domestic terrorism Vs international terrorism and why dont we go after domestics terrorists?

this war on terror in THEORY is a just cause. rid the world of terrorism. right? well in practice its not working out so well although on paper i do support this however i think there is something being grossly overlooked, domestic terrorism. whackos right here within our own borders doing things to terrorize or put fear into others for whatever reason.

ELF is what i would consider a domestic terrorist group. while technically they are a loose network of people and the people who claim to speak for ELF claim that whatever other people do in ELF's name is not of their own design and work i feel they are encouraging/advocating violence and destruction to get their "point" across. setting SUVs on fire (thats right genius, set a vehicle on fire and put more pollutants into the air by setting it on fire than someone actually buying it and driving it. what a way to "defend" the planet!) is a popular them as of late but them and similar groups (PETA comes to mind) have done anything and everything including driving metal spikes into trees (a lumber jack uses a chainsaw to cut down said tree hits the spike, the chain breaks and kills or maims the lumberjack) and i am wondering why noone goes after them. the act themselves are investigated but its almost as if the government doesnt care what happens to its own people! some will argue these groups are not terrorist orginizations, i feel that they are either indirectly encouraging such behavior or are a front for other groups and people who do these things.

so doesnt the government go after these groups? we have homeland security now and yet they are focused on international terrorists!!! this makes no sense to me.

i know politicians are dirty lying double standard two faced liars who's only interests are themselves and what business they can do for their buddies and their party but none of this adds up or makes sense to me.

it also seems they are wanting to broaden the definition of what a terrorist is to include drug offenses....WTF???? i dont give a toot sweet about some crack head in an alley i care about people on my own soil mailing bombs to people and setting SUVs on fire who are using intimidation tactics in the hopes they see the world bow to their feet and capitulate to them. i'm more concerned about that than whats going on somewhere else in the world. there are priorities which must be kept and we should look out for ourselves first which means going after those who operate within our own borders first and sealing off the borders to outside terrorist with STIFF screening and immigrations laws.

think this whole terrorism issue is being handled poorly at best and is a mockery and farce at worse. i'm not one who thinks there's a conspiracy behind everything but something isnt adding up here and i dont like it one bit.

the reason why i put this HERE and not in the war on terror forum is because i feel that forum is for posting news articles.

this is just a dicussion of our own ideas opinions and views.


which leads me to some questions i want everyone to answer.

what is a domestic terrorist group to you or what you feel a domestic terrorist group is in definition? (in your own words)

which should get higher priority, domestic terrorists or inernational terrorists? and why?

how should these people and groups be dealt with?

Peta, have allways crossed me as being weird...

i just dont get them at all...

i dont either. i checked out their website once and they had an article on giving your pet (cat or dog) a vegetarian diet and why this is better for them.

it was basically basically arguing against nature itself. it made no sense to me why a cat or dog couldnt have a diet it would naturally have in the wild (mostly meat with SOME vegetation). i think peta wants people to live THEIR way of life instead of just a natural way or life (regardless whether it is really herbivore carnivore or omniovore)


i dont think PETA itself is a terrorist type orginatization but the commerical they wanted shown in a theater in england showing a woman getting VICIOUSLY attacked and being stripped of her fur coat to me advocates violence. and where they wanted it shown was in a theater known to be frequented by those who did wear fur coats. which to me says they are trying to bully people into a ceratin lifestyle with scare tactics...which to me is terrorism.

so i think they have terrorist stylings for sure....

The first ones I would like to see gone are the Aryan Nation and the KKK.
I know all the arguments about free speach and all but there is a limit when that speach is inciting violence against certain groups.
Burning a cross in someones front yard IS Terrorism.

edit: Oh, damn. I hope Colonel never sees this. It could ruin his image of me!

[Edited on 28-8-2003 by Fry2]

agreed!

its one thing when they do peaceful marches and such but there are other elements to them that DO promote violence and those elements should be sought after fiercely and weeded out.

i know groups like W.A.R. (white aryan resistence) are borderline terrorist groups.

then there's a large group in lincoln nebraska that KIND of promotes that stuff. its like a loose network of smaller groups and this is something of a hub as they have newsletters and such (i forget the name of it but its for nazis not the klan)

then you have groups in michigan....

i know WAY too much about these white supremists for my own good.

For Many People, that there pungent, smelly, toxic plant, is BIO_TERROR

'scuse me while i mask up:
THERE...now,

I believe the Patriot Act is unfolding

I believe the 'personal privacy'(revision) is unfolding

I believe, its a matter of semantics--->civilian criminals &
foreign terrorists are each a social pirriah...and are
removed from social interaction , hopefully before any
destruction occurs.

i try to remain ZEN concerning this stuff


thanks ThePrankMonkey, too complex 4 me!