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.

 

"Right-wing extremist terrorism as deadly a threat as al Qaeda?"

page: 3
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   
I am reminded of the pesticide commercial for Blag Flag: "Kills bugs dead". A death is a death and one killing cannot be more deadly than another. This is the implication of the title alone. If it is terrorism, and of course the ever expanding definition of what terrorism is leads to all sorts of concerns, but if we simply go by the lexicographer's definition of terrorism:


The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.


We still have a problem in a poorly defined concept. What separates Hitler's use of force and violence against people and property with the intention of coercing societies and government because of an ideological and political reason from Al Queda? What separates The United States use of force and violence against people and property with the intention of coercing societies and government because of an ideological and political reason in light of the Korean conflict, the Vietnamese conflict, various adventures prior to 9-11 and after 9-11 in Afghanistan and Iraq? Would the word "lawful" suffice?

Prior to 9-11 the term terrorism was generally accepted to mean those acts of war used against civilian populations instead of direct head to head confrontations with the military of those populations to instill terror in the populace. The strategy behind it was to compel a population to demand of its own government more security to protect them from isolated terrorist attacks. Of course, this strategy is implemented with the understanding or prediction that no amount of extra security can stop terrorist attacks, and a vicious cycle of more demands for more security piled upon one another until the people have effectively demanded iron fist tyranny. Once that iron fist tyranny has reared its ugly head, it will ultimately be that populace that rises up against the tyranny they created and overthrowing that government, the terrorists have finally attained their endgame.

Attacking police officers is not genuinely an attack on civilian population. Not that I'm excusing this, I am speaking to the expanded definition and understanding of what terrorism is. The PLO, which found so much sympathy by the very same news mediums that now ask you to buy their new definitions of terrorism, was not attacking police and other government personnel, they were hijacking planes and bombing the buildings where innocent civilians were - which was justified by the very same main stream media that asks you to believe that terrorism is something different today - in order to instill terror in the innocent.

Now who is truly attempting to instill terror in the innocents? Right wing extremists such as "freemen", or a status quo, which very much includes CNN and the main stream media, hell bent on their own agenda?




posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Who is a terrorist.

Depends on where you stand.

I agree 100% "Right Wing Extremists" are terrorist.

America is a Secular Government by intent. If you research the Puritans - - - you will find they fought to force their "home" government to make their religious belief the law. They were not persecuted - - - they were simply pissed they didn't have control.

Southern Baptist are in part descendents of the original Puritans. Also the core of the Right Wing.

They want CONTROL. Just as their Puritan ancestors did.

They - Right Wing Christians - are not persecuted as they try to claim. They are pissed about not being 100% in control.;



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 





I agree 100% "Right Wing Extremists" are terrorist.


Who on earth do you think you are agreeing with? Even that CNN article with its own special brand of extremism didn't come close to your outrageous extremism and did not make the claim that right wing extremism is terrorism.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   
law enforcement is more like domestic terrorism....

how many of our citizens have they killed for minor non lethal offenses since the start of this year?

how many apologists are there for their heavy handed tactics?

in all cases more than any external or other internal group...

they are literally making their people live in fear....in terror.

tell me you are not worried when you get pulled over or when you post something online critical of your dictatorship...

yeah the real threat is our government and our law enforcement...they validate the position people take against them.....they are domestic terrorists.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Annee
 





I agree 100% "Right Wing Extremists" are terrorist.


Who on earth do you think you are agreeing with? Even that CNN article with its own special brand of extremism didn't come close to your outrageous extremism and did not make the claim that right wing extremism is terrorism.



Too bad.

Been doing this for 20+ years. Obviously longer the CNN.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   
You know, it occurs to me in coming back to this topic that is IS a situation where some very indirect gun control WOULD have been appropriate.

No, I haven't lost my mind and I didn't suddenly take to laying bait for the trolls...I really mean it, there is an aspect to this case as it seems to be developing which really pisses me off. Now I've never served. Tried to, but medical zapped that one in it's tracks. So maybe there is much more to all this than meets the eye, but he bought his gun legally.... He never should have been able to buy a gun in a way that required a background check.

The Pentagon has released enough to know he got shown the way out when his term was up because he seemed to figure staying sober was too much trouble while coming on duty in the U.S. Military.


Now I seem to recall the silly 'on your honor' questions on the gun paperwork you're asked to fill out includes at least one about having issues or any history of intoxicants. Whether it be Alcohol or Drano. Whatever... I know the Sheriff's guidelines (back before they just disbanded the whole system in leu of the fed phone check) included 'being known as a drunk or public menace.


So my real point here is, why did he get off on anything less than a Dishonorable Discharge? That absolutely *IS* criteria to lose gun rights. Dishonorable does it automatically. The argument can be made he would have gotten his gun elsewhere and that's probably right.

It doesn't change the fact that we all may want to ask a few more questions about just HOW MANY 'levels' exist between Honorable and Dishonorable and why any do at all, outside of some real traditional situations to the Armed Forces. Drunkards on Duty isn't what comes to MY mind for deserving breaks.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Lol.

al Qaeda doesn't exist.




posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 


Instead of obsessing over the fact that white racist extremists groups have been classified as right wing terrorists which they are, why don't people ask themselves why these groups continue to associate themselves with the right ? Why don't they go after these groups instead of condoning them by saying they have a right to terrorize people under the first amendment ? Why don't people stop denying the fact that these people are trying to put terror into other groups of Americans ?

Comparing them to the so called New Black Panther party is a joke considering there are at best 50 members nationwide and neither the Black Community nor the Left allow these groups to associate with them. Nor, do we defend them and assert they have a constitutional right to express their hatred. That's the real difference here. If people do not like the fact that these groups are being associated with them, then take it up with the groups themselves and stop allowing them to associate with them.




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join