• 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!

FBI: Men tried to buy bombs for government attack

Ikari said:
I know the government has a very liberal definition of terrorism, it's so they can evoke more of their power more often to keep people under thumb.
Click to expand...
Looks narrowly defined to me, and if it falls outside of said definition, any 2 bit lawyer ought to be able to convince a judge otherwise.

So instead of relying on simplistic, stupid argument, show how this case falls outside of the definition.


That has nothing to do with the point. Terrorism is an act that inherently seeks to use terror and fear to elicit political change.
Click to expand...
Um, this is a circular argument .....AND.....that is exactly what the intent of these 3 was.....they admitted as much.


Revolution is not that, revolution is revolt.
Click to expand...
Again with the circular logic....and a non-sequitur to boot!

Revolution, BTW, is a proper and reserved right of The People.
Click to expand...
Sure....these Georgian militia members....have a right to acquire bombs....and destroy govt property.

Terrorist acts are a right!
 
Fletch said:
Yet you offer nothing to contradict his assumption or expose his ignorance. That means he hit the nail on the head and rather than admit that, you resort to insults.
Click to expand...
Gimmesometruth said:
I'm not required to disprove his non-sequiturs, further the militia members in question (which Grant can't even acknowledge as BEING militia members) are definitely NOT "peaceful".

All you guys have is stupid argument using debasement of language as your main tactic.
Click to expand...
Fletch said:
More insults. Very convincing
Click to expand...
Gimmesometruth said:
Insulting stupid argument by posters is perfectly fine.

Bone up on creating argument that is not stupid.
Click to expand...

Fletch said:
Arrogance and name calling is no substitute for argument. Bone up on that.
Click to expand...

Gimmesometruth said:
Your argument is hopeless, it cannot differentiate between person and argument.
Click to expand...
Fletch said:
What argument is that? My pointing out you have no argument?
Click to expand...
Your argument cannot keep track of anything....nor can it yet differentiate between personal insult and criticism of argument made.

But keep digging that hole of senseless off topic, stupid argument.....
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Your argument cannot keep track of anything....nor can it yet differentiate between personal insult and criticism of argument made.

But keep digging that hole of senseless off topic, stupid argument.....
Click to expand...
Forum rules and lack of courage prevent you from calling another poster stupid so you refer to the persons argument as stupid then pretend to make a distinction between person and argument. The fact is, you haven't made an argument of your own and all I have done is point that out. Now, feel free to go back to my very first post and 'contradict the assumption and expose the ignorance' you claimed another poster showed. Or, if you like, you can keep deflecting and calling names. I know which route you will take but do try and surprise me just this once.
 
Fletch said:
Forum rules and lack of courage prevent you from calling another poster stupid so you refer to the persons argument as stupid then pretend to make a distinction between person and argument. The fact is, you haven't made an argument of your own and all I have done is point that out. Now, feel free to go back to my very first post and 'contradict the assumption and expose the ignorance' you claimed another poster showed. Or, if you like, you can keep deflecting and calling names. I know which route you will take but do try and surprise me just this once.
Click to expand...
More moronic argument, I have already "made my own argument", your argument STILL cannot comprehend that I am under no obligation to counter non-sequiturs created by Grant....and his argument on the point you are focused on is self contradictory since the militia members in question by their own admission were not "peaceful"

Your arguments go nowhere, as does Grant's.

Come back when you don't have stupid argument.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Looks narrowly defined to me, and if it falls outside of said definition, any 2 bit lawyer ought to be able to convince a judge otherwise.

So instead of relying on simplistic, stupid argument, show how this case falls outside of the definition.


Um, this is a circular argument .....AND.....that is exactly what the intent of these 3 was.....they admitted as much.


Again with the circular logic....and a non-sequitur to boot!

Sure....these Georgian militia members....have a right to acquire bombs....and destroy govt property.

Terrorist acts are a right!
Click to expand...

There's no circular logic, you just made the claim because there is nothing you can do to actually argue against it. Revolt against government should government trespass too grievously against our rights and liberties is a reserved and proper right of the People. It speaks to the very fundamental of government and sovereignty.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
More moronic argument, I have already "made my own argument", your argument STILL cannot comprehend that I am under no obligation to counter non-sequiturs created by Grant....and his argument on the point you are focused on is self contradictory since the militia members in question by their own admission were not "peaceful"

Your arguments go nowhere, as does Grant's.

Come back when you don't have stupid argument.
Click to expand...
For the tenth time, I haven't made an argument here. I asked you to defend a comment of your own and you have spent the last ten posts spewing nonsense and namecalling. It proves what I said in the very beginning. He hit the mark and you have no counter to it. Thanks for playing
 
Kobie said:
Yes, really. Would you like to point out where the claim was made that "anything shocking in the news must surely be coming from the right"?
Click to expand...

You are asking the man to quote himself?

Maybe you didn't quite get the point.

These militias are being called 'right wing', by at least two posters, and the question has been raised as to why 'right wing'? Why? Do you know or are you just knee jerking?

The purpose of calling any person or group 'right wing' is to propagandize people, and it obviously works. Thus anything bad is called 'right wing', or 'extreme right wing' (they really are interchangeable) while left wing carries little such negative baggage, despite its horrific history.

To the propagandized left there is no 'middle', nor is there any 'extreme left wing'. There are just the left, which is good and the right, which is bad.

This is a glimpse into the world Orwell warned us of.
 
DVSentinel said:
If that is how you really feel about. Have fun. At least Texas has the death penalty and enforces it, so you won't have to languish in prison forever.
Click to expand...
Not really going to do that, of course. Just making fun of you because you support murdering those you disagree with. Of course, this snark went over your head too.
 
Grant said:
You are asking the man to quote himself?

Maybe you didn't quite get the point.

These militias are being called 'right wing', by at least two posters, and the question has been raised as to why 'right wing'? Why? Do you know or are you just knee jerking?

The purpose of calling any person or group 'right wing' is to propagandize people, and it obviously works. Thus anything bad is called 'right wing', or 'extreme right wing' (they really are interchangeable) while left wing carries little such negative baggage, despite its horrific history.

To the propagandized left there is no 'middle', nor is there any 'extreme left wing'. There are just the left, which is good and the right, which is bad.

This is a glimpse into the world Orwell warned us of.
Click to expand...

As usual, "independents" and "libertarians" exhibit a lot of "I was sick that day".

I'm still not expecting them to catch up.......



The militia movement is a right-wing movement that arose following controversial standoffs in the 1990s. It inherited paramilitary traditions of earlier groups, especially the conspiratorial, antigovernment Posse Comitatus. The militia movement claims that militia groups are sanctioned by law but uncontrolled by government; in fact, they are designed to oppose a tyrannical government. Adherents believe that behind the "tyranny" is a left-wing, globalist conspiracy known as the New World Order. The movement's ideology has led some adherents to commit criminal acts, including stockpiling illegal weapons and explosives and plotting to destroy buildings or assassinate public officials, as well as lesser confrontations.


The Mythic Meanings of the Second Amendment: Taming Political Violence in a ... - David C. Williams - Google Books





The militia movement has evolved during the past three decades, redefining its purposes, ideology, and appeal to future members. Consistent themes include a distrust of the federal government and a belief that citizens will be disarmed by the government. The attraction of the militia movement to prospective members has varied as militias adapt their ideology to address emerging issues.

Militias are part of the informal patriot movement that, according to Matthew Zook, emerged from the challenges (created by the civil rights and feminist movements of the 1960s and 1970s) to the “dominant social and economic systems for regulating race and gender relations.” 35 Chip Berlet in Militia Nation expands this view of militias when he suggests that militias are a social byproduct of “economic hardship and the partial erosion of traditional structures of white male heterosexual privilege.” He mentions two stresses associated with the “right-wing populist revolt” for which militia members are concerned: first is the stress of the genuine economic suffering that resulted from global restructuring; the second type of stress stemmed from outrage regarding the societal gains achieved by oppressed groups in the United States. 36

According to a study of threats and reactive mobilizations by Van Dyke and Soule, the increase in the organization of patriot and militia groups is related to economic downturns. These economic hard times resulted in the loss of agricultural and manufacturing jobs. 37

The loss of land and the heritage of many farmers and ranchers resulted in what rural counselor Glen Wallace referred to in his congressional committee testimony as “community depression.” The symptoms of the community depression observed by Wallace are similar to an individual with chronic long-term depression. 38 One of the escape mechanisms for the chronic stress experienced by farmers exhibiting manifestations of depression or psychosis is an outward projection of anger. These individuals want to make those whom they hold responsible feel the pain of the farmers. In the rural crisis of the 1980s, these outward expressions of anger resulted in the murders of bankers and federal lending agents. 39 Wallace acknowledged the violent reaction to the economic crisis in rural America when he stated: “You can’t treat human beings in a society the way rural people have been treated without them organizing and fighting back.” Involvement in antigovernment right-wing groups became another means for rural Americans to outwardly fight back. 40

Societal gains by historically oppressed groups, the second area of stress mentioned by Beret, result in the displeasure expressed by many in the patriot movement with regard to unjust advantages extended to minorities and women, specifically nonwhites. Affirmative action programs have become a contentious subject of discourse. Conspiracy theories fueled the anger generated by the societal and economic issues. One tenet of conspiracy theories, mentioned by Beret, is the description of two types of people: parasites and producers. Parasites are viewed by the conspiracy theorist as being at the top and bottom levels of society. The top level contains the corrupt governmental officials and wealthy manipulators of the banks and currency. At the bottom are the aimless, “slacker” parasites who sponge off the hard-working middle class by accepting public assistance. In the middle are the producers, a reflection of the person who typically embraces conspiracy theories. A belief that those at the bottom are mostly blacks and Hispanics injects a racial element into these theories, though in reality welfare and other government relief programs are mostly utilized by whites. 41


https://www.hsaj.org/?fullarticle=2.2.3
 
danarhea said:
Not really going to do that, of course. Just making fun of you because you support murdering those you disagree with. Of course, this snark went over your head too.
Click to expand...

