry Internet Stalinist was on General.

:rolleyes:

That's not just a straw man. That's a fucking huge Wicker Man you could roast both Edward Woodward and Nicholas Cage in together.

explain how. those all look like things that attempt to force "a desired change in belief or policy through intimidation and terror" to me. so what distinctions are you proposing?

And you're saying ALF and their likes aren't conducting terrorist campaigns against researchers?

no, i claimed that the usian branch of the ALF isn't. i made no claim at all about 'their likes' nor about the british branch.

anyways, there is at least some argument to be had that says targeting people actually engaged in a particular objected-to practice doesn't qualify either. it wouldn't be terrorism if someone went around killing gang-bangers, even if they did so in a way that specifically was meant to cause terror amongst other gang-bangers, for example.

explain how. those all look like things that attempt to force "a desired change in belief or policy through intimidation and terror" to me. so what distinctions are you proposing?

You're tossing about a Wicker Man when I'm strictly dealing with legal definitions of 'terrorism' and 'terrorists'. If you're comparing the animal liberation criminals to a populace instigating revolt or nationstates carrying out foreign policy then any government has the right to declare them unlawful enemy combatants and terrorists and deal with them as such.

no, i claimed that the usian branch of the ALF isn't. i made no claim at all about 'their likes' nor about the british branch.

Santa Cruz firebombs look familiar (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/03/MNMI124HSI.DTL)

Say again?

Overall, you're still trying to defend terrorist groups like ALF and ELF by rolling the goalpost on wheels or resorting to the "It's only terrorism when Muslims kill people" bullshit.

Fail.

:rolleyes:

You're tossing about a Wicker Man when I'm strictly dealing with legal definitions of 'terrorism' and 'terrorists'. If you're comparing the animal liberation criminals to a populace instigating revolt or nationstates carrying out foreign policy then any government has the right to declare them unlawful enemy combatants and terrorists and deal with them as such.

so you now believe that the term 'terrorism' is just synonymous with "anything some state somewhere doesn't like"? me, i like concepts to mean things, but i guess you can go have fun with your newspeak.

Santa Cruz firebombs look familiar (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/03/MNMI124HSI.DTL)

Say again?

Overall, you're still trying to defend terrorist groups like ALF and ELF by rolling the goalpost on wheels or resorting to the "It's only terrorism when Muslims kill people" bullshit.

Fail.

:rolleyes:

do you even know what makes something an ALF action or not? i suspect not. you certainly aren't showing it if you do. i'll give you a clue - the only things that makes something an ALF action is if it is claimed as one and follows the following set of guidelines:


1. TO liberate animals from places of abuse, i.e. laboratories, factory farms, fur farms, etc, and place them in good homes where they may live out their natural lives, free from suffering.

2. TO inflict economic damage to those who profit from the misery and exploitation of animals.

3. TO reveal the horror and atrocities committed against animals behind locked doors, by performing non-violent direct actions and liberations.

4. TO take all necessary precautions against harming any animal, human and non-human.

5. To analyze the ramifications of all proposed actions, and never apply generalizations when specific information is available.

that is what you have to argue against. so far, nadda.

Overall, you're still... resorting to the "It's only terrorism when Muslims kill people" bullshit.
I don't see Free Soviets saying anything of the sort.

Little debating tip: if one wishes to complain about strawmen, it's best not to construct some of one's own.

I don't see Free Soviets saying anything of the sort.

Little debating tip: if one wishes to complain about strawmen, it's best not to construct some of one's own.

but without strawmen, he'd have no argument at all. and that would clearly be unfair.

so you now believe that the term 'terrorism' is just synonymous with "anything some state somewhere doesn't like"? me, i like concepts to mean things, but i guess you can go have fun with your newspeak.

Terrorism is carried out by non-state actors against a state or its populace therein. ALF is terrorizing researchers in the United States and other countries. Why are you so desperate to make excuses for terrorists no different than Al'Qaeda or the IRA?

do you even know what makes something an ALF action or not? i suspect not. you certainly aren't showing it if you do. i'll give you a clue - the only things that makes something an ALF action is if it is claimed as one and follows the following set of guidelines:

ALF is distinctly noted for being a cartel of associated groups with no solid command structure. It makes the entire movement difficult to shut down and the actions of any particular cartel member can be attributed to ALF as a whole. Overall one can neither prove nor disprove it was an ALF action or not.

note especially 4 and 5.

And here's a quote from the founder, Ronnie Lee:

Animal liberation is a fierce struggle that demands total commitment. There will be injuries and possibly deaths on both sides. That is sad but certain.

That doesn't sound like the words of someone going out of his way to avoid human casualties.

so you now believe that the term 'terrorism' is just synonymous with "anything some state somewhere doesn't like"? me, i like concepts to mean things, but i guess you can go have fun with your newspeak.



do you even know what makes something an ALF action or not? i suspect not. you certainly aren't showing it if you do. i'll give you a clue - the only things that makes something an ALF action is if it is claimed as one and follows the following set of guidelines:



that is what you have to argue against. so far, nadda.
Originally Posted by ALF
1. TO liberate animals from places of abuse, i.e. laboratories, factory farms, fur farms, etc, and place them in good homes where they may live out their natural lives, free from suffering.

2. TO inflict economic damage to those who profit from the misery and exploitation of animals.

3. TO reveal the horror and atrocities committed against animals behind locked doors, by performing non-violent direct actions and liberations.

4. TO take all necessary precautions against harming any animal, human and non-human.

5. To analyze the ramifications of all proposed actions, and never apply generalizations when specific information is available.
TO inflict economic damage to those who profit from the misery and exploitation of animals.
Do you really think that destroying someone's property isn't going to send them into:
1: a state of intense fear
? Heck, if someone went up, blew up your entire house, because you had performed tests on animals, wouldn't you be scared, even if they made sure no one was inside at the time?

Do you really think that destroying someone's property isn't going to send them into:

? Heck, if someone went up, blew up your entire house, because you had performed tests on animals, wouldn't you be scared, even if they made sure no one was inside at the time?

Animal Liberationists are in a state of denial that what they like to window-dress as "direct action" is in fact a textbook definition of terrorism. After all Silly Rabbit, terrorism is for Muslims.

After all Silly Rabbit, terrorism is for Muslims.

Sigged! For a little while at least.:p

Do you really think that destroying someone's property isn't going to send them into:
1: a state of intense fear
? Heck, if someone went up, blew up your entire house, because you had performed tests on animals, wouldn't you be scared, even if they made sure no one was inside at the time?

that isn't what makes something terrorism. if it was, any and every military bombing campaign would be - even if directed solely at an aggressor nation's volunteer troops.

that isn't what makes something terrorism. if it was, any and every military bombing campaign would be - even if directed solely at an aggressor nation's volunteer troops.

Again with the Wicker Man...

:rolleyes:

What is your obcession with trying to equivocate military action with terrorism? We're not talking about nationstates, we're talking about ALF and ELF. Terrorist organizations. You're always trying to paint them as immaculate saints who wouldn't harm a fly.

Terrorism is carried out by non-state actors against a state or its populace therein.

so, adding that to your original criteria, we get that terrorism is an attempt by non-state actors to force a desired change in belief or policy (on a state?) through intimidation and terror ('terror' not as of yet restricted on your part in any particular way) on a state or its populace. which leaves my question largely unchanged.

are all organized crime groups terrorist organizations? are all revolutionaries?

Overall one can neither prove nor disprove it was an ALF action or not.

yes you can. is it claimed as one and does it follow the guidelines? if yes, then it is; if not, then no.

Again with the Wicker Man...

:rolleyes:

What is your obcession with trying to equivocate military action with terrorism? We're not talking about nationstates, we're talking about ALF and ELF. Terrorist organizations. You're always trying to paint them as immaculate saints who wouldn't harm a fly.

learn2reductio

learn2reductio

This coming from someone who constantly Straw Mans with "If what ALF does is terrorism then nations that go to war are terrorists too".

:rolleyes:

This coming from someone who constantly Straw Mans with "If what ALF does is terrorism then nations that go to war are terrorists too".

:rolleyes:

yeah, because that is totally what i said

yeah, because that is totally what i said

And who's doing the Reductio Ad Absurdum here now, hmm?

Physician, heal thyself.

:rolleyes:

And who's doing the Reductio Ad Absurdum here now, hmm?

Physician, heal thyself.

:rolleyes:

right, i'm done. if you'd care to actually try arguing for your position sometime, drop me a line. otherwise, leave.

right, i'm done. if you'd care to actually try arguing for your position sometime, drop me a line. otherwise, leave.

Argument implies that there will be a recognition of one side or the other's observations as proof.

Nothing short of a blatant rampage'll convince you that ALF and ELF are terrorist organizations.

Have fun rolling away the goalpost.

i guess this is the downside of having a non-existent organization - there isn't any message control. vlasak's ideas seem to inherently run counter to the defining principles of the ALF, but there isn't anyone to fire him, what with the utter lack of there actually being an ALF as a coherent entity. he certainly isn't speaking as an official representative of the ALF, in any case, because there aren't any.

So either ALF does not exist as an organization, meaning these are individual wackos who need to spend long years behind bars for their crimes, or ALF is actually has the characteristics of a terrorist organization, without any clear cut chains of command, a common unifying cause, and the spreading of fear and destruction as their primary tools of coercion, in which case, they also need to spend long years behind bars for their crimes. You can't constantly hide by saying "It's not ALF! ALF wouldn't do that, nevermind that the founder agreed to it, and ALF claims they did."

So either ALF exists, or it doesn't. Which one is it?

So either ALF does not exist as an organization, meaning these are individual wackos who need to spend long years behind bars for their crimes, or ALF is actually has the characteristics of a terrorist organization, without any clear cut chains of command, a common unifying cause, and the spreading of fear and destruction as their primary tools of coercion, in which case, they also need to spend long years behind bars for their crimes.

doesn't actually follow, but better than many responses.

neither the ALF or ELF are organizations in the standard sense, but rather a banner with a set of unifying principles behind which autonomous groups unite.

so how exactly are actions that fall within those principles 'terroristic' in an unproblematic sense?

1. TO liberate animals from places of abuse, i.e. laboratories, factory farms, fur farms, etc, and place them in good homes where they may live out their natural lives, free from suffering.


Tell me what sort of "good home" is a wild environment where captive bred animals have no experience or adaptation to, might I ask? Never mind the damage done to the local ecosystem by releasing non-adapted animals into it.

http://archive.thisishampshire.net/2001/10/26/70056.html
http://www.ibabuzz.com/garybogue/2008/08/25/mink-fur-farm-raid-by-alf-300-released-mink-will-starve-in-wild/

ALF even admits to doing it.

http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/Actions-USA/furwars.htm

It seems to me the ALF you talk about is merely an illusion in the desert of reality. An unfortunately common trait amongst those stranded there with a canteen of idealism.


3. TO reveal the horror and atrocities committed against animals behind locked doors, by performing non-violent direct actions and liberations.


How is firebombing someone's home and car not violent?

Tell me what sort of "good home" is a wild environment where captive bred animals have no experience or adaptation to, might I ask? Never mind the damage done to the local ecosystem by releasing non-adapted animals into it.

it isn't, it's sort of a dumb idea, though at least understandable given their premises.

How is firebombing someone's home and car not violent?

because violence is something directed against living beings, particularly those capable of feeling pain, as opposed to inanimate objects?

doesn't actually follow, but better than many responses.

neither the ALF or ELF are organizations in the standard sense, but rather a banner with a set of unifying principles behind which autonomous groups unite.

so how exactly are actions that fall within those principles 'terroristic' in an unproblematic sense?

Let me ask you something. The IRA was a terrorist organization before it gained legitimacy, commonly known for planting and detonating bombs of lethal yields in populated centers, even timing multiple ones so as to maximize human casualties when emergency services arrived. However, bombings were not the only thing it did. Presumably, they were also engaged in the likes of funds gathering and maybe even a few charities. Does this mean that they weren't terrorists?

Logically, the answer is no. Their non-violent actions certainly does not excuse their violent ones.

Likewise, the same conditions apply to ALF and ELF. As a whole, the organization is seen as violating many of the tenets you've listed, and unashamedly so. They even boast of it. Thereby, if the organization claims credit for it, announces plans to continue such actions, by which I mean the forcible coercion of policy changes through a regime of fear and intimidation, it is, logically, a terrorist organization. Regardless of what they claim to be, if their actions fit the definition, then they are.

Or perhaps you will next claim that Zimbabwe is really a democracy, and not a thinly disguised farce under a dictator.

it isn't, it's sort of a dumb idea, though at least understandable given their premises.

So you agree that the ALF commonly violates the very tenets that it is supposedly to follow then?

Actions certainly speak louder than words.


because violence is something directed against living beings, particularly those capable of feeling pain, as opposed to inanimate objects?

By that reasoning, riots which produce no human casualties, but result in widespread arson and destruction, isn't violent? And are you really arguing that if your house were set alight, you would not feel anything? Especially if that setting alight came in the form of molotov cocktails that could very well have killed you if you didn't run away fast enough? These actions are after all, directed against living beings capable of feeling pain, and more importantly, fear.

So you agree that the ALF commonly violates the very tenets that it is supposedly to follow then?

no. the belief is that even dying free is better than the conditions of captivity. we can disagree with this, but until you show that either they have no reasonable grounds for it and should know so, or are lying about it, then they are well within their guidelines.

By that reasoning, riots which produce no human casualties, but result in widespread arson and destruction, isn't violent?

depends, was the lack of human casualties intentional and actively worked towards? because in that case it seems at least arguable, sure.

no. the belief is that even dying free is better than the conditions of captivity. we can disagree with this, but until you show that either they have no reasonable grounds for it and should know so, or are lying about it, then they are well within their guidelines.

Explain to me how one can be a member of ALF and not know its tenets. And you're going to have to prove that it's a belief rather than lack of foresight.

Furthermore, you stated that an ALF action is one that is both claimed and that follows these tenets here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13967618&postcount=148). Now you are saying that it can be an ALF action if claimed and does not follow the tenet?

So which is it? Either ALF follows these tenets, in which case, it has not done anything to earn a mention in newspapers this past few decades, or it commonly violates these tenets, producing the cornucopia of evidence showing that it is a terrorist organization.


depends, was the lack of human casualties intentional and actively worked towards? because in that case it seems at least arguable, sure.

More like luck and accidental. You may not kill anyone, throwing explosives and incendiary devices into people's homes or planting them in their cars, but that's more luck than anything else.

Let me ask you something. The IRA was a terrorist organization before it gained legitimacy, commonly known for planting and detonating bombs of lethal yields in populated centers, even timing multiple ones so as to maximize human casualties when emergency services arrived. However, bombings were not the only thing it did. Presumably, they were also engaged in the likes of funds gathering and maybe even a few charities. Does this mean that they weren't terrorists?

Logically, the answer is no. Their non-violent actions certainly does not excuse their violent ones.

Likewise, the same conditions apply to ALF and ELF.

who is talking about excusing anything? some things are terrorist activities, some things aren't. anything that falls within the definition of an ALF action is almost certainly not, because it fails to fit any reasonable criteria for what makes something terroristic

(reasonable criteria defined here as at least making terrorism a bad thing, for one - unlike those that would make george washington's continental army a terrorist organization, etc. also it needs to distinguish between different classes of bad things; not all murderers are terrorists, etc.)

shit, even if the same person commits both an ALF action and a clearly terroristic bombing of a bus full of children, that wouldn't impact the non-terrorist nature of the ALF action. because, obviously, not everything a terrorist individual does is terrorism.

Explain to me how one can be a member of ALF and not know its tenets.And you're going to have to prove that it's a belief rather than lack of foresight.

Furthermore, you stated that an ALF action is one that is both claimed and that follows these tenets here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13967618&postcount=148). Now you are saying that it can be an ALF action if claimed and does not follow the tenet?

i didn't claim that. i claimed that they believe, with some plausibility given their moral premises, that their actions fall within the guidelines.

More like luck and accidental. You may not kill anyone, throwing explosives and incendiary devices into people's homes or planting them in their cars, but that's more luck than anything else.

then that is violent, as harm was either directly intended or negligently overlooked.

Tell me what sort of "good home" is a wild environment where captive bred animals have no experience or adaptation to, might I ask? Never mind the damage done to the local ecosystem by releasing non-adapted animals into it.

Actually most domesticated animals, if released into the wild, will definitely survive and thrive. Most farm animals in the US have also generally co-evolved with American climates and biomes so there is no possibility of disruption to the local ecosystems if the animals are released.

The Texas longhorn cattle, razorback pig, feral chickens, and mustangs are all examples of feral animals that are descendants of escaped domesticated animals and are today doing quite well for themselves and are important components in their respective wilderness ecosystems.

who is talking about excusing anything? some things are terrorist activities, some things aren't. anything that falls within the definition of an ALF action is almost certainly not, because it fails to fit any reasonable criteria for what makes something terroristic

(reasonable criteria defined here as at least making terrorism a bad thing, for one - unlike those that would make george washington's continental army a terrorist organization, etc. also it needs to distinguish between different classes of bad things; not all murderers are terrorists, etc.)


Reasonable criteria being a non-state actor who utilizes fear and intimidation, usually among the civilian populace, to force policy changes in a state actor. The idea was popularized by suicide bombings, but such actions are not necessary to be defined as terroristic in nature. Murder need not even be utilized. The primary factor is fear and intimidation to persuade others to your way of thinking. Pumping panic inducing hallucinogens into the local water supply or gassing entire towns with them can also be considered to be a form of terrorism.


shit, even if the same person commits both an ALF action and a clearly terroristic bombing of a bus full of children, that wouldn't impact the non-terrorist nature of the ALF action. because, obviously, not everything a terrorist individual does is terrorism.

So let me see if I have this straight. If, for example, an ALF member were to bomb a bus full of children, claims it to be an ALF action, with ALF spokesperson claiming ALF responsibility and advocates more such acts, it is not an ALF action?

i didn't claim that. i claimed that they believe, with some plausibility given their moral premises, that their actions fall within the guidelines.

It does not fit any logical interpretation of the word "good home" and "free from suffering", unless one believes that death is the answer to everything, which again, violates yet another ALF tenet.

Cognitive dissonance is a common trait among extremists and fundamentalists. Why should ALF be any different?


then that is violent, as harm was either directly intended or negligently overlooked.

Then ALF is again violating its tenets against violence with their campaign of firebombing private residences while people are inside no?

Actually most domesticated animals, if released into the wild, will definitely survive and thrive. Most farm animals in the US have also generally co-evolved with American climates and biomes so there is no possibility of disruption to the local ecosystems if the animals are released.

The Texas longhorn cattle, razorback pig, feral chickens, and mustangs are all examples of feral animals that are descendants of escaped domesticated animals and are today doing quite well for themselves and are important components in their respective wilderness ecosystems.

Some do well, others don't. The minks certainly didn't, and if I recall correctly, the razorbacks are actually being culled due to overpopulation driving other animals to extinction.

Some do well, others don't. The minks certainly didn't, and if I recall correctly, the razorbacks are actually being culled due to overpopulation driving other animals to extinction.

And don't even get Australians started on the rabbit debacle. :p

And don't even get Australians started on the rabbit debacle. :p

Or frogs. I hear they're at wits end trying to find a way to bring them back into manageable numbers rather than spreading like the plague.

Reasonable criteria being a non-state actor who utilizes fear and intimidation, usually among the civilian populace, to force policy changes in a state actor. The idea was popularized by suicide bombings, but such actions are not necessary to be defined as terroristic in nature. Murder need not even be utilized. The primary factor is fear and intimidation to persuade others to your way of thinking. Pumping panic inducing hallucinogens into the local water supply or gassing entire towns with them can also be considered to be a form of terrorism.

was george washington's continental army a terrorist organization? it was a non-state actor (formed before the declaration of independence, let alone the effective establishment of a real usian state) that attempted to use fear and intimidation on both civilians and the state to force policy changes on the british.

So let me see if I have this straight. If, for example, an ALF member were to bomb a bus full of children, claims it to be an ALF action, with ALF spokesperson claiming ALF responsibility and advocates more such acts, it is not an ALF action?

yep. there are no ALF spokespeople capable of changing the definition of an ALF action because the ALF doesn't exist in that way. you know how v says in 'v for vendetta' that "ideas are bulletproof"? its like that but taken a step farther; this idea is also sabotage-proof and hypocrisy-proof and sellout-proof

It does not fit any logical interpretation of the word "good home" and "free from suffering", unless one believes that death is the answer to everything, which again, violates yet another ALF tenet.

except that they appear to believe that in at least some cases a 'good home' is that which an animal makes for itself. the deaths, such as they are, are natural deaths - and they would like all animal deaths to be natural deaths. seriously, ask animal liberationists how they feel about zoos, which is what you apparently are thinking when you think 'good home'. i assure you that that is not typically how they envision a good life in a good home.

Some do well, others don't. The minks certainly didn't, and if I recall correctly, the razorbacks are actually being culled due to overpopulation driving other animals to extinction.

this is less a problem for animal liberation, than it is for humans moving species all over the place as if it was pangea without any consideration of environmental implications when (not if) they get out. i agree that naive liberations don't help matters on this issue, which is actually why i'm not totally in favor of them.

in any case, being mistaken about the costs and benefits of a tactic (or placing different values on them) does not make for terrorism.

was george washington's continental army a terrorist organization? it was a non-state actor (formed before the declaration of independence, let alone the effective establishment of a real usian state) that attempted to use fear and intimidation on both civilians and the state to force policy changes on the british.


Can you source this fear and intimidation on civilians? It has to be an objective (targeting the populace in order to create mass fear), not a consequence (shelling a city where state actor troops are along with a civilian populace).


yep. there are no ALF spokespeople capable of changing the definition of an ALF action because the ALF doesn't exist in that way. you know how v says in 'v for vendetta' that "ideas are bulletproof"? its like that but taken a step farther; this idea is also sabotage-proof and hypocrisy-proof and sellout-proof


Because the idea is like a paternity test with the name not only blanked out, but put in a shredder, the remnants doused in acid, then petrol, before being ignited and the ashes scattered to the winds.

And using a fictional movie to make a point is at best, a poor way to do so, and rarely ever does, relying on artificial props and often a flight of logic to do so.

Thereby, ALF does NOT exist at all. It is an idea and has no members whatsoever. As an impossible to realize or credit ideal, it stands alone as an artificial construct. It is bulletproof and hypocrisy proof by simply being inaccessible to anyone. Thereby, no actions whatsoever, no matter how criminal or saintlike, can be credited to ALF, and no claims of belonging to ALF can be considered to be true.

What we have then, is a bunch of poseur wannabes who, as before, deserve long prison sentences for terrorist actions.

Well done, you have proven that, by your interpretation, ALF does not exist. At all.

Or more likely, you're using a "No true Scotsman" fallacy.


except that they appear to believe that in at least some cases a 'good home' is that which an animal makes for itself. the deaths, such as they are, are natural deaths - and they would like all animal deaths to be natural deaths. seriously, ask animal liberationists how they feel about zoos, which is what you apparently are thinking when you think 'good home'. i assure you that that is not typically how they envision a good life in a good home.

Yes, natural deaths. Being shot is very natural when city services are engaged in controlling sudden outbreaks of uncontrolled and possibly dangerous pests. There's nothing more natural than having a lump of lead the size of a finger being inserted into one's cranium at high velocity isn't there?

in any case, being mistaken about the costs and benefits of a tactic (or placing different values on them) does not make for terrorism.

Terrorism has the characteristics I outlined earlier, the use of deliberate terror and fear as an objective against a civilian populace to create political change commonly, but not always, in a state actor. It matters not one whit what ideals or values there are behind the action.

Some do well, others don't. The minks certainly didn't, and if I recall correctly, the razorbacks are actually being culled due to overpopulation driving other animals to extinction.

Razorbacks aren't being culled because they drive other animals to extinction, it's because they intrude on human agricultural and suburban sprawl.

Furthermore even in the cases of the Australian rabbits and frogs you refer to as "uncontrollable", why should humans conceive to control them in the first place?

I'm probably grossly simplifying this, but hasn't there always been talk of an assassination of any major figure?

Now, I don't support Obama, but I still wouldn't want him to be attacked.

Razorbacks aren't being culled because they drive other animals to extinction, it's because they intrude on human agricultural and suburban sprawl.

Really? I seem to recall some islands without any human habitation where they're culled at too. Lack of natural predators and/or effective competitors will always, without exception, result in the intruder species utterly disrupting the food chain, and causing havoc in the ecosystem.


Furthermore even in the cases of the Australian rabbits and frogs you refer to as "uncontrollable", why should humans conceive to control them in the first place?

Who said anything about rabbits? As for the frogs, it's simple. They are not native to the local ecosystem and are utterly destroying it by taking out many links of the food chain. Australia's wildlife is threatened by the imported frogs.

It's a lot like certain species of ants, termites and bees that have made migrations into ecosystems they're not native too, either deliberately or accidental, outbreeding the local competitors and leaving wrecked ecosystems behind.

Really? I seem to recall some islands without any human habitation where they're culled at too. Lack of natural predators and/or effective competitors will always, without exception, result in the intruder species utterly disrupting the food chain, and causing havoc in the ecosystem.

Who said anything about rabbits?
Lunatic Goofballs.

As for the frogs, it's simple. They are not native to the local ecosystem and are utterly destroying it by taking out many links of the food chain. Australia's wildlife is threatened by the imported frogs.

It's a lot like certain species of ants, termites and bees that have made migrations into ecosystems they're not native too, either deliberately or accidental, outbreeding the local competitors and leaving wrecked ecosystems behind.

To the exceedingly short attention span of humans the ecosystems appear "wrecked" but in actuality the basic continuity of ecosystems and biota will always remain the same.

Some would argue scaling back the absurd trappings of human industrial civilization (esp factory farming) is worth the "cost" of unintended consequences of uncontrolled release, but that isn't even a "cost." If the frogs and killer bees overpopulate, and many other species become extinct, so be it; just wait a thousand or even a million years. In the end it would turn out to be a small and curious footnote to earth's history, and human's attempts to do anything about right here, right now in the year 2008 AD, are pointless.

Can you source this fear and intimidation on civilians? It has to be an objective (targeting the populace in order to create mass fear), not a consequence (shelling a city where state actor troops are along with a civilian populace).

ah, now we are getting somewhere. so the terror must be caused among the civilian population and it has to be intentionally created - the mass fear must be the immediate goal. this, you will note, is a far cry from where we started while trying to chase down your definition.

two questions:
1) do all civilians count? in other words, can it be terrorism if directed solely against the state's non-military police, for example? or against active collaborators during an occupation by some fascist state?
2) can terrorism be perpetrated against non-civilians? was the bombing of the u.s.s. cole terrorism like the state claims it is, or were they just using 'terrorism' as a meaningless buzzword?

(also, the fear among civilians caused by the american revolution was great enough that a significant percentage of the population fled, some even left the country altogether)

And using a fictional movie to make a point is at best, a poor way to do so, and rarely ever does, relying on artificial props and often a flight of logic to do so.

you probably want to rethink that, as that is clearly dumb.

Thereby, ALF does NOT exist at all. It is an idea and has no members whatsoever. As an impossible to realize or credit ideal, it stands alone as an artificial construct. It is bulletproof and hypocrisy proof by simply being inaccessible to anyone. Thereby, no actions whatsoever, no matter how criminal or saintlike, can be credited to ALF, and no claims of belonging to ALF can be considered to be true.

What we have then, is a bunch of poseur wannabes who, as before, deserve long prison sentences for terrorist actions.

Well done, you have proven that, by your interpretation, ALF does not exist. At all.

Or more likely, you're using a "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

it is not 'no true scotsman' to say that being a true scotsman requires being in some way scottish.

the ALF and ELF are abstract entities which particular actions and individuals may partake in. they are not, however, defined by any individual actions. is this really that hard to grasp?

I'm probably grossly simplifying this, but hasn't there always been talk of an assassination of any major figure?

yeah, but things get slightly more serious when the nazis enter the picture and we are talking about the first black president. they regularly engage in assassinations and terror-tactics already (though often rather incompetently) and they have been storing up large stockpiles of serious weapons for decades as something of an article of faith for "the coming race war".

ah, now we are getting somewhere. so the terror must be caused among the civilian population and it has to be intentionally created - the mass fear must be the immediate goal. this, you will note, is a far cry from where we started while trying to chase down your definition.

The mass fear is a means, but it is a necessary step in any case of terrorism. Terrorism after all, comes from the word terror, and its suffix implies the act of creation of terror.


two questions:
1) do all civilians count? in other words, can it be terrorism if directed solely against the state's non-military police, for example? or against active collaborators during an occupation by some fascist state?

One of the primary goals of terrorism is to create fear among the civilian populace. Not as an unintended consequence, but deliberately. Terrorism is also commonly, but not necessarily, indiscriminate in its choice of civilian victim.

So to answer your two examples, maybe and unspecified. The police represent an organ of the state actor instrumental in enforcing law, but at the same time, are not a military branch. However, if the objective is the overthrow of the state actor, e.g. civil war, attacking the police, as members of law enforcement of the state actor, would be considered an act of war. If the objective is to force the state actor to affect political change, and the police are part of the group targeted to sow fear, it would be terrorism. As before, the goal, fear creation, is a defining factor.

The collaborators are unspecified as to what sort of collaborators and makes any answer unsuitable based on whichever case you might throw at it.


2) can terrorism be perpetrated against non-civilians? was the bombing of the u.s.s. cole terrorism like the state claims it is, or were they just using 'terrorism' as a meaningless buzzword?

No. The USS Cole is a naval ship, and thus, a military section of a state actor. That is an act of war. Those saying yes open up a can of worms by painting all cases of guerrilla war and wars of independence as terrorism then.


(also, the fear among civilians caused by the american revolution was great enough that a significant percentage of the population fled, some even left the country altogether)

Was fear among the populace one of the objectives of the American revolution? I can find no evidence to support such an intention.


you probably want to rethink that, as that is clearly dumb.


Not really. Concepts and ideas forwarded in movies often rely on special circumstances not necessarily found in the real world to work, or sometimes, rely on an ideal which doesn't work with the average human nature.


it is not 'no true scotsman' to say that being a true scotsman requires being in some way scottish.

the ALF and ELF are abstract entities which particular actions and individuals may partake in. they are not, however, defined by any individual actions. is this really that hard to grasp?


Thereby to be an ALF member, one must be in some way, be one no? If the ALF has no means of accepting or rejecting members, then it has no members whatsoever, and the ALF is no more an organization than the Communist Manifesto.

Ergo, the ALF is NOT an entity in any shape or form. It is an unrealizable ideal, no more, no less. However, this does not change the fact that this unrealizable ideal has people performing criminal acts in its name, despite directives in that ideal not to do so.

Not so different from religious extremist is it?

Not surprising in the least.

What is surprising is that the guy could keep running after jumping out a six story window. Holy SHIT!

Maybe the Nazi's finally created the Super humans they always dreamed of. :eek:

I'm probably grossly simplifying this, but hasn't there always been talk of an assassination of any major figure?

Now, I don't support Obama, but I still wouldn't want him to be attacked.

A simple answer would be YES.


Ditto on the second part.

The mass fear is a means, but it is a necessary step in any case of terrorism. Terrorism after all, comes from the word terror, and its suffix implies the act of creation of terror.



One of the primary goals of terrorism is to create fear among the civilian populace. Not as an unintended consequence, but deliberately. Terrorism is also commonly, but not necessarily, indiscriminate in its choice of civilian victim.

So to answer your two examples, maybe and unspecified. The police represent an organ of the state actor instrumental in enforcing law, but at the same time, are not a military branch. However, if the objective is the overthrow of the state actor, e.g. civil war, attacking the police, as members of law enforcement of the state actor, would be considered an act of war. If the objective is to force the state actor to affect political change, and the police are part of the group targeted to sow fear, it would be terrorism. As before, the goal, fear creation, is a defining factor.

The collaborators are unspecified as to what sort of collaborators and makes any answer unsuitable based on whichever case you might throw at it.



No. The USS Cole is a naval ship, and thus, a military section of a state actor. That is an act of war. Those saying yes open up a can of worms by painting all cases of guerrilla war and wars of independence as terrorism then.



Was fear among the populace one of the objectives of the American revolution? I can find no evidence to support such an intention.



Not really. Concepts and ideas forwarded in movies often rely on special circumstances not necessarily found in the real world to work, or sometimes, rely on an ideal which doesn't work with the average human nature.



Thereby to be an ALF member, one must be in some way, be one no? If the ALF has no means of accepting or rejecting members, then it has no members whatsoever, and the ALF is no more an organization than the Communist Manifesto.

Ergo, the ALF is NOT an entity in any shape or form. It is an unrealizable ideal, no more, no less. However, this does not change the fact that this unrealizable ideal has people performing criminal acts in its name, despite directives in that ideal not to do so.

Not so different from religious extremist is it?

Have you noticed that throughout his posts trying to defend and justify the terorrism of ALF that he has constantly attacked the accepted definition of terrorism itself through a combination of Slippery Slope, False Dilemma and Reductio Ad Absurdum where he claims either what ALF commits is not terrorism, or if it is, then every military action by nationstates are thus definable as terrorism?

yeah, but things get slightly more serious when the nazis enter the picture and we are talking about the first black president. they regularly engage in assassinations and terror-tactics already (though often rather incompetently) and they have been storing up large stockpiles of serious weapons for decades as something of an article of faith for "the coming race war".

And no one's doing anything, are they?
Thanks for at least giving me the straight up picture on the whole thing.

Have you noticed that throughout his posts trying to defend and justify the terorrism of ALF that he has constantly attacked the accepted definition of terrorism itself through a combination of Slippery Slope, False Dilemma and Reductio Ad Absurdum where he claims either what ALF commits is not terrorism, or if it is, then every military action by nationstates are thus definable as terrorism?

It's a two part thing rather. The first is an attempt to isolate and determine the defining factors of terrorism, which is a fair enough thing to do. The second is by applying a "no true ALFman" fallacy. Or rather a "There is no ALFman." handwavium Jedi mind trick.

One of the primary goals of terrorism is to create fear among the civilian populace. Not as an unintended consequence, but deliberately. Terrorism is also commonly, but not necessarily, indiscriminate in its choice of civilian victim.

So to answer your two examples, maybe and unspecified. The police represent an organ of the state actor instrumental in enforcing law, but at the same time, are not a military branch. However, if the objective is the overthrow of the state actor, e.g. civil war, attacking the police, as members of law enforcement of the state actor, would be considered an act of war. If the objective is to force the state actor to affect political change, and the police are part of the group targeted to sow fear, it would be terrorism. As before, the goal, fear creation, is a defining factor.

wait, now i'm wondering where the act of war/act of terrorism distinction fits. can acts of war be acts of terrorism, or is it a hard and fast distinction? you seem to be saying both by having both the overthrow vs change objective and the use of fear being defining, but presumably that isn't what you intend. which trumps which?

The collaborators are unspecified as to what sort of collaborators and makes any answer unsuitable based on whichever case you might throw at it.

well, lets try several classes. those those taking part in the occupation government, those turning over information on the resistance, and those working for the occupying fascists more generally.

No. The USS Cole is a naval ship, and thus, a military section of a state actor. That is an act of war. Those saying yes open up a can of worms by painting all cases of guerrilla war and wars of independence as terrorism then.

excellent. see, i always ask this one because people often recourse to merely parroting the state's line that the state can effectively declare anything terrorism (like gauthier apparently was doing earlier), which is clearly either dangerous or renders the term meaningless.

Was fear among the populace one of the objectives of the American revolution? I can find no evidence to support such an intention.

well, it was for the sons of liberty and similar groups, who did some pretty nasty shit to collaborators. but until we restrict the fear among the populace to being a direct goal, rather than just a helpful effect that may be achieved while generally pursuing other activities, we run the risk of including far too much. because it is quite regularly good strategy to have your enemies and those who may join them afraid - means you are less likely to have to actually fight them.

Not really. Concepts and ideas forwarded in movies often rely on special circumstances not necessarily found in the real world to work, or sometimes, rely on an ideal which doesn't work with the average human nature.

that has nothing to do with showing that using examples from fiction is bad per se, and certainly doesn't in any way suggest that we should refrain from quoting well-phrased ideas from it. i mean, is your claim that ideas are not in fact bulletproof? would it have mattered if it was actually a quote from mlk in real life?

Thereby to be an ALF member, one must be in some way, be one no? If the ALF has no means of accepting or rejecting members, then it has no members whatsoever, and the ALF is no more an organization than the Communist Manifesto.

it does have a means of accepting or rejecting members. conformity to the definition. logic itself sorts for us what is in and what is out.

To the exceedingly short attention span of humans the ecosystems appear "wrecked" but in actuality the basic continuity of ecosystems and biota will always remain the same.

In the long run usually spanning centuries, depending on the average life span of the local ecosystem and rate of reproduction.


Some would argue scaling back the absurd trappings of human industrial civilization (esp factory farming) is worth the "cost" of unintended consequences of uncontrolled release, but that isn't even a "cost." If the frogs and killer bees overpopulate, and many other species become extinct, so be it; just wait a thousand or even a million years. In the end it would turn out to be a small and curious footnote to earth's history, and human's attempts to do anything about right here, right now in the year 2008 AD, are pointless.

Then one can take this very same argument, and run rampant development without one whit of care towards the local environment or ecosystem save for when it directly impacts humans, since after all, any attempts to do anything is pointless in the grand scheme of things.

Then one can take this very same argument, and run rampant development without one whit of care towards the local environment or ecosystem save for when it directly impacts humans, since after all, any attempts to do anything is pointless in the grand scheme of things.

That's the thing...sure, humans aren't going to threaten life on Earth, but there's no guarantee that future will include us if we're not careful. Environmental protection is first and foremost protecting the human race from extinction by curbing the excesses that stem from necessary growth. The planet doesn't care about us, but we do.

You've apparently never done meth. Neither have I actually, but I've come into contact with people who have. If Barack Obama is assassinated I will assure you that their will be riots everywhere. There will be a revolution like none seen since our birth. The Rodney King riots will look like a 3 year old little girl's tea party. If white supremacists are behind the attacks we will hunt them and kill them wherever they lay. We will not accept terrorism from foreign or domestic sources. When swearing an oath and being commissioned I agreed to fight against all of America's enemies foreign or domestic. I will gladly rise up and take arms to destroy the terrorists among us, much as I did when I was called to go overseas. This is my pledge to my country and to all of you here. He dies we die too!

More likely if Obama is killed (God forbid) there will be some God-awful riots for a week or two, then things will move on, albeit with a public that no longer holds any political idealism, leaving the feild open for the fanatics and the lobyists. To many people are apathetic.

But really, what would violence in response to such a tragedy acomplish? What good would it do to present Obama's supporters as violent nuts, tarnishing his legacy and legitimizing his worst enemies? It would also be a profound betrayal of Obama's message of unity, an insult to everything he worked for. If the Government sanctioned his killing it might be a different matter, but your talk of revolution in this distasteful hypothetical is unwarrented, I think.

I am disturbed, however, by the speed with which the cops dismissed this as a credible threat. And in a red state, no less. With so many Bush apointees in the Justice system, and recent concerns about racism in the Secret Service, mister Obama should have a lot of private security.

wait, now i'm wondering where the act of war/act of terrorism distinction fits. can acts of war be acts of terrorism, or is it a hard and fast distinction? you seem to be saying both by having both the overthrow vs change objective and the use of fear being defining, but presumably that isn't what you intend. which trumps which?


It's simple. If we look at it at the very basics, terrorism is to cause fear, as a goal. Modern application of the term terrorism is to cause fear amongst a civilian populace as a means of achieving a goal, which commonly is to affect political change in a state actor. It is NOT to destroy the state actor. Acts which have the destruction of the state actor or destruction of its influence and authority over its territories is an act of war. Terrorism in modern nuance is designed to force the state actor to concede to demands, but not to destroy it.

It's a very simple distinction.


well, lets try several classes. those those taking part in the occupation government,

In what capacity?


those turning over information on the resistance,

This is generally considered treason. Treason in most countries is punished either with life imprisonment or the death penalty.


and those working for the occupying fascists more generally.


... road sweepers?


well, it was for the sons of liberty and similar groups, who did some pretty nasty shit to collaborators. but until we restrict the fear among the populace to being a direct goal, rather than just a helpful effect that may be achieved while generally pursuing other activities, we run the risk of including far too much. because it is quite regularly good strategy to have your enemies and those who may join them afraid - means you are less likely to have to actually fight them.

As I have already said, fear amongst the civilian populace is a primary goal for the act to be considered terrorism.


that has nothing to do with showing that using examples from fiction is bad per se, and certainly doesn't in any way suggest that we should refrain from quoting well-phrased ideas from it. i mean, is your claim that ideas are not in fact bulletproof? would it have mattered if it was actually a quote from mlk in real life?

Examples in fiction for application in real life is almost always bad. Fiction often ignores consequences or stretches the bounds of probability in order for the examples to work. In some cases, they simply outright ignore core physical laws.

As for your claim that an idea is bulletproof, do you mean that it is irreproachable? Bollocks. Ideas can only exist in the medium of interpretation and acknowledgment. Ideas thereby, mutate according to the interpretation of their carrier. Ideas are carried out by their carriers. Or did you mean that ideas cannot be crushed? Bollocks again. Ideas only last so long as there are those willing to carry them. Ideas can be discredited, or simply erased from history.


it does have a means of accepting or rejecting members. conformity to the definition. logic itself sorts for us what is in and what is out.

No, this does not work. I hereby form an organization called DOLT. The definition of any member is that they are alive, on NSG, and not me. You are now a DOLT.

Razorbacks aren't being culled because they drive other animals to extinction, it's because they intrude on human agricultural and suburban sprawl.

Furthermore even in the cases of the Australian rabbits and frogs you refer to as "uncontrollable", why should humans conceive to control them in the first place?

IIRC, feral hogs also tear up farmland, making it more likely that farm animals like cows and horses get injured.

It's simple. If we look at it at the very basics, terrorism is to cause fear, as a goal. Modern application of the term terrorism is to cause fear amongst a civilian populace as a means of achieving a goal, which commonly is to affect political change in a state actor. It is NOT to destroy the state actor. Acts which have the destruction of the state actor or destruction of its influence and authority over its territories is an act of war. Terrorism in modern nuance is designed to force the state actor to concede to demands, but not to destroy it.

It's a very simple distinction.

so al q isn't terrorist because it intends to destroy the various states it attacks? the plo wasn't a terrorist organization when its major defining aim was the annihilation of israel?

This is generally considered treason. Treason in most countries is punished either with life imprisonment or the death penalty.

assume the country it would be treason to is already gone, and the resistance is making examples of informers all on their own, in order to create terror among anyone that would work with the occupation. terrorism or not?.

As I have already said, fear amongst the civilian populace is a primary goal for the act to be considered terrorism.

yes, but you hadn't said so when the example was offered.

As for your claim that an idea is bulletproof, do you mean that it is irreproachable? Bollocks. Ideas can only exist in the medium of interpretation and acknowledgment. Ideas thereby, mutate according to the interpretation of their carrier. Ideas are carried out by their carriers. Or did you mean that ideas cannot be crushed? Bollocks again. Ideas only last so long as there are those willing to carry them. Ideas can be discredited, or simply erased from history.

in its simplest form, ideas cannot be shot. the only way to truly kill an idea is to kill everyone who has heard of it and wipe out all references to it on the planet and prevent anyone from ever coming up with it again - and this includes getting rid of those doing the wiping out.

No, this does not work. I hereby form an organization called DOLT. The definition of any member is that they are alive, on NSG, and not me. You are now a DOLT.

that does in fact work. welcome to the wonderful world of defining classes of people and actions. just don't expect other people to take up your usage.

so al q isn't terrorist because it intends to destroy the various states it attacks? the plo wasn't a terrorist organization when its major defining aim was the annihilation of israel?

Nobody really knows what Al Q wants, if it isn't an overblown convenient fiction that lumps together any number of disparate groups. Most of what I hear is that they want Western influence out of the Middle East, which is policy change anyway. The PLO as far as I know has Palestinian national recognition as their primary goal and out of Israeli interference, again a policy change.

It seems more like the Al Q and PLO have done both acts of war and terrorism. It's not like the acts are mutually exclusive.


assume the country it would be treason to is already gone, and the resistance is making examples of informers all on their own, in order to create terror among anyone that would work with the occupation. terrorism or not?.


A resistance group seems to counter the idea that the country is already gone.


yes, but you hadn't said so when the example was offered.


Because you had other factors at the time in play.


in its simplest form, ideas cannot be shot. the only way to truly kill an idea is to kill everyone who has heard of it and wipe out all references to it on the planet and prevent anyone from ever coming up with it again - and this includes getting rid of those doing the wiping out.


Ideas can be forgotten too, or suppressed to the point where they are forgotten.


that does in fact work. welcome to the wonderful world of defining classes of people and actions. just don't expect other people to take up your usage.

So why should anyone believe that an ALF member, IS an ALF member?