• 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!

Far right domestic terrorism on par with foreign threat, experts say

theangryamerican

Can't stop the signal...
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
2,233
Reaction score
1,184
Location
The Wild West
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Let me process this for a moment...

It's become a common trend to argue that in order to exercise a right provided to the people by the Second Amendment, one must be part of a militia. However, we now find out...

Right wing anti-government groups grew by 60% in 2010 over the previous year, the center reported, attributing much of the growth to militia groups.

and...

State police agencies polled by START researchers in 2008 overwhelmingly reported the presence of potentially dangerous extremist groups across the political spectrum, with nearly 90% saying neo-Nazi, skinhead, militia groups and other right-wing groups were present in their state. About two-thirds reported radical Islamic groups.

So, when a citizen of this country joins a militia, something specifically addressed in the Constitution, they can now be lumped in with neo-fascists and skinheads as domestic terrorists?

But the threat from Islamic terrorism tends to get the lion's share of media coverage, not to mention law enforcement attention, Ackerman of START said.

Ackerman said nationally, law enforcement has been focused since the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon in 2001 on the threat of Islamic terrorism, even as the threat from domestic anti-government groups has been growing.

Furthermore, not agreeing with this current government apparently makes one as dangerous as a radical Jihadist.




Far right domestic terrorism on par with foreign threat, experts say - CNN.com
 
It will probably always be the case that a given incident of terrorism is at least as likely to occur from within than without. In fact, normally I would say that would overwhelmingly be the case for most countries. The fact that Islamic terrorism is a high probability anywhere near the level of threat of domestic terrorism speaks volumes.
 
Let me process this for a moment...

It's become a common trend to argue that in order to exercise a right provided to the people by the Second Amendment, one must be part of a militia. However, we now find out...



and...



So, when a citizen of this country joins a militia, something specifically addressed in the Constitution, they can now be lumped in with neo-fascists and skinheads as domestic terrorists?



Furthermore, not agreeing with this current government apparently makes one as dangerous as a radical Jihadist.




Far right domestic terrorism on par with foreign threat, experts say - CNN.com

i really don't know where anyone has claimed that not agreeing with the government makes one as dangerous as a radical jihadist. and yes, militias can be lumped in with neo-fascists. The Militia Movement -- Extremism in America
 
i really don't know where anyone has claimed that not agreeing with the government makes one as dangerous as a radical jihadist. and yes, militias can be lumped in with neo-fascists. The Militia Movement -- Extremism in America

How so? How is it extremist to engage in a something that was specifically intended to be an integral part of this country? Doesn't the Constitution not only make allowances for, but practically encourage the formation of militias to ensure the common welfare of the citizenry? If you mean that a militia could be seen as a threat to a government, then yes, that's kind of the point, but is the militia in any way a threat to the country?
 
So, when a citizen of this country joins a militia, something specifically addressed in the Constitution, they can now be lumped in with neo-fascists and skinheads as domestic terrorists?


It isn't necessarily the joining of a militia that makes one a neo-fascist or terrorist, but the politics and objectives of said militia.
 
How so? How is it extremist to engage in a something that was specifically intended to be an integral part of this country? Doesn't the Constitution not only make allowances for, but practically encourage the formation of militias to ensure the common welfare of the citizenry? If you mean that a militia could be seen as a threat to a government, then yes, that's kind of the point, but is the militia in any way a threat to the country?

our "militia" is our armed services. there is no doubt that the militias around the country DO NOT have the welfare of the people at the forefront of their mission. of course militias are a threat to our country. it's really that simple, anytime you have a bunch of ****ing miscreants running around with guns, illegally in a lot of cases, bad stuff is bound to occur. militias are just like street gangs, but better armed.
 
our "militia" is our armed services. there is no doubt that the militias around the country DO NOT have the welfare of the people at the forefront of their mission. of course militias are a threat to our country. it's really that simple, anytime you have a bunch of ****ing miscreants running around with guns, illegally in a lot of cases, bad stuff is bound to occur. militias are just like street gangs, but better armed.

I know someone that has read the MIAC and/ or other similar reports.

No, militias are not like "street gangs", though I don't doubt there's that feeling of community. It was the intention that every individual be trained in the use of weapons so that each individual can be called upon for civil defense.

Now, in a sense I can understand your concerns, but this one is not simple enough to make hose kinds of blanket statements...

In many places, cops act very much like street gangs as well, how dangerous do you perceive cops in that sense?? (this is also a blanket statement, if you're a good cop and honor the oath I respect you and the difficulty of your job... Corrupt cops on the other hand.)
 
our "militia" is our armed services. there is no doubt that the militias around the country DO NOT have the welfare of the people at the forefront of their mission. of course militias are a threat to our country. it's really that simple, anytime you have a bunch of ****ing miscreants running around with guns, illegally in a lot of cases, bad stuff is bound to occur. militias are just like street gangs, but better armed.


There is a vast difference between a citizen militia as described in the Constitution and a standing army. You appear to be addressing this issue with a lot of hyperbole, liblady, and I expect better from you. People who wish to bear arms in defense of themselves and others are "miscreants?" Also, can you please cite statistics tying state militia groups to ownership of illegal firearms?
 
There is a vast difference between a citizen militia as described in the Constitution and a standing army. You appear to be addressing this issue with a lot of hyperbole, liblady, and I expect better from you. People who wish to bear arms in defense of themselves and others are "miscreants?" Also, can you please cite statistics tying state militia groups to ownership of illegal firearms?

By early 1996, virtually every state had at least one group, and most states had several. The movement had attracted the attention not only of the media but also of law enforcement, however, which had begun to discover signs of significant criminal activity. As early as 1994, members of the Blue Ridge Hunt Club, a nascent Virginia militia group, had been arrested on a variety of weapons charges. The following year an Oklahoma Christian Identity minister and militia leader, Ray Lampley, was arrested along with several followers for conspiring to blow up targets ranging from government buildings to the offices of civil rights organizations. But in 1996, a series of investigations resulted in a number of major militia-related arrests, generally on illegal weapons, explosives and conspiracy charges. In April 1996, several members of the Georgia Republic Militia were arrested, followed in July by a dozen members of the Arizona Viper Militia. Later that same month, members of the Washington State Militia found themselves in custody, while in October members of the West Virginia Mountaineer Militia were arres-ted on weapons charges and in connection with plans to blow up an F.B.I. fingerprinting facility. These arrests, not surprisingly, had a depressing effect on the movement.

Other events in 1996 and 1997 also served to weaken the movement. The most ambitious attempt to network militia groups together, the Tri-States Militia, collapsed in 1996 when it was revealed that its leader had been accepting money from the F.B.I. In March 1996, the F.B.I. surrounded the Montana Freemen, a sovereign citizen group, in remote eastern Montana, then arrested them following an 81-day standoff. Although a few militia members traveled to Montana to support (or aid) the Freemen, by and large the movement failed to respond, a fact that embittered some of the more radical members. (This scenario would be repeated the following spring when the militia failed to come to the rescue of the besieged Republic of Texas near Fort Davis, Texas.) Lack of response on the part of the militia movement caused a number of radical members to splinter away at the same time that some of the less hard-core members were leaving because of the increased arrests. By the fall of 1996, the movement had clearly faltered, and several prominent early leaders dropped out, including Idaho militia leader Samuel Sherwood; he disbanded his group in September, complaining that "the whole movement is being distorted on one side by the press and the media and taken over by the nuts and the crazies on the other."

Some militia activists attempted to buck the tide by establishing militia umbrella groups, most of which lasted only a few years. More radical members eschewed elaborate militia organizations and attempted to go it on their own. In Michigan, a group of militia members, allegedly kicked out of the Michigan Militia for being too radical, formed a group first called the "Goof Troop," then, with more dignity, the North American Militia. Members planned to bomb a large number of targets in Michigan, including a federal building and an I.R.S. building; they constructed a variety of pipe bombs and even discussed assassinating various government officials. By 1998, five members of the group had been arrested and convicted on multiple charges; leaders Brad Metcalf and Randy Graham received 40- and 55-year sentences, respectively. In Missouri, a group of extremists from several different states, led by Bradley Glover of Kansas, met at a gathering of the "Third Continental Congress," but decided that this umbrella group was not radical enough for them. They struck out on their own, planning to attack United States military bases that they suspected were training New World Order troops. Members were so committed that they sold their businesses and homes in order to have plenty of money and be completely mobile. The first planned attack would occur against Fort Hood, Texas, on July 4, 1997 -- the day that the military base hosts an annual "Freedom Festival" attended by 50,000 men, women and children. Luckily, good police work on the part of the Missouri State Highway Patrol and the F.B.I. detected the plans and prevented a tragedy; Glover and a companion were arrested on July 4 at a campground near Fort Hood. Eventually seven people were arrested in connection with the group.

is this enough?
 
is this enough?

Not really. How about some actual links to statistics instead of reposting the same ADL page? That lists perhaps a few dozen arrests since 1993 from the thousands of people who may claim to indentify themselves as citizen militia members. Frankly, there are more police officers brought up on charges each year than the militia members you provided there.

