Why?: Former Black Panther Assata Shakur Added to FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorist List

reply to post by seabag


The NBPP is not the same as the BPP nor are they the BLA nor was the BLA the BPP.
I thought you didn't like muddy waters?

reply to post by Kali74


One gave birth to the next which gave birth to the next, etc.They all subscribe to Black Liberation Theology and they are all willing to commit acts of violence for political gain.

She was a member of BPP and BLA:

Members of the BLA were also charged in various terrorist plots including a plan to firebomb department stores in New York. In 1981, four members of the BLA were convicted for various charges including murder and armed robbery in a failed heist of a Brinks armored car, which left one guard and two police officers dead. On March 25, 1984, a man claiming to be "Lieutenant Spartacus" of the "Black Liberation Army," hijacked a Piedmont airlines jet with 58 passengers on board. The plane flew to Cuba where "Lieutenant Spartacus" found asylum.

The NBPP’s goals are very similar to the old BPP and BLA and their willingness to use violence is apparent.

The Black Liberation Army was a militant splinter group of the Black Panther Party. Breaking away from the Black Panthers in the late 1960s, the stated philosophy of the BLA was to "take up arms for the liberation and self-determination of black people in the United States."

link

New Black Panthers To Create Inner City Military To Go Into Whites' Homes & Skin Them Alive

I thought you supported peace and non-violence? Does killing “crackers” and skinning innocent people alive sound peaceful?

reply to post by seabag


Off topic drivel.
Stop trying to derail my thread.

Even if all your assumptions and allusions were true, why support the broadening of the definition of terrorism unless you think our justice system should yield to arbitrary federal/military authority?

reply to post by Kali74

Most Wanted Terrorist LIst :shk:

As far as I am concerned, if you are that "bad" to be on the Most Wanted List...you ARE a terrorist....why the need for a separate list

reply to post by Kali74

Even if all your assumptions and allusions were true, why support the broadening of the definition of terrorism unless you think our justice system should yield to arbitrary military authority?

If they don't fit the definition of terrorism then NO GROUP DOES!!

I guess you're willing to overlook the fact that her group hijacked a Piedmont airlines jet with 58 passengers on board to fly to where???? That's right, CUBA. Conveniently the same place she's hiding!

Very sad!

That's what I meant in my first post when I used the term "apologist."

Don't really have a problem with this about time someone other than Teapartier's, and other militia groups be put in the FBI"S most wanted.

For the record when a person get's put on the FBI's most wanted listed?

They have done something to warrant it.

What really think people would buy they are just 'misunderstood' argument?

reply to post by seabag


It was a Delta Flight from Detroit to Miami, the plane landed in Miami released hostages then flew to Boston refueled and flew to Algeria and that was in 1972, before the murder of the officer took place.

reply to post by neo96


FYI the only domestic terrorists on the Most Wanted Terrorist list are Assata Shakur and a member of the Animal Liberation Front... for now.

reply to post by Kali74


FYi take a good look at Napolitano's 'You might be a terrorist' list.

Pretty much everyone is a terrorist these days.

reply to post by DontTreadOnMe


There's a difference. For one thing because she has been granted political asylum in Cuba, it now means that Cuba is harboring a wanted terrorist. I'm not saying that any of this will result in military action against Cuba but by US Law under the 'the War on Terror', it could. It also means that if she is caught, she could end up at a 'black site' such as Guantanamo Bay... some people may be okay with that, I personally am not. I don't believe in torture or indefinite detention for anyone.

reply to post by neo96


I agree with you about the 'you might be a terrorist if' list but that is not the same thing as being on the actual list, also two wrongs do not make a right, we are either all protected or none of us are.

Kali, I stand with you. I am completely against the Patriot Act and NDAA. If this woman is guilty of a crime then she should stand trial and be convicted by a jury of her peers. Not just label her a terrorist so she can be black bagged, sent off to some hole (well if its Gitmo, at least she won't have to travel far), and never heard from again. I am by no means condoning the actions she is being accused of, but last I checked she is a U.S. citizen and is innocent until proven guilty. Labeling someone a terrorist is the government's quick way to circumvent that little fact.

Unrelated, thanks for bring up the Oath Keepers group, I was unaware of them and checked them out. As a vet, I am extremely interested in others who feel as I do.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


Thanks, to clarify... she was convicted of murder in New Jersey even though she wasn't convicted of pulling the trigger. But to me even if she did pull the trigger and even if it was a cop she killed, that does not make a terrorist. My main point in posting the thread was not to defend anyone but Americans, though I do think she is innocent at least of the crime she was convicted of.

The murder of the officer took place 40 years ago and I just can't understand any logic of placing her on the Most Wanted Terrorist list especially since she is in Cuba. Cuba has zero respect for the US government, it is not likely that they will hand this woman over for 2 million dollars.

I think it's scary that woman convicted of murder is being labelled a terrorist. Dealing with terrorists affords the US government special laws or rather special exceptions to US Law.

reply to post by Kali74


Well with this administration, they don't have to rely on Cuba handing her over. Just wait til she pokes her head out in public, send a Predator Drone over to Cuba, and blow up a neighborhood (killing countless numbers of civilians in the process). The U.S. has already done its due diligence in the eyes of the UN by labeling her a terrorist.

reply to post by Kali74


Kali, you have created a bifurcated thread.

I think we can all agree that the government has gone on a "label a terrorist" spree.

Parking tickets? Drone 'em!
Served in the military? AAAIIIIIIIIGGGGGHHHHH! Domestic terrorist!

But this woman? If she did the crimes she was convicted of, she needs to spend her last days in jail.

Just because most of us are disgusted with government labeling, doesn't mean that they don't occasionally get one right.

reply to post by beezzer


If she did it then she is a murderer.
The end.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by beezzer

 

If she did it then she is a murderer.
The end.

If she did it to instill a political message, to instill a sense of terror, if she had a political motivation to harm innocent people, then she would be considered a terrorist.

Actually NO.

She would have been classified as a 'domestic terrorist' under 3 administration:

According to a memo produced by the FBI's Terrorist Research and Analytical Center in 1994, domestic terrorism was defined as "the unlawful use of force or violence, committed by a group(s) of two or more individuals, against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."[2]

Under current United States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which: "(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."[3]

en.wikipedia.org...

Now it's 'the end'.

reply to post by beezzer


The officer was slain when the car she was in was pulled over for a broken tail light. I don't think this was a planned attack.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by beezzer

 

The officer was slain when the car she was in was pulled over for a broken tail light. I don't think this was a planned attack.

Now we are just speculating.

I would speculate that it was an oppourtune moment to strike against a system she was against.

But without substantial proof either way, neither one of us can assert one side to be more truer than the other.