• 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!

COPS: Times Square Car Bomber Got the Wrong Fertilizer

Good point, and YUP before that and ever since then, it has been Muslim / Arab terrorists. But the most dangerous terrorist to the US are somehow, some way, the home grown ones. Up is down and down is up, don't ya know?;)

Actually, up until 9/11, the most dangerous terror attacks WERE homegrown terrorists. We have a lot of nutjobs here, from whackadoo polygamists in the southwest to the sig heilers in the northwest to who knows what in Maine.

At this point, it's anyone's guess. And, a guess of white supremacists or homegrown militia types isn't any less likely to be accurate than a guess of Islamists.
 
Well, thank you for adding yet another mindless accusation based on nothing but hatred and prejudices. Wonderful.

So....lets get the count down

A terrorist act gets reported with a guy with a "middle eastern sounding" name, a guy that looks middle eastern, or a guy that is a muslim and people are attacked and smacked down for jumping to the conclussion (or even simply suggesting as a likely possability) that it had to do with radical Islam.

However

A terrorist act gets reported and a single report comes out suggesting the FBI is looking into a white guy and we're instantly see suggestions of the KKK, Stormfront, and the Tea Parties and naturally the same people who come out of the woodwork to scold people jumping to conclussions for Islamic Extremism are no where to be seen.

Well, on behalf of someone that does tell people not to just jump to conclussions and call every single crime that a radical muslim does a "terrorist attack" let me actually show equal footing...its freaking ridiculous to jump to conclussions or use this as a chance to take "joking" political shots at groups you dislike.

There's a lot still to come out with this and its anyones guess at the moment what happened.

There are a couple of things that I find interesting when comparing Homegrown Terrorism and International Terrorism.

First, Homegrown Terrorists have a completely different image than International Terrorists. If Muhammad al-Jihad, born in Pakistan, killed 20 people, and interrupted Manhattan business with a car-bomb, then we would have an image of a foreign enemy attacking Americans because he hates Americans. If Carl Sagan, born in Dallas, killed 20 people and interrupted Manhattan business with a car-bomb, then we would look into Sagan's life and be horrified at his living condition, his mental issues, or his socio-economic background.

Would you believe a report that said that al-Jihad was not an Islamic extremist, although he was Muslim, and acted for "rational" reasons?
Would you believe a report that Carl Sagan acted as an agent of Islamic extremism even though he grew up Protestant?

If the terrorist does not fit the common perception of terrorist, then we tend to eliminate his ideologies from discussion. If the terrorist is a common perception of terrorist, then we tend to eliminate tangible rationality from discussion.

Second, there is the question about how savvy the terrorists are. It seems to be that we expect more from an international terrorist, and that we count on them to be Professionally Terrorists. This fits into the first point because we consider the international, ideologically driven, terrorist to be part of some large scheme. We must keep in mind that the current charts we use to decide who is who in al-Qa'ida came from a single interrogated suspect years ago. We try to conceptualize al-Qa'ida in the terms of the Mafia, or a gang where there is a leader pulling the strings, and that there are guides for those who want to earn their badge, or become a "made-man". We point out the Madrassahs in Pakistan, and the FATA, areas and confirm out beliefs that the terrorists from those regions are trained. We watch videos of al-Qa'ida training camps and we suspect that they're training to become Professional terrorists. We remember 9/11 and the European attacks, and we see a linearity that these terrorists learn the trade and become Professional terrorists. But...

Three, Terrorism does not rely on operational success or efficiency, as much as doing a Math exam does. The entire purpose of terrorism is not dependent on whether or not the car bomb went off, but how the people would react to the notion that the attacker's INTENTION was to kill innocent people. In this regard, terrorism is not about being efficient on a Math exam, but how the Professor reacts to your math exam. In this regard, Terrorism is not about getting the job done, but showing that you INTEND to do the job.

The likelihood of somebody being killed by a terrorist attack is less likely than being mauled by two species of bear on the same day. Yet terrorism is still America's boogeyman.

Four, We don't react to people being killed and buildings blow up, but we react to the INTENTION that someone want people to die, and things to blow up. The estimated damage done does not affect our feelings about terrorism, but how HARD we react.

Five, We claim that Professionalism might make a difference between an International and a Homegrown terrorist. But after all the Terrorist is out for something, being successful in an operational sense, does not sound really professional does it? The Terrorists job is done when he/she shows that he/she is capable and intends to cause harm. The extent to which the terrorist causes damage does less good for his/her cause.
 
At this point, it's anyone's guess. And, a guess of white supremacists or homegrown militia types isn't any less likely to be accurate than a guess of Islamists.
Not true.

"White supremicists" typically don't bomb civilians indiscriminantly and if they chose to do so, why pick a place chock full of white people?
 
Not true.

"White supremicists" typically don't bomb civilians indiscriminantly and if they chose to do so, why pick a place chock full of white people?

Ask Timothy McVeigh that question. There were a whole crapload of white people, including children, in the Murrah Federal Building the day he bombed it.
 
Ask Timothy McVeigh that question. There were a whole crapload of white people, including children, in the Murrah Federal Building the day he bombed it.

McVeigh was a white supremist?

I thought he was just pissed about Waco and Ruby Ridge.
 
Ask Timothy McVeigh that question. There were a whole crapload of white people, including children, in the Murrah Federal Building the day he bombed it.
McVeigh wasn't a white supremicist:
McVeigh frequently quoted and alluded to the white supremacist novel The Turner Diaries. It described acts of terrorism similar to the one he carried out. While McVeigh openly rejected the book's racism (a roommate said that McVeigh was not a racist and was basically indifferent to racist matters),[30] he claimed to appreciate its interest in firearms.
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh]Timothy McVeigh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
McVeigh is considered to belong to the far right, and for that reason some people apparently assume that he has racist tendencies. But I saw no indication of this. On the contrary, he was on very friendly terms with the African-American inmates here and I never heard him make any remark that could have been considered even remotely racist. I do recall his mentioning that prior to the Gulf War, he and other soldiers were subjected to propaganda designed to make them hate the people they were going to fight, but when he arrived in the Persian Gulf area he discovered that the "enemies" he was supposed to kill were human beings just like himself, and he learned to respect their culture.
Kaczynski's comments on McVeigh
 
Are we sure the man in the video is the one who parked the SUV? I thought I heard someone say on TV it's possible he is not the bomber.

I'm just glad he messed it up and nobody was hurt.
 
Check the tea party videos. You'll probably find him in there with a sign claiming Obama is a Nazi.

Or much more likely check out a code pink protest you'll find him in between the guy burning the American flag and the rich white college kid wearing the jihad joe keffiyeh.
 
But guess what else? Police are saying that the main suspect is not connected to the Taliban at all, but a white guy, probably a homegrown terrorist.

That's what you get for putting your trust in sources you want to believe.

Now they are saying he is a naturalized citizen from Pakistan.

Still think he's a homegrown whitey danarhea? :rofl:rofl
 
Actually, up until 9/11, the most dangerous terror attacks WERE homegrown terrorists. We have a lot of nutjobs here, from whackadoo polygamists in the southwest to the sig heilers in the northwest to who knows what in Maine.

At this point, it's anyone's guess. And, a guess of white supremacists or homegrown militia types isn't any less likely to be accurate than a guess of Islamists.

I am 3 hours driving time from Maine and I will assure you that we know what is in Maine - Maniacs - Mouse - and LL Bean ; SIMPLE. ,;)
 
Last edited:
Or much more likely check out a code pink protest you'll find him in between the guy burning the American flag and the rich white college kid wearing the jihad joe keffiyeh.

I was under the impression that except for a case or two of window breakings the Code Pinkos were primarli obnoxious, stuoid, and just plain wahacked out AH's but nothing