Terrorist plot to attack the U.S. thwarted

a reply to: Rocker2013

originally posted by: EternalSolace
...can be labeled a potential domestic terrorist.

You seem to be misunderstanding a lot of that. You're missing out on the "and" and "if" and "when" and simply reading each point as though it stands alone.

You have freedom of opinion in the US, freedom of speech, freedom to own a gun...

I'm pretty sure I didn't misread anything. In fact, I underlined and placed in bold the part you missed. I made the claim that believing in those things makes you, according to the government, a POTENTIAL 'domestic terrorist'. I didn't say having that opinion automatically makes you one.

The government isn't physically rounding up thousands of Americans. They're digitally rounding up thousands of American names. Now that is something to be concerned about.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
The biggest question: How's the public doing in holding their politicians accountable for upholding the constitution?

I'm, actually really interested in this.
Can you provide a list of the examples of the US government breaching the constitution? Without the entirely legal and right process of amendments?

And, if the public is not up in arms about it as you wish them to be, doesn't this suggest that the general public does not agree with your views?

How does this make one minority political group threatening violence any different to ISIS, which wants to force a nation to conform to a particular ideology against the will of the people?

One is a political ideology, and the other is a religious ideology, that seems to be the only difference here. Both are seemingly willing to use violence to force a view that the people of that country have not wanted.

Seems to me most right-wingers are more angry at the idea that the general public has little interest in their personal crusade and individual grumbles about these things. If there was a mass movement of people enraged at their government ignoring the constitution then surely there would be mass rallies across the country?

And I do think you're right on one thing, there probably will be a showdown at some point, between the political sides of this. America is so driven by divisive politics its inevitable that there will be some kind of revolt at some time.

The thing you're choosing to ignore, however, is that the vast majority of the American population doesn't see a big bad government behind every tree, and they will not support a violent revolution against their government. If "most Americans" thought as you do (and as the arrested man obviously did) then there would be mass protests every month.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
I made the claim that believing in those things makes you, according to the government, a POTENTIAL 'domestic terrorist'. I didn't say having that opinion automatically makes you one.

The government isn't physically rounding up thousands of Americans. They're digitally rounding up thousands of American names. Now that is something to be concerned about.

At least we agree on something, I too believe that the dragnet approach of our governments is entirely wrong, and thankfully it seems that this will be coming to an end. It's not only threatening to the freedom of the individual, it's also wasteful and nonsensical to collect so much data on entirely innocent people and potentially missing the needle in that haystack.

My other point stands though.
You can be deemed a "potential domestic terrorist" not simply because you have a different political opinion to those in power, but because you have a different political opinion WHILE expressing violent intent, WHILE stockpiling weapons, WHILE encouraging others to join your crusade, and WHILE threatening the security and safety of other innocent people.

You seem to want to give the impression that it's "or" for each of these things, when it clearly isn't. Unless you can find evidence of the DHS compiling lists of Republican voters for monitoring simply because they have a different political view, there is nothing to support your notion that people are being labeled a "potential domestic terrorist" unfairly, as you want to claim.

I'm sorry ...HAPPY BUNKY?

Informant or Provocateur ????

Secret Service agent says Stout had several conversations during the past week with a confidential informant who is a former Aryan Nation member

a reply to: muse7

Why aren't people demanding that Whites apologize for this sort of behavior?

Obviously your really grasping here trying to make a logical point. I'm not sure there is one.

I've been alive for 23 years, and in those 23 years there has been almost double the amount of terrorist plots in the U.S. by radical right wing/racists groups than there have been by Muslim extremists.

Could you provide some citations for this? This seems like a random unproven factoid thrown out to buttress a point.

But yet I find it odd that it's the Muslims and the disease ridden, leprosy carrying, brown skinned people that I am supposed to fear?

Isn't there a name for this kind of statement in an argument? I think there is.

OP Please go to the following link and read it. Next time you want to make a point, try not to do half of these things ok?

Logical Fallacies




V

a reply to: Rocker2013

I'm not going to go into this whole list, as there's around 25 areas with different suspicious activities for each category.

FBI “Communities Against Terrorism” Suspicious Activity Reporting Flyers

The dragnet of names isn't going to come to an end. People are being flagged as potential domestic terrorists by the purchases they make, places they go, things they do.

The whole thing with the public not being up in arms is that they're too ignorent to realize what's going on or apathetic to care. Just like you're kind of labeling me paranoid, maybe not outright, for claming that people are being labelled, the general public is 10x worse.

I can't prove they have these lists, and I can't prove it's an active process.

But you can't argue that the public is being conditioned to view preppers, constitutionalists, and those who've believed that the government no longer functions within the parameters of the constitution as nutjobs. There's only one purpose behind that conditioning. It's because the US government is preparing for a potential powder keg. Anyone who is accused of stepping up to the government, will be seen as a terrorist.

And it's working as the proof is in the OP.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
Is he really a terrorist? Or is he a pissed off American who is sick of continuous gross violations of the US constitution by the POTUS and a failed congress and justice department who refuse to address these violations?

It didn't take long before someone came in to make excuses for the terrorist. People scream and cry a Muslim is a terrorist when they are caught doing the same thing this guy has done. If one is a terrorist then the other is a terrorist. So just because he has his kickers in a wad over the government his reasons are more valid than a person who comes from a nation that America has been attacking for no reason?

a reply to: buster2010

It's funny how it didn't take you long to come in here for an excuse to further trash America. Care to throw Israel in the mix somehow as well?

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: Rosinitiate
Sent an "informant" or better put an "inciter" to make him cross the line.

How exactly does one MAKE someone cross a line?

I agree that there are some people who are not mentally capable and probably led down a certain path by agencies looking for someone to show "results", but everyone has free will.

No one can "make" someone like this start murdering people or acting violently against their own society, unless they are genuinely psychologically ill. Even so, they are clearly still a threat to those around them.

No one "makes" another person act in this way, they choose to, and this makes them a threat.

So I take it the term entrapment is lost on you?

People are generally disappointed in their government and representatives. Some more so than others, quite often those with no real intent to do anyone harm gets approached by "informants" and are further incited by said informant and than offered the means to accomplish such a feat. Than when the FBI gives them the materials they are arrested. It's not a new concept and there are plenty of recent examples.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: Rocker2013

I'm not going to go into this whole list, as there's around 25 areas with different suspicious activities for each category.

FBI “Communities Against Terrorism” Suspicious Activity Reporting Flyers

I'm sorry, I asked for examples of how the elected government are breaching the constitution. All you've offered there is an entirely reasonable list of leaflets asking people and businesses to report things that they find suspicious...

If someone buys ten high-powered rifles, do you not think they should at least be checked up on? If they're not doing anything dangerous or planning to attack people, then they have nothing to worry about do they? Where is the breach of the constitution in this?

No one is being PREVENTED from buying things that are legal, no one is being accused of crimes they are not committing. People are simply reporting things that they deem to be a little strange, then the FBI can look into it, and the person who was deemed to be suspicious can show that it's just a misunderstanding.

Or, do you think that someone planning a terrorist attack on others should be able to buy whatever they like without any possible challenge or investigation, for fear of "offending" their sensibilities?

Most sane and rational people would expect a government to be doing this. And, most sane and rational people would be REASSURED that their agencies are doing their damned jobs if they happened to turn up to ask some entirely reasonable questions.

originally posted by: Rosinitiate
So I take it the term entrapment is lost on you?

No, not at all. As I stated in my post (assuming you read it all) I fully accept that there are likely to be examples where the "target" is perhaps damaged in some way, or confused about the circumstances, or being led illegally into doing something they would actually never do.

But, again, everyone has free will, everyone makes their own choices.

If you hand someone in the street a grenade and tell them to throw it into the nearest restaurant, is it entrapment if they do it? Have you "forced" them to do something they would never imagine doing? Have you coerced or encouraged them to do something they know is wrong?

No, they have chosen to comply, they have chosen to act, they have chosen to kill and maim others and no amount of "coercion" or imagined "entrapment" can change this very real fact.

If they were not inclined to act in this way, they would not act in this way.

Here's the crux of the matter...

You can have a political opinion.
You can express that opinion.
You can organize rallies and political opposition.
You can complain about what you feel your government is doing wrong.
You can even challenge it in court, form committees, get active politicians on your side...

None of this is illegal and you are not being prevented in any way from exercising your right to express your opinion and be involved in the political process of your country.

You CANNOT start talking about using force to attack your government, your fellow citizens or groups or organizations you politically disagree with.

That is NOT called political process, that is called terrorism and if you think that it is justified then you are no better than ISIS attempting to use violence and force to inflict their will on an entire population who clearly do not want the political path you are wishing to force on them.

Again, it seems to me that such people are simply angry that their minority views are not being supported by the general population, the democratic voting public, so they want to use force to inflict their views instead.

How is this NOT terrorism?

a reply to: Rocker2013

I don't think I have ever read a story of some random stranger offering a grenade (or any other weapon) to another stranger to attack a crowd. Doesn't mean it isn't possible but doesn't strike me as a concern. There are however countless easily manipulated people out there and given the training of government agencies in "MindWar" tactics all these stories become suspect. Especially when every time I research the story they all begin and end the same way, using very questionable tactics.

Just my opinion of course. I haven't and don't really intend to research this further anyhow. Just sharing observations.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
The whole thing with the public not being up in arms is that they're too ignorent to realize what's going on or apathetic to care.

So your response to this, instead of persuading people with political debate and the democratic process, is to take weapons and attack other people, the government and institutions to INFLICT a political ideology on the society you claim is ignorant?

Again, I'm shocked that someone who seems to be as intelligent as you are doesn't see the problem in your own opinion.

You don't get to decide that people are just ignorant or apathetic and then recommend to take up arms against them. You do not get to choose which political path is the one the rest of your country MUST agree with!

If you (or anyone else) thinks that something is wrong, you use the freedoms and rights you have as a democratic citizen to challenge it. If you claim people are ignorant to your specific perceived reality, then haven't you completely failed to convince them? Have you even tried?

The reality is that whether you like it or not the public is not on your side, otherwise they would be voting for change. They're not, so you are a minority in your political paranoia, and it's entirely right that the democratically elected government use their powers to prevent potentially dangerous individuals from using terrorism to further their political cause.

originally posted by: Rosinitiate
a reply to: Rocker2013

I don't think I have ever read a story of some random stranger offering a grenade (or any other weapon) to another stranger to attack a crowd. Doesn't mean it isn't possible but doesn't strike me as a concern. There are however countless easily manipulated people out there and given the training of government agencies in "MindWar" tactics all these stories become suspect. Especially when every time I research the story they all begin and end the same way, using very questionable tactics.

It was an example of the stories I have seen where agencies infiltrate a group or make contact with someone who has already displayed a desire to act violently to further their political or religious ideology.

No doubt there are those with disorders, mental instability and conditions which would deem them highly susceptible to manipulation, but these cases can then be fought in court and if there is evidence that they fit into one of these groups their punishment can be calculated considering that fact.

However, most of the examples of "entrapment" I have seen have not been that at all, these are groups and individuals who have an active interest and desire to carry out such things, and then claim "entrapment" because they tried to use the empty barrels of what they thought was an explosive agent, supplied to them by an agency who needed proof that the individual or group was actively WILLING to do it.

These people can say no at any time, they can reject an ideology at any point, they could choose not to do what they are planning to do, or being "led" to do at any moment.

If someone is planning a murder, do you only arrest them when they have successfully murdered? Is is considered "thought crime" to arrest them for merely planning to kill?

It's a nonsense, these people have the intent and the willingness to make this choice themselves, and they should be arrested and imprisoned for a very long time for making that deliberate choice to try to maim and kill others.

originally posted by: Rocker2013

I'm sorry, I asked for examples of how the elected government are breaching the constitution. All you've offered there is an entirely reasonable list of leaflets asking people and businesses to report things that they find suspicious...

I'm sorry, why not take the time to recognize what it was a response to. But since you're stuck on one off topic comment: My reply is that his thread isn't about constitutional violations. Stop trying to detract from the conversation at hand in attempt to derail and decredit my statements. If you want to discuss that, start a thread.


Further, I love how you cherry picked the info from those leaflets. Also, are ignoring what I've stated and entered your own 'reality'.

I never claimed that anyone was being prevented from buying anything, now did I. I provided a list of activities that are certain to get an individual on a watch list. I'm making the claim, from my earlier post:

That bulletin, coupled with the government’s definition of a domestic terrorist, is far reaching. I could say that anyone who buys bulk ammunition, believes in small government, has a weapons "stockpile", believes in limited gun control, believes in privacy, and even believes that the government isn’t doing a thing about immigration can be labeled a potential domestic terrorist.

Is there something about that you're unwilling or unable to understand? Or do you just like cherry picking stuff out about firearms because it's easier to make someone appear illogical? Better yet, I'm willing to bet that you're unable to stick to the original premise because you have no ground to stand on.

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: Rosinitiate
a reply to: Rocker2013

I don't think I have ever read a story of some random stranger offering a grenade (or any other weapon) to another stranger to attack a crowd. Doesn't mean it isn't possible but doesn't strike me as a concern. There are however countless easily manipulated people out there and given the training of government agencies in "MindWar" tactics all these stories become suspect. Especially when every time I research the story they all begin and end the same way, using very questionable tactics.

If someone is planning a murder, do you only arrest them when they have successfully murdered? Is is considered "thought crime" to arrest them for merely planning to kill?

Well there's a fine line I suppose between trying to rout out potential terrorists versus manufacturing said terrorist. I suppose if I had a sliver of confidence in any of our government agencies than perhaps I would be ok with them doing what they're doing. Fact is, government bureaucracy almost forces their hand to manufacture terrorists or they won't be able to justify their budget. Gotta keep them checks coming.

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: EternalSolace
The whole thing with the public not being up in arms is that they're too ignorent to realize what's going on or apathetic to care.

So your response to this, instead of persuading people with political debate and the democratic process, is to take weapons and attack other people, the government and institutions to INFLICT a political ideology on the society you claim is ignorant?

Curious, I never called for an attack on anyone. Why are you alledging that I have?

You don't get to decide that people are just ignorant or apathetic and then recommend to take up arms against them. You do not get to choose which political path is the one the rest of your country MUST agree with!

Nice try. Please quote where I reccomended anyone to take up arms.

If you (or anyone else) thinks that something is wrong, you use the freedoms and rights you have as a democratic citizen to challenge it. If you claim people are ignorant to your specific perceived reality, then haven't you completely failed to convince them? Have you even tried?

I vote and I debate. And I watch where Americans can't answer what the three branches of government are. I watch where students claim that America got its independence from Vietnam. I watch where people claim that they would vote for a president on the sole basis that it would be cool to make history again. I watched the majority of Americans get the ACA forced down their throat without so much as a peep. All the meanwhile people like me we're railing about how bad it was, etc. I could go on and on, but I won't. Yes, the general public is completely ignorent/apathetic of what is going on. Reading through the threads on ATS should make you abundantly clear on this.

The reality is that whether you like it or not the public is not on your side, otherwise they would be voting for change. They're not, so you are a minority in your political paranoia, and it's entirely right that the democratically elected government use their powers to prevent potentially dangerous individuals from using terrorism to further their political cause.

The reality is that the public wouldn't be on 'my side'. And thanks for coming out with your agenda and finally making the accusation that you've been driving at all along... That I'm a paranoid person who sees the current government as a threat to our way of life and so is anyone who thinks like me.

Enjoy your false sense of freedom.

a reply to: EternalSolace

Bundy didn't own that land lol.

Wonder who else you will give the " He was just pissed off and went about it the wrong way" benefit of the doubt to.