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.

 

What's your perception - Jihadist vs American 'Freedom Fighters' ?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   
I don't know when exactly we stopped being America -Land of the Free, but I am disgusted at what we have become. It only gets worse each day. I haven't really seen any real people excited or optimistic about what Obama has done or what he and the Congress are planning. There seems to be an ever increasing disconnected between the people and the government.

This got me thinking today. Should we ever hear of an act of terrorism in the US it will likely be against symbols of America and/or its civilians and claimed by some Islamic jihadist group. This would almost certainly outrage virtually all Americans.

However, what if the act of 'terrorism' was not targeted against civilian or American icons or by jihadist? How would people feel if it were the IRS or the Fed? What if Senators or Congressmen were being targeted specifically for assassination? What if it were simply angry Americans claiming their cause is to reclaim our liberties and constitution?

From my perspective, I can't say I would feel all that bad. I personally wouldn't feel it is an act of terrorism. I wouldn't be afraid to go out and continue my daily business. I'm not suggesting that I would support such actions, or encourage such things. I would feel as upset for those losses as I would if I heard a local gang member were killed in gang violence or a local meth lab was destroyed by a drug cartel.

What about everyone else? How would you feel? Is there a contrast between jihadist and American 'Freedom Fighters' for you?

Edit: Mods, if this would fit in better in another forum, plese move it.

Edit For Clarification: In this case, Jihadist = Islamic Extremist (death to the big Satan.) American 'Freedom Fighters' = modern day revolutionaries (anti-Fed, politicians ignoring the constitution and eroding rights should be removed by any means)

[edit on 20-2-2009 by Wolf321]

[edit on 20-2-2009 by Wolf321]




posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Do I need a better title? Does no one have an opinion? Or, are people concerned about voicing their opinion here?



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Interesting debate, but maybe people are concerned that your post could incite or indeed inspire some people to do just that and could become subject to investigation by feds if such a thing should happen.

It's a difficult topic for many i say, but for anyone to advocate or turn a blind eye to the death of human is difficult to understand, no matter how corrupt the system. Tricky.



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by mr-lizard
 


I don't think I would turn a blind eye per say. In fact, I would be quite attentive to such events should they occur. My personal emotions or feelings over the cause vs targets would be indifferent. My personal view on the IRS, the Fed and the vast majority of Congress is that they are corrupt, either grossly and intently negligent or completely stupid, and unconstitutional/unAmerican. That being said, such loses wouldn't be inherently positive, nor would they be a tragedy for the nation.

Although I do fear that big brother is always watching and increasingly trying to silent adverse or opposing thought, I would hope that of all places, such a forum as this would be a bastion of philosophical and intellectual though. I am sure that many of the posters, should they want to discuss the topic, can do so clearly enough to avoid being perceived as inciting anarchy or rebellion.



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   
I think everyone is worried about the ramifications of posting a response to this but here it goes.

I think it would be a massively unwise act for any individual or group to make an attack on unarmed persons no matter what. And starting a shootout with armed persons is even more unwise.

I think the assassination of a sitting US Senator or Representative would and should be treated exactly as that, an assassination. It is murder in cold blood. Any change in government should be done by a mass movement of the people in a peaceful manner.

I do however support all citizens exercising their 1st and 2nd amendments simultaneously, that way police may think twice before instigating violence, because it may well end up that they get shot themselves.

People need to take to the streets. The economy can be shut down with sheer willpower, believe it or not. If half of the population of California had a sickout until Pelosi resigned, there would be a massive uproar and she would be forced to either bow out or be known as the senator with an ego large enough to allow the largest state economy to fail. The fallout from this would possibly be enough to force senators and congresspersons to resign their seat if there was a big enough show of unity.

Everyone should also start networking. Meet like minded people in other states, push for a nationwide movement of liberty, get on the Ham waves to maintain contact in case of a communications crackdown(my next task), stockpile arms, food, water, medical supplies, alcohol, diesel, spare vehicle parts, tools, etc.

The war will not be won by a series of terrorist attacks, assassinations, or violent revolution. It will be won by armed civilians acting with courage and restraint by standing up against overwhelming odds but refusing to give up their god given rights.

Militias should be ready to assemble to protect those that will be singled out by the government(likely the movement leaders), to protect them and their families, to hold off seizure of land and property, and to generally fight to protect our constitution. They should not fire first unless there is an active threat to the militia or their protectees, and then it should be just to neutralize the threat.

Offensive action is not the answer and will just become more spin ammo for the MSM and corrupt government.



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 09:38 PM
link   
I may be alone on this one, I frequently am
, but I would see it the same way I see any similar act by someone from another country. I would still consider it an act of terrorism. It wouldn't prevent me from going about my life any more than previous terror attacks have, and I would be just as appalled and angry if it were committed by a US citizen as I would be/have been over attacks committed by those who are not US citizens. Changing the face/citizenship of the terrorist doesn't change the act. I believe there are far more productive ways to go about demonstrating/voicing your discontent and disagreement with the government than blowing things up or killing innocent people.



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


Thanks for the post Jenna. I'm glad to hear some opinion on the matter. So, you still the the government as being controlled by the people, and possibly truly believing they are working in the best interest of the people, despite the mess they have gotten us into. And you also believe that they listen to the people, with the desire of representing them. If I am off, let me know.

I hope more people chime in. I would like to see if I am standing alone in this view.

[edit on 20-2-2009 by Wolf321]



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   
What's your perception - Jihadist vs American 'Freedom Fighters' ?

My perception is people should stop fighting and learn to co exist as human beings.
And stop letting stupid things like religion get in the way of this.



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Wolf321
 


No, I think they are working with their own best interests in mind, not those of the rest of us. Sometimes they coincide with what is best for everyone, but frequently the things the government does only serve to line the pockets of the few at the expense of everyone else. I just don't agree with blowing things up or killing someone just because you disagree with them or their actions. To me it makes about as much sense as blowing up my neighbors house because their tree hangs over into my yard and they refuse to cut it down because they like the shade. It would be a senseless act of violence when it would be much more productive to sit them down and explain that while I understand they like having that tree for shade, the branches hanging over my driveway are giving birds somewhere to sit while they poo all over my car. The first option leads to me in jail and my neighbor with no house or dead, the latter may convince them to at least cut the branches that are hanging over my car.



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by BorgHoffen
My perception is people should stop fighting and learn to co exist as human beings. And stop letting stupid things like religion get in the way of this.


Based upon this response and the limited number of other responses,
I'm starting to think my thread topic might not be the most fitting for the discussion. Any suggestions?



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   
If you mean suggestions for a different thread title, I think it's fine. It caught my attention anyway. Or was that not what you meant?



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
reply to post by Wolf321
 

I just don't agree with blowing things up or killing someone just because you disagree with them or their actions.


I don't want this to sound antagonistic, but do you think that the American revolution went too far?


To me it makes about as much sense as blowing up my neighbors house because their tree hangs over into my yard and they refuse to cut it down because they like the shade.


Does their come a point where you would cut the limbs that hang in your yard?


For me, I truly feel like the Congress, the President and possibly all the President's cabinet are intentionally trying to erode freedom, rights, and everything America stands for.

To continue on your analogy, it is as if the neighbor started letting strangers move into my house, use and destroy my stuff, and restrict me in my own home. And at this point, we have yelled at the neighbor, pleaded with the neighbor and called the cops on him (but he is the Chief of Police.)



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wolf321
I don't want this to sound antagonistic, but do you think that the American revolution went too far?


Diplomacy only goes so far before you are forced to defend yourself, and in reality had the British not sent warships and soldiers it may not have gone the way it did. No I don't think it went too far, but fighting against a military that has been sent to quell an uprising is a bit different from blowing up a building or assassinating someone over a difference in opinion.


Does their come a point where you would cut the limbs that hang in your yard?


If talking to the neighbor did nothing, I would likely move my car first before cutting off the limbs. But yes eventually I probably would and would just have to accept that they would probably be angry that I cut their tree.


For me, I truly feel like the Congress, the President and possibly all the President's cabinet are intentionally trying to erode freedom, rights, and everything America stands for.


I don't think it's always intentional, but it is more a side effect of them thinking of themselves first and the country last. Certainly some cases are intentional, but I don't think all of it is.


To continue on your analogy, it is as if the neighbor started letting strangers move into my house, use and destroy my stuff, and restrict me in my own home. And at this point, we have yelled at the neighbor, pleaded with the neighbor and called the cops on him (but he is the Chief of Police.)


That changed the analogy quite a bit, but I think I get your point. I think this is the point where you force the strangers out, tell the neighbor to stuff it, maybe build a wall or fence to keep the strangers out and possibly sue the neighbor for damages. Like I said diplomacy only goes so far before you are forced to stand up for yourself.



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
I think this is the point where you force the strangers out, tell the neighbor to stuff it, maybe build a wall or fence to keep the strangers out and possibly sue the neighbor for damages. Like I said diplomacy only goes so far before you are forced to stand up for yourself.


So, if a stranger killed your neighbor after all this, would you be saddened that he was the one killed that day any less than if it had been some stranger or would you be equally sad?



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 10:32 PM
link   
I'd have to ask what you think of Timothy McVey or say, The Weathermen then.

And note: this sort of thing demands a lot of faith from people. Do you really trust any large group of anti-government anarchists to commit violence? No matter the cause, do you trust anyone enough to feel comfortable with their deciding life and death over others?



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Wolf321
 


You may have lost me there.

If we are sticking with the analogy of the pushy neighbor who was trying to force me to be ok with strangers taking up space in my house while forcing me to stay there, then yeah I'd be upset that they were killed though I might have a few moments of thinking it served them right for letting strangers in my house to break my stuff. What exactly would be the hypothetical circumstances though? Random act of violence or was the neighbor targeted? If they were targeted, why?

As for if it was a stranger who was killed, we are all naturally upset when someone we know dies more so than someone we don't. It would depend on the hypothetical circumstances, random act of violence vs. a targeted killing etc., surrounding the death of the stranger. Was this stranger an innocent bystander? Why were they killed?

For me it's not a simple I knew the neighbor so I am more upset, or I hate that particular neighbor so the stranger's death upsets me more. I may be over-complicating this but as I said, you may have lost me in the jump from neighbor I disagree with over a tree to neighbor confining me in my house while letting strangers in to break my stuff. Or I may just be getting tired. Care to clarify so I know exactly what I am answering?



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Jadette
 


McVeigh's target seemed convoluted. When a soldier/hunter picks a target, they are precise. They aim for the head or the heart. If McVeigh were anti-government, he picked a lame target. I'm not well versed enough to comment on the Weatherman/Weather Underground.

My examples were somewhat specific for examples. As I have said, I feel these examples are in direct violation of the constitution or completely subversive to what America is.

I'm not trusting or supporting or even putting faith in any group of people. I am just curious as to individual feelings if, after all that has happened, the individuals or organizations were victims of American 'terrorist.' I would be more saddened by the fact that that was what things have come to, than for the actual loss of the particular individuals or departments.



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


lol, I was a little worried my wording on that last one would be too tricky.

The idea was, if after all that had happened, this nasty neighbor murdered. Let's say his other neighbor (who he had been doing the same thing too) was fed up and killed the guy. Would you that saddened for loss of your nasty neighbor? I would think you would feel somewhat of a 'good riddance' or as you said 'he deserved it.'

Now, had this been just a normal neighbor, perhaps you knew but never really talked too or had much of a relationship with, you would feel a bit more loss and sadness.

If these are the cases, then you should be able to understand my feelings on the specific cases I cited.



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Wolf321
 

Maybe you could start by understanding and defining what Jihad is supposed to be - here's a clue it's not about political or religious terrorism. Then perhaps you could identify for me, since I don't know, who or what "Freedom Fighters" are and what do they believe.



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   
The big difference for me is the religious element.

I do not condemn people who strike against a government, if it is oppressing them.

I do have a big problem with someone who takes the religious ideals to the extreme of thinking they can kill someone else.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join