Like I said, I expect more than hyperbole from you.
 
i really don't know where anyone has claimed that not agreeing with the government makes one as dangerous as a radical jihadist. and yes, militias can be lumped in with neo-fascists. The Militia Movement -- Extremism in America

That's BS. Militias always have been a fundamental building block in this country and our service to them nothing more than duty to the Republic. Militias can be limped in with neo-fascists if you are completely generalizing the entire group and trying to paint them all as the extremists you sometimes see.
 
Not really. How about some actual links to statistics instead of reposting the same ADL page? That lists perhaps a few dozen arrests since 1993 from the thousands of people who may claim to indentify themselves as citizen militia members. Frankly, there are more police officers brought up on charges each year than the militia members you provided there.

Like I said, I expect more than hyperbole from you.

james, it's not hyperbole. militias rightly have a bad reputation in our country. statistics don't matter in this instance, because ANY militia groups intending to foment hate and spur anti government uprisings are dangerous. what is their purpose, really? what good do they do for ordinary citizens?

Christian militia members held for plot to kill policeman and bomb funeral | World news | The Guardian
 
james, it's not hyperbole. militias rightly have a bad reputation in our country. statistics don't matter in this instance, because ANY militia groups intending to foment hate and spur anti government uprisings are dangerous. what is their purpose, really? what good do they do for ordinary citizens?

Christian militia members held for plot to kill policeman and bomb funeral | World news | The Guardian

Contrary to what the ADL article said, militias are not a new phenomenom. They go back as far as the founding of this country and have always been present throughout this country's history. They have always indentified themselves as protectors of their neighbors and fellow citizens and deterrents to (to borrow a phrase from Alexis de Tocqueville, a 19th century French observer) "tyranny of the majority."

Yes, there are fringe groups who sit around and discuss conspiracy theories and armed revolution, but I think you'd be surprised to find that the vast number of militia members see themselves as protectors of the people, in a defensive role, rather than the inciters of violence the media would portray them to be. One of the more recent examples I can think of involved a militia in Michigan who stood between police and a property owner in their community who was being treated unjustly. No verbal threats were exchanged. No shots were fired. The police backed down and everyone went home safe. Incidentally, in the incident that your link referenced there was one of the Hutaree extremists who intitially evaded arrest and went to the Southeast Michigan Volunteer Militia (the same militia involved in the peaceful police stand off I talked about above) for help. They encouraged the criminal to turn himself in and when he did not, they reported him to the police themselves.
 
Last edited:
Who are these people who put themselves above the law? It is not for them to decide who needs arresting and who does not.
 
Who are these people who put themselves above the law? It is not for them to decide who needs arresting and who does not.

How about this citizen? Did he need arresting too? Did you know that citizens have the power to arrest people? Did you also know that a uniformed law enforcement officer can be legally resisted with appropriate force up to the point of lethal force if they are acting against a citizen in an unlawful manner? People seem to forget that our government is derived from the consent of the people and that's the beauty of it; We don't have to bow our heads. We are free to stand up for the rights that we have.

I don't for a second believe that you are truly naive enough to believe that government can do no wrong...
 
Last edited:
Contrary to what the ADL article said, militias are not a new phenomenom. They go back as far as the founding of this country and have always been present throughout this country's history. They have always indentified themselves as protectors of their neighbors and fellow citizens and deterrents to (to borrow a phrase from Alexis de Tocqueville, a 19th century French observer) "tyranny of the majority."

At the founding of the United States militias were mandated by colonial legislatures with short terms of service, less than a year. The colonial militias were more like our current National Guard - though this is a poor comparison as we don't actually have anything similar to a colonial militia today - and not at all like what we think of as militias today. It is interesting to note that militia service was mandatory and that militia members were required to provide their own guns, equipment, and provisions.

Look into the Whiskey Rebellion to see how they were used to handle the minority

Militia (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In 1794, a militia numbering approximately 13,000 was raised and personally led by President George Washington to quell the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania.

For more information

ARM - American Reformation Movement: Brief History of the United States Citizen Militia
The Minutemen were formed after the crisis that occurred in Boston in 1774. They were initially a reorganized militia that once fought for the British military and its government, as previously mentioned, but instead organized to fight against the tyranny of British rule. The name of the organized militia came from the fact of being on call in an instant (minute). The Minutemen organization was not formed by common law but by statutory law.

http://www.constitution.org/jw/acm_1-m.htm
Three separate, and often mutually distrustful, authorities vied for control of the New England militias. First, each colony had its own militia organization which was identical with, or responsible to, the colonial legislature and/or governor. Second, the New England colonies having created a unified military plan known as the New England Confederation, placed their individual militias under this regional authority. At various times the individual colonial authorities refused to cooperate and release militiamen to assist the general authority

Militia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Regulation of the militia was codified by the Second Continental Congress with the Articles of Confederation. The revolutionaries also created a full-time regular army—the Continental Army—but because of manpower shortages the militia provided short-term support to the regulars in the field throughout the war.

In colonial era Anglo-American usage, militia service was distinguished from military service in that the latter was normally a commitment for a fixed period of time of at least a year, for a salary, whereas militia was only to meet a threat, or prepare to meet a threat, for periods of time expected to be short. Militia persons were normally expected to provide their own weapons, equipment, or supplies, although they may later be compensated for losses or expenditures.[40]
 
At the founding of the United States militias were mandated by colonial legislatures with short terms of service, less than a year. The colonial militias were more like our current National Guard - though this is a poor comparison as we don't actually have anything similar to a colonial militia today - and not at all like what we think of as militias today. It is interesting to note that militia service was mandatory and that militia members were required to provide their own guns, equipment, and provisions.

Look into the Whiskey Rebellion to see how they were used to handle the minority

Militia (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For more information

ARM - American Reformation Movement: Brief History of the United States Citizen Militia


http://www.constitution.org/jw/acm_1-m.htm


Militia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I see nothing in there to refute my premise. So...are citizen militias terrorist organizations or not? ;)
 
Contrary to what the ADL article said, militias are not a new phenomenom. They go back as far as the founding of this country and have always been present throughout this country's history. They have always indentified themselves as protectors of their neighbors and fellow citizens and deterrents to (to borrow a phrase from Alexis de Tocqueville, a 19th century French observer) "tyranny of the majority."

Yes, there are fringe groups who sit around and discuss conspiracy theories and armed revolution, but I think you'd be surprised to find that the vast number of militia members see themselves as protectors of the people, in a defensive role, rather than the inciters of violence the media would portray them to be. One of the more recent examples I can think of involved a militia in Michigan who stood between police and a property owner in their community who was being treated unjustly. No verbal threats were exchanged. No shots were fired. The police backed down and everyone went home safe. Incidentally, in the incident that your link referenced there was one of the Hutaree extremists who intitially evaded arrest and went to the Southeast Michigan Volunteer Militia (the same militia involved in the peaceful police stand off I talked about above) for help. They encouraged the criminal to turn himself in and when he did not, they reported him to the police themselves.

can you cite anything that tells us the majority of militias have no desire to incite revolution? that they believe in the rule of law? the media goes with what they know......and anythime militias are in the news, it's usually bad news.
 
How about this citizen? Did he need arresting too? Did you know that citizens have the power to arrest people? Did you also know that a uniformed law enforcement officer can be legally resisted with appropriate force up to the point of lethal force if they are acting against a citizen in an unlawful manner? People seem to forget that our government is derived from the consent of the people and that's the beauty of it; We don't have to bow our heads. We are free to stand up for the rights that we have.

I don't for a second believe that you are truly naive enough to believe that government can do no wrong...
The law is self-correcting. The cop in your example did not kill the driver, and steps are being taken against the cop for his unlawful behaviour. Who arbitrarily decides whether or not a cop is acting within the law and resists with lethal force? Who arbitrarily decides which laws meet their aproval, and which will be resisted. You cannot be so naive as to support anarchy.
 
Last edited:

Thats the word that gets you into trouble. You cant definitively make that assumption because there is zero hard evidence on militia population numbers to make a blanket statement about how they feel about anything.

IE Hyperbole
 
can you cite anything that tells us the majority of militias have no desire to incite revolution? that they believe in the rule of law? the media goes with what they know......and anythime militias are in the news, it's usually bad news.

Come on, you should know better than to demand proof of a negative. Prove to me that you’re not going to die tonight. You can’t prove that something ISN’T going to happen; only that it is. So the burden of proof would seem to require you to show me that the purpose of militias IS to incite revolution. Sure, you have a few media examples of a couple dozen individuals out of the thousands of citizen militia members in this country, just like you have a few media examples of rogue LEO’s. The articles about the law abiding citizens and LEO’s don’t make for riveting news. Plain and simple.

The law is self-correcting. The cop in your example did not kill the driver, and steps are being taken against the cop for his unlawful behaviour. Who arbitrarily decides whether or not a cop is acting within the law and resists with lethal force? Who arbitrarily decides which laws meet their aproval, and which will be resisted. You cannot be so naive as to support anarchy.

You are correct. Constitutional laws are self correcting. Unconstitutional laws have no duty to be followed and are overturned. The cop would face consequences for his unlawful behavior, as would the militia, if their actions were deemed against the law. The fact that the police left that particular incident without arresting anyone should tell you something.
 
and anythime militias are in the news, it's usually bad news.

Same can be said about a lot of things. The Catholics were in the news a lot of pedophile priests. Does that mean all the priests are boy ****ers? Or that Catholicism is bad?
 
Back
Top Bottom