• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Explosive Growth of Militias

Harshaw said:
:doh No, it's not. That's idiotic. Separatism goes against the entire notion of a "militia" in every way possible.

Militia =/= separatist.

Militia =/= white supremacist.

Militia = members of a community coming together for mutual defense.
Click to expand...

so, there are no racist militias??

:lamo:lamo:lamo
 
hazlnut said:
What do you mean by that? Once they began committing crimes, the investigations began.

But with innovations in law enforcement technology, criminology, and profiling, how many thousands of people have been apprehended before they got a change to really get started.

Everyone stop what you''re doing and thank the FBI and AFT for every one they've picked up before he/she committed the next Oklahoma city.
Click to expand...

They had no idea who McVeigh was before he killed people, they had no idea who the SLA was until they killed people, it took years and years to find Ted K., The New Years Gang also got away with a bombing before the big one. The ones that really mattered are the ones the DOJ did not see. These hate groups and anti-government, environmentalists, animal rights groups generally fall apart due to disention in the ranks. Those who do not and have sinister plans have been apprehended before they accomplished their goals. However, you cannot put an eye on every group with an unpopular belief that acquires weapons legally. You are infringing on several rights afforded to them as american citizens.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Um....the militia movement DOES HAVE members who believe in separatism, so yes, separatism IS a part of the militia movement and will be a part of a conversation on militias. I did not introduce separatism or militias into this conversation.
Click to expand...


Would that logic apply to 'Occupy' as well concerning anti capitalist, communists?


j-mac
 
taxigirl said:
...However, you cannot put an eye on every group with an unpopular belief that acquires weapons legally. You are infringing on several rights afforded to them as american citizens.
Click to expand...

if 30 Muslim extremists are running around the woods of NY, doing tactical training, I want the FBI making sure they aren't planning ****.
 
Thunder said:
in Islamberg? looks like they're just living their lives.

your article says nothing about tactical training and amassing weapons.
Click to expand...

I was speaking of Red House Va., are you ignoring that one?

j-mac

PS. An excerpt of the article you obviously didn't read.

In 2005, the Department of Homeland Security included the group among “predicted possible sponsors of attacks” on American soil. And in 2006, the Department of Justice reported that Jamaat ul-Fuqra “has more than 35 suspected communes and more than 3,000 members spread across the United States, all in support of one goal: the purification of Islam through violence.” That means, of course, violence against unbelievers.

Yet despite the fact that Justice and the DHS are obviously aware of what is going on, Jamaat ul-Fuqra continues to operate, relatively unhindered, in the United States.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
Would that logic apply to 'Occupy' as well concerning anti capitalist, communists? j-mac
Click to expand...
Uh...I would guess that yes, since that movement attracts a wide range of viewpoints, there are probably members of those groups as well as tea party and conservative types.

You are not helping Harshaw's argument.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Um....the militia movement DOES HAVE members who believe in separatism, so yes, separatism IS a part of the militia movement and will be a part of a conversation on militias. I did not introduce separatism or militias into this conversation.
Click to expand...

:roll:

And the Democrats have members who want to nationalize pretty much all of industry. Does that mean Democrats are the party of general nationalization? If so, then you have a lot of people around here you need to set straight about it.

You do not define a "movement" by its fringe.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Uh...I would guess that yes, since that movement attracts a wide range of viewpoints, there are probably members of those groups as well as tea party and conservative types.

You are not helping Harshaw's argument.
Click to expand...

My argument needs no help; your only response was hasty generalization fallacy.
 
Harshaw said:
:roll:

And the Democrats have members who want to nationalize pretty much all of industry. Does that mean Democrats are the party of general nationalization? If so, then you have a lot of people around here you need to set straight about it.

You do not define a "movement" by its fringe.
Click to expand...
There is where your confusion stems, I never wrote that "the militia movement is a separatist movement" or anything like that. I said that the militia movement has elements of separatism within it....AND THAT SEPARATISM WILL PROBABLY COME UP IN THE CONVERSATION.

I did not bring up either, I was correcting logical errors about separatism not containing racism....it does, and those that hold to this view are holding to a racist ideology...ie they are racists.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
There is where your confusion stems, I never wrote that "the militia movement is a separatist movement" or anything like that. I said that the militia movement has elements of separatism within it....AND THAT SEPARATISM WILL PROBABLY COME UP IN THE CONVERSATION.
Click to expand...

Then you didn't say what you meant very clearly:

Gimmesometruth said:
Separatism IS part of the Militia movement....it will be a subtext to the discussion....sheesh!
Click to expand...

The way you word it, it certainly seems like you were trying to say it was an inherent part of it, and not just an element you can find here and there.

Still . . . nationalizing industry and full-blown socialism IS part of the Democratic Party, in exactly the same sense. Do you want that brush used to paint the whole thing, or would you rather have it in its proper, fringe context?
 
Harshaw said:
Then you didn't say what you meant very clearly:



The way you word it, it certainly seems like you were trying to say it was an inherent part of it, and not just an element you can find here and there.
Click to expand...
That is the way you wanted to read it.

Still . . . nationalizing industry and full-blown socialism IS part of the Democratic Party, in exactly the same sense. Do you want that brush used to paint the whole thing, or would you rather have it in its proper, fringe context?
Click to expand...
See now, even when it is spelled out to you, you still insist that how you misread me is still correct. It isn't, so go try your straw on someone else.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
There is where your confusion stems, I never wrote that "the militia movement is a separatist movement" or anything like that. I said that the militia movement has elements of separatism within it....AND THAT SEPARATISM WILL PROBABLY COME UP IN THE CONVERSATION.

I did not bring up either, I was correcting logical errors about separatism not containing racism....it does, and those that hold to this view are holding to a racist ideology...ie they are racists.
Click to expand...




First off, Harshaw can hold his own in any debate, my question to you was separate of his dismantling of your generalization of militias.

The reason I say generalization is simply because the premise of this thread doesn't speak to specific militias, and neither do you, so that you say to me that some members of a militia can taint the group as a whole, where as in the occupy groups you tend to want to add in tea party members, as well as conservatives to lend it legitimacy, as well as shield it from criticism is weak.

The disdain for groups of people wanting to gather to form a community group that makes contingency plans in case they are needed are no problem, especially when you have real threats like that of the Islamic groups in GA, NY, VA, and CA that are absolutely training to attack this country from within and nothing is done of them, in fact you have at least one poster in here saying that they don't see the problem with them....

So, unless you can document that the militias you are speaking of have known, published views that constitute a threat to this country, then I have to conclude that you are against them on ideological grounds rather than any real problem from them.

j-mac
 
Harshaw said:
No, your response to my post WAS a hasty generalization.
Click to expand...
WTF? Which response was hasty, a generalization, to anything YOU wrote that I responded to?

You incorrectly grabbed a response to taxi and ran with it...

You grabbed a response to j and ran with it.....

So wtf are yapping about now?
 
j-mac said:
so that you say to me that some members of a militia can taint the group as a whole
Click to expand...
You are operating on the same faulty reading and reasoning of Harsh.

Both of you....try again.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
WTF? Which response was hasty, a generalization, to anything YOU wrote that I responded to?

You incorrectly grabbed a response to taxi and ran with it...

You grabbed a response to j and ran with it.....

So wtf are yapping about now?
Click to expand...

:roll:

This one.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...losive-growth-militias-43.html#post1060278993

Sure, it'll be a part of the conversation by people who want to take a fringe element and apply it to the whole, which is the very definition of a hasty generalization.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
That is the way you wanted to read it.

See now, even when it is spelled out to you, you still insist that how you misread me is still correct. It isn't, so go try your straw on someone else.
Click to expand...

Bull****. I gave you back your sentence nearly verbatim, merely substituting in other terms. I accepted your explanation, and showed you why it's still a problem, hence the "Still . . . "

NOW who's "miss-reading" [sic]?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You are operating on the same faulty reading and reasoning of Harsh.

Both of you....try again.
Click to expand...

God damn, I hate having to spell everything out like I was talking to a 10 year old...You're not 10 are you?

Look, when you said

I said that the militia movement has elements of separatism within it....AND THAT SEPARATISM WILL PROBABLY COME UP IN THE CONVERSATION.
Click to expand...

Were you speaking of militias as a whole? one militia, two? what? Cuz, that looks like a general statement to me brother....


j-mac
 
Harshaw said:
Bull****. I gave you back your sentence nearly verbatim, merely substituting in other terms. I accepted your explanation, and showed you why it's still a problem, hence the "Still . . . "

NOW who's "miss-reading" [sic]?
Click to expand...
It is STILL a PROBLEM for YOU because YOU can't accept MY explanation....even AFTER you say that you DO.

FFS!

Edit: correction....it is a problem FOR BOTH OF YOU......

FFS!!!!!!
 
Last edited:
Gimmesometruth said:
Again, you are going to hold on to your misreading.....even after you supposedly understand that you got me wrong.

This is getting comically stupid.
Click to expand...

OMG. :shock:

For someone who's histrionic about being "miss-read," boy, you go out of your way to do the same.

I won't even explain, because it cannot be put in simpler terms.
 
Harshaw said:
There no truly socialist Democrats?

:lamo:lamo:lamo
Click to expand...

wtf are you talking about?

we're talking about militias, many of which are clearly racist and politically extremist.

if you want to talk about democrats, make another thead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom