• 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

Grant said:
Yes, murdering children is wrong. Good observation.

Was Brevik effective? Or, in other words, was he successful in carrying out his motive.

I don't think he was because, as even you noted, murdering children is wrong. Although some think that it's okay if they are young enough.
Click to expand...

Please, you're going to equate it to abortion? Are you going for some kind of "dishonest arguments in one thread" record?
 
Grant said:
Who is we? It seems to me that calling them 'militia groups' adds a lot of unwarranted credibility to these yahoos and makes them sound more dangerous than they are.
Click to expand...
Um....the "we" would be me, the FBI, the suspects.....and anyone else familiar with the militia movement in the US since the 1990's.

I won't force you to be a part of this group since you seem intent on excluding yourself.




Yes, these members were arrested but you said "If you are new to the concept of RW militia groups, particularly those in the South, there are lots of resources available to bring you up to date". My question was obviously not directed to those who were already arrested, as a re-read will demonstrate, but as to why these other 'militia groups in the south' haven't been arrested.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, it is not my responsibility to teach you when a militia group or member is or is not committing a crime.

Again, find this out for yourself.
Also, what makes them 'right wing". Are they for a balanced budget amendment?
Click to expand...
Why is your argument so incredibly ignorant about a topic it has chosen to engage in?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Um....the "we" would be me, the FBI, the suspects.....and anyone else familiar with the militia movement in the US since the 1990's.

I won't force you to be a part of this group since you seem intent on excluding yourself.
Click to expand...
You're quite right that I'm not part of any militia, peaceful or otherwise. And most of them do appear to be peaceful or, I'm assuming, mre of them would have been arrested.
Why is your argument so incredibly ignorant about a topic it has chosen to engage in?
Click to expand...
If the answer to the question eludes you, just say so.
 
j-mac said:
Oh really?
Click to expand...

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"?
 
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...

I don't play 'when did you stop beating your wife' games....Go back and read the thread.
 
Grant said:
You're quite right that I'm not part of any militia, peaceful or otherwise.
Click to expand...
I didn't say you were, I said I would not force you to be included in a group who would have an understanding of what the militia movement is all about.

And most of them do appear to be peaceful or, I'm assuming, mre (sic) of them would have been arrested.
Click to expand...
Your argument has gone from pure ignorance....to assuming!
If the answer to the question eludes you, just say so.
Click to expand...
I know the answer.....the question still is.....why don't you, and why are you debating a topic you have so little knowledge about?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Your argument has gone from pure ignorance....to assuming!
Click to expand...
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.
 
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...

You know the motto:

Debate Politics
Political Bias optional, civility a must!
 
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...
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.
 
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...
More insults. Very convincing
 
Somerville said:
Remember all the outrage in 2009, when DHS put out a report about the increasing danger of right wing terrorism?
Click to expand...

Meh, "terrorists" is what they'd call the Founding Fathers as well. So it's a useless word. Also this wouldn't be terrorism. It could be considered an act of treason, but not terrorism. Terror isn't being used as the mechanism to elicit change, revolution is.
 
Terror absolutely can be used in that way, and it's extremely arguable that that's what violent Salafi actions are aimed at.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Insulting stupid argument by posters is perfectly fine.

Bone up on creating argument that is not stupid.
Click to expand...
Arrogance and name calling is no substitute for argument. Bone up on that.
 
Ikari said:
Meh, "terrorists" is what they'd call the Founding Fathers as well. So it's a useless word. Also this wouldn't be terrorism. It could be considered an act of treason, but not terrorism. Terror isn't being used as the mechanism to elicit change, revolution is.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, the old "debase language" tactic once again.

As I said in response to this stupid argument technique...bone up on smart argument.

PS:

Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code

18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorism”:

"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
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
Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*
"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear 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
Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:

Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).
* FISA defines "international terrorism" in a nearly identical way, replacing "primarily" outside the U.S. with "totally" outside the U.S. 50 U.S.C. § 1801(c).

FBI — Terrorism Definition
 
Ikari said:
Meh, "terrorists" is what they'd call the Founding Fathers as well. So it's a useless word. Also this wouldn't be terrorism. It could be considered an act of treason, but not terrorism. Terror isn't being used as the mechanism to elicit change, revolution is.
Click to expand...

Terrorists if they are the bad guys. Freedom fighters if they are the good gays according the the media it invokes peoples emotions, and the little they know of a given situation they are of course going to side with freedom fighters and hate terrorists
 
Fletch said:
Arrogance and name calling is no substitute for argument. Bone up on that.
Click to expand...
Your argument is hopeless, it cannot differentiate between person and argument.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Ah yes, the old "debase language" tactic once again.

As I said in response to this stupid argument technique...bone up on smart argument.

PS:

Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code

18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorism”:

"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
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
Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*
"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear 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
Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:

Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).
* FISA defines "international terrorism" in a nearly identical way, replacing "primarily" outside the U.S. with "totally" outside the U.S. 50 U.S.C. § 1801(c).

FBI — Terrorism Definition
Click to expand...

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. That has nothing to do with the point. Terrorism is an act that inherently seeks to use terror and fear to elicit political change. Revolution is not that, revolution is revolt.

Revolution, BTW, is a proper and reserved right of The People.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom