Give it time, an a simple DWI will be an act of terrorism.

IMO, it is a battle between the police and gangs. They used to be simple crimes, but if you slap the terrorism tag on you might get more funds from the fed.

Of course, a lot of this gang stuff comes because of the war on drugs.

Apparently this is drug gang activity. The Vargos are mentioned as the likely culprits.

Originally posted by Marked One


A more appropriate term would be (aside from 'organized crime') an insurgency.

....Well let's get out the predator drones and level the neighbourhood.

That's what happens to neighbourhoods that harbour 'insurgents' right?




[edit on 18-3-2010 by Exuberant1]

Back in the 1970’s here in Florida a couple of big biker gangs literally took over a couple of counties in Central Florida. It became such a problem at one stage that the National Guard was called out and deployed for months to retake the roads, bridges and byways that the bikers had come to rule as their own little fiefdom.

People didn’t call them urban terrorists or domestic terrorists. They called them what they were outlaw bikers.

The word games that the government and the corporate media are playing have gotten past the point of ridiculousness.

People who can’t say what they mean and mean what they say really ought not to be trusted or listened too.

The Government is not stupid; it knows from the polls that it has lost the support of the people. Less than 20% of the population approves of the way Congress is doing business.

They know their only real protection is teaching citizens to fear one another and distrust one another and to look to the government for them to protect the people from those fears.

Since the fears are almost entirely baseless and imagined it’s pretty easy for the Government to then justify itself based on the notion it is protecting us from what is essentially nothing.

People should see these desperate ploys and plays on words for exactly what it is a corrupt government that has lost the popular support of the people desperate to cling to its own power for the sake of its own power at the expense of the people.


[edit on 18/3/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

sounds like some uni bomber type creative terrorism. I mean we called Ted Kazinski a terrorist didnt we? and that was years and years before 9-11

Originally posted by warpcrafter
I think insurgency is the right term.

Why do you think that these criminals should be deemed "insurgents"?


Do you want to live in a war-zone? Have you ever?

Because that is what comes after you start referring to common criminals as insurgents.

Originally posted by jam321
IMO, it is a battle between the police and gangs. They used to be simple crimes, but if you slap the terrorism tag on you might get more funds from the fed.

Anytime an actual gang is involved the crimes were never simple. Since their creation, gangs have brough havoc to the streets. From shooting other people for wearing the wrong color, to wanting the cool Nike's you had on, to simply being initiated. Gangs never had the intent to just be a big band of friends to hang out, they were created with goals in mind...and we have seen for MANY years now what length they will go to for easy money, guns, dope, "respect", turf, etc....

As far as funds, I don't think so. I think they are labeling it "terrorism" because the iron fist can be swung much harder when you use that word. Right now gangs are seen as "misguided youth" who deserve a chance to turn it all around. You give them this label and people hear about the crap their pulling and no one is going to feel bad when they start turning up face down.

Of course, a lot of this gang stuff comes because of the war on drugs.

The gangs came before the "war on drugs", plus it was the gangs who saw easy money in moving/making dope....so its NOT the cops fault for creating gangs, or keeping them strong, its a mindset that these people have and live by....again I am here in Atlanta...gangs are a mainstay, they just know where not to wonder off too so they stay on their "turf".

Also these kind of tactics (the "boobie traps") are a reason to take the fight to the gangs. I am not on board with labeling them terrorists, but I am on board with tighting the grip on them....

[edit on 3/18/2010 by rcwj1975]

Oh, great, yet another terrorist related term the mainstream can use to death.

Just because something is anti-lawenforcement that doesn't mean its terrorism, and surely doesn't mean that terrorist are involved.

[edit on 19-3-2010 by litmuspaper]

The definition of 'terrorism' is to instill fear in an intended target, group, or society through the use of threats or violence.

This is an act of terror because the intent is there.

It's the United States and mass media the took the word and bastardized it to mean only politically motivated attacks by those that try to fight back against their powerful military machine.

By the very definition you could call punishing a child an act of terror.







Edit: one too many words...

[edit on 19/3/2010 by anxietydisorder]

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by Marked One


A more appropriate term would be (aside from 'organized crime') an insurgency.

....Well let's get out the predator drones and level the neighbourhood.

That's what happens to neighbourhoods that harbour 'insurgents' right?




[edit on 18-3-2010 by Exuberant1]

Uhhh...

NOT exactly.

That would be like going after a pesky mosquito with a golf club in a china shop.

What you do is apply counter-insurgency warfare tactics to law-enforcement crime-mitigating protocols. Basically fighting crime with a military-like mind-frame.

And before anyone asks...

NO! It DOES NOT involve having ACTUAL heavily-armed military roving the streets in HMMWVs and armoured personnel carriers side by side with police officers in their patrol cars.

Originally posted by Marked One
What you do is apply counter-insurgency warfare tactics to law-enforcement crime-mitigating protocols. Basically fighting crime with a military-like mind-frame.

If one does continually fight insurgents one will have to call in an air-strike before too long, don't you agree?

That would be like going after a pesky mosquito with a golf club in a china shop.

Has that stopped our military from calling in air-strikes/artillery bombardment on the insurgents?






[edit on 19-3-2010 by Exuberant1]

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by Marked One
What you do is apply counter-insurgency warfare tactics to law-enforcement crime-mitigating protocols. Basically fighting crime with a military-like mind-frame.

If one does continually fight insurgents one will have to call in an air-strike before too long, don't you agree?

That would be like going after a pesky mosquito with a golf club in a china shop.

Has that stopped our military from calling in air-strikes/artillery bombardment on the insurgents?






[edit on 19-3-2010 by Exuberant1]

No. Trust me--it's not as fair and easy as you make it sound. If all you had to do was call in an air-strike? We wouldn't have troops on the ground. But that's a different story.

Like RCWJ1975 says; take the war to the gangs on THEIR turf. That's basically the jist of it.

A simple solution, legalize drugs and these guys will lose most of their buying power...plus we will create thousands of jobs and tax revenue.

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
A simple solution, legalize drugs and these guys will lose most of their buying power...plus we will create thousands of jobs and tax revenue.

Something like that would be a major catalyst in counter-insurgency warfare tactics against organized crime. Deal a major blow to the enemy by cutting off their resource supply. Good example; 'drugs'. Not to mention securing our borders.

Originally posted by Marked One

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
A simple solution, legalize drugs and these guys will lose most of their buying power...plus we will create thousands of jobs and tax revenue.

Something like that would be a major catalyst in counter-insurgency warfare tactics against organized crime. Deal a major blow to the enemy by cutting off their resource supply. Good example; 'drugs'. Not to mention securing our borders.

But that would be too easy.

There has to be a more expensive way of prolonging and then dealing with the problem.

I have confidence our governments will always find that way..