It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Anti-Government Extremist Groups Are A Uniquely American Problem

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

I can chalk MAYBE the first term of Bush' Presidency up to 911, but by 2004 and later 2006, people were starting to tire of his war on terrorism rhetoric. I know I was. I was sick of Bush by the end of his first Presidency and the novelty of how he handled 911 had worn off a while ago. Keep in mind, I was on active duty in the Army at the time.




posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Who did they kill and who are they terrorizing?



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Don't let Levin fool you. The reason for "more is less" isn't as he proposes. The idea of avoiding making some martyrs is the least of their worries.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

I think anyone who currently does not have a "safe space" due to the tenement having no vacancy, are likely feeling terrorized by this group.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: TechniXcality


Revisionist history, that often leads to book burning, starts with the redefining of laungage and is an insult to citizens everywhere.


Hi.

I would like your definition of "Patriot", please.
In your own words, describe what a "patriot" is.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: TechniXcality

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TechniXcality

Though I'm eager to hear what YOU think the "patriots" are there for.


Just can't help yourself with the "patriot" jab. It's not a pretty sight to watch you patronize those who are patriots, with your obvious connection to the term terrorism, of which you make no apology.


Why should I apologize for my opinion?


I do not think it is time to take up arms, so therefor I believe the action that has been taken is beyond support, as of now, I support smooth transition of power, and unfortunately a failing legal system- that I know needs reform. however they are not terrorists, potentially they could become terrorists, but as of now squatting in a previously unoccupied federal building, is a form of protest albeit one I do not agree with, because of what I mentioned earlier. Also, I think the BLM is engaged in a act of land grabbing, and is using judicial weight to essentially extort people.

I think while misguided in their action, they are pressing a issue (specifically abuse of power) that once again crosses political, religious, and racial devides.


Using illegal means to inspire changes in the government is pretty much terrorism. It's really hard to argue around that. Heck, these idiots are banking on the FBI coming and shooting them up like with Waco so as to create martyrs out of them. So now you have the fear aspect of terrorism as well.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Who did they kill and who are they terrorizing?


I never said they killed anyone and I've already explained myself here in the thread.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
I would like your definition of "Patriot", please.
In your own words, describe what a "patriot" is.


I want a crack at this one.

For me, a patriot of the United States, is someone who adheres to the Constitution and the ideals it delineates unequivocally.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Holing up in a federal building with a bunch of guns is, in my estimation, a THREAT of possible action using those weapons against 'intruders.'
That is terrorism.

as opposed to a "gun show", in a public venue, where people congregate to admire one another's weapons. That is NOT terrorism.....


edit on 1/5/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You really think their plan is to die? Wow. Tell me more. The bundy's (mormons) are lawyered up to the teeth. You really think they have no plan other than to die?



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Cant even begin to understand, outside of acknowledging that this IS a partisan thread, how one can say that this is a uniquely american problem. Where? In the Krazy world?



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Seriously... Protesting isn't done with guns, camouflage, and illegal occupation of lands you don't own.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

So, would I be considered a "patriot", then?
From what you know about me?



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
So, would I be considered a "patriot", then?
From what you know about me?


Of course.

The fact that you are a beer drinking crazy ginger only adds to the patriotism.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

You are the second person going on about the title in the thread. -I- didn't write that title. I just reposted it from Huffington Post because I liked the points the article was bringing up about anti-extremist behavior in the States. There is a reason I started ignoring that other poster's comments, because the thread isn't about the title. Chalk it up to sensationalism on HuffPo's part for all I care. Just leave me out of the critique of the title.
edit on 5-1-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Buzzy, the answer to your question for me as well, was posted above, a patriot in the context of American is someone who supports our constitution and the principals our fathers laid out.

In action, this means openly debating one another and our ideas that may conflict, and finding compromise even in disagreement. It can also mean taking up arms, protesting, civil disobedience in the form of satire or political jabs, and can even mean revolution if the government in power is no longer arbitrating as it should.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

I'm not actually sure they have a plan other than to be loud, obnoxious, and anti-government. Though if you have some evidence other than "being lawyered up to the teeth" of an actual game plan, then by all means produce it.
edit on 5-1-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The gov or more accurately, the plutocrats, were golden until the Bankster Bailout. The housing bubble kept many people on the bandwagon and war is always the health of the state. War time govs always have a lot more judicial and material power.

Until the Bankster Bailout, any dissent could have been called terrorism.

The Republican Party has steadily lost republicans since Reagan's concessions to the CFR in the 80's. As you may have noticed, the Republicans have passed the Democratic Party's budgetr wish list and the Tea Party is still suffering from the IRS attention.

So the militia movement is not Republican or Racist. It tends to grow in bad economic times. Like Canadians in show biz and Minorities in professional sports, people choose to live through militias when the other economic avenues are poor or boring or heading that way.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Being lawyered up is evidence of a plan. Of course i don't know what that plan is.

I can see your bias by the labels you put on these people, so i know what your plan is. To be loud and obnoxious.
edit on 5-1-2016 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
ETA: Rolling out the Patriot Act 45 days after 911 and Invading Iraq against the wishes of the vast majority of the planet have added fuel to the fire that is anti-US Government sentiment, and 14+ years later and both parties having control of the throne since then, and the citizenry left with less freedoms and more surveillance is testament.


Interestingly all those things were done during a Republican Presidency, but they didn't become a problem until a Democrat was in office. But it's not like they weren't unconstitutional and freedom stripping then either. I guess when it's your guy stealing liberties then its ok.


That's funny because Democrats used to rally and protest under Bush, but give Obama a pass on all the same issues.







 
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join