Murder is not the correct term. Also, not those I "disagree" with, those who act to suppress the rights of others and enslave us all. If they don't act to force the crap onto others, then no need to kill them to remain free.
 
DVSentinel said:
danarhea said:
Not really going to do that, of course. Just making fun of you because you support murdering those you disagree with. Of course, this snark went over your head too.
Click to expand...
Murder is not the correct term. Also, not those I "disagree" with, those who act to suppress the rights of others and enslave us all. If they don't act to force the crap onto others, then no need to kill them to remain free.
Click to expand...

Yeah danarhea, it ain't "murder" if you have a good reason to kill somebody.
 
DVSentinel said:
Murder is not the correct term. Also, not those I "disagree" with, those who act to suppress the rights of others and enslave us all. If they don't act to force the crap onto others, then no need to kill them to remain free.
Click to expand...

So what if someone thinks you're suppressing the rights of others? It's cool to kill you?
 
Somerville said:
Yeah danarhea, it ain't "murder" if you have a good reason to kill somebody.
Click to expand...

By God, I think he finally gets it. If the idiots in the OP had not targeted innocents and would not of caused unnecessary hardship (had they carried out their plan) but stuck with legitimate targets, then, they would not have been committing murder. Had they actually met the Geneva Conventions definition of a combatant, we would be obligated to treat them as prisoners of war.
 
DVSentinel said:
Murder is not the correct term. Also, not those I "disagree" with, those who act to suppress the rights of others and enslave us all. If they don't act to force the crap onto others, then no need to kill them to remain free.
Click to expand...

DVSentinel said:
By God, I think he finally gets it. If the idiots in the OP had not targeted innocents and would not of caused unnecessary hardship (had they carried out their plan) but stuck with legitimate targets, then, they would not have been committing murder. Had they actually met the Geneva Conventions definition of a combatant, we would be obligated to treat them as prisoners of war.
Click to expand...

In the America of today, you think these clowns would be treated as "prisoners of war"? In an America, where a crazy guy can be shot by police more than 40 times while standing in a parking lot, on the phone to 911. Where SWAT teams shoot innocent people frequently, you think these guys would have just been surrounded and allowed to surrender?
 
Somerville said:
In the America of today, you think these clowns would be treated as "prisoners of war"? In an America, where a crazy guy can be shot by police more than 40 times while standing in a parking lot, on the phone to 911. Where SWAT teams shoot innocent people frequently, you think these guys would have just been surrounded and allowed to surrender?
Click to expand...

Sure, in the video link you posted, the police were totally justified in what they did. He was armed, he was threatening and then he advanced. Open and closed.
 
DVSentinel said:
For an individual to kill another individual not associated with a rebellion or military, no. We were not discussing individuals killing individuals outside of those parameters.
Click to expand...

So who decides what's good enough proof? You? DVSentinel from debatepolitics.com has decided that DVSentinel from debatepolitics.com is everyone's arbiter of what is justifiable killing and what is not? Hahahahahaha
 
OldWorldOrder said:
So who decides what's good enough proof? You? DVSentinel from debatepolitics.com has decided that DVSentinel from debatepolitics.com is everyone's arbiter of what is justifiable killing and what is not? Hahahahahaha
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? I only said I would support a revolution against socialist. If I'm joining/supporting a revolution, then I'm hardly alone. And in most cases, whomever wins the revolution is generally the one who decides if it was right or wrong.
 
DVSentinel said:
What are you talking about? I only said I would support a revolution against socialist. If I'm joining/supporting a revolution, then I'm hardly alone. And in most cases, whomever wins the revolution is generally the one who decides if it was right or wrong.
Click to expand...

Who decides who's a socialist and who isn't? You?

Can you keep up with why this is so funny? lol you sound like a zealot
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Who decides who's a socialist and who isn't? You?

Can you keep up with why this is so funny? lol you sound like a zealot
Click to expand...

Just a guess, but probably the leadership of such a revolution would decide. Since I said Join/support not lead/create, then I would say that I would have to accept someone else's judgment on it. Of course, If I didn't agree, then I wouldn't join/support.

Thankfully, the FBI doesn't think the concept of revolution is so funny, otherwise they would not of caught these three before they carried out their plan.
 
DVSentinel said:
Just a guess, but probably the leadership of such a revolution would decide. Since I said Join/support not lead/create, then I would say that I would have to accept someone else's judgment on it. Of course, If I didn't agree, then I wouldn't join/support.

Thankfully, the FBI doesn't think the concept of revolution is so funny, otherwise they would not of caught these three before they carried out their plan.
Click to expand...

What the **** are you babbling about?
 
DVSentinel said:
If they succeeded and could prove that I was, then yes.
Click to expand...

Nah, I wouldn't wish a murder on you for whatever reason. I'd call the cops and hope that they stop it. And whoever tries to kill another, due to delusions of a person taking away his rights, belongs in a mental hospital, inside a prison, for life. He can then delude himself into believing that the prison guards and men in white coats took away his rights and should all be killed, in between his hourly doses of thorazine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom