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.

 

BBC confuses right wing radicals with terrorists

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 06:37 PM
link   

From BBC NEWS
US radical right remains a threat
By Kevin Anderson
BBC News

The Oklahoma City bombing shocked the United States in 1995 and brought to light the shadowy world of radical rightwing paramilitary groups known as militias.

Timothy McVeigh and co-conspirator Terry Nichols had attended militia meetings, hoping to find allies in the anti-government paramilitaries, but they were never members.

However, following the bombing, the media and law enforcement suddenly focused on the armed and virulently anti-government subculture of the militias.


So, in other words, the terrorist wasn't actually a member of any of these militias, and this suggests some level of sanity on the part of the militias, but a bunch of people who distrust the government and practice the art of shooting things are a legitimate "threat".

The militia people didn't want McVeigh to hang around with them. Obviously they have some level of sanity; if the militias don't let the real crazy people into their clubs, what point is there in scrutinizing these groups as a potential source of terrorism? Not much more than any other kind of group.

Mr. Anderson seems to be using something of a straw man argument, as he seems to think that just because the more extreme conspiracy theories (NWO and Y2K and Armageddon stuff) may not be entirely correct, that these right wing extremists are completely nuts. Obviously, if extreme conspiracy theories are wrong, there is no chance of the United States becoming a police state because any conspiracy theory involving something more realistic is automatically discredited, as we all know from this fine website.

Of course, Mr. Anderson already lives in a police state so the thought of armed resistance might be making his frontal lobes hurt.

I just found this whole article fallacious and a bit offensive, and it's a red herring to distract people from real terrorists.




posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Any person military or not who owns a weapon and has a political opion can be labelled a terrorist.....right or wrong its possible.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 08:03 PM
link   
What! My family owns several guns and rifles, and whatever our political point of view is it doesn't make us terrorists.
I guess living in a country where even police are afraid to carry guns makes you think everyone with a weapon is a terrorist.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 01:05 AM
link   
I think what he meant is that anyone with a weapon and a POV can be "called" a terrorist, whether or not they actually are one. I could "call" you Santa Claus, that wouldn't make you St. Nick


I think he was just trying to point out that the term gets broadly used.

I don't think the mainline militias that appeared in the last decade qualify as terrorists - where are the terrorist attacks? McVeigh tried to join the Michigan Militia and they figured out that he was a nut right away and showed him out the door.

There are right-wing terrorist groups in the US that have commited terrorist attacks, the Aryan Nations, the Army of God, and others. But the for the most part the militia groups never caused any real problems, and it's arguable how "right wing" they actually were, outside of a hardcore anti gun control sentiment.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
What! My family owns several guns and rifles, and whatever our political point of view is it doesn't make us terrorists.
I guess living in a country where even police are afraid to carry guns makes you think everyone with a weapon is a terrorist.

Look at the post above this.
BTW the police are not afraid to carry weapons...

Its just we dont have much need for them.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Its just we dont have much need for them.



Heh!!! Only when on guard outside the US embassy!!



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
I think what he meant is that anyone with a weapon and a POV can be "called" a terrorist, whether or not they actually are one. I could "call" you Santa Claus, that wouldn't make you St. Nick


I think he was just trying to point out that the term gets broadly used.



No, if you look at the header lines in the article, Anderson clearly seems to think that right wing militia groups are a terrorist threat in the US.

Now, it is true that hardcore libertarians talk about starting revolutions to overthrow a tyrannical government, but I think Anderson is worrying too much, and part of that reason is because most of the militia types that I know, as well as myself, would consider the UK to have stepped too far in oppressing the population, legitimizing violent resistance.




top topics



 
0

log in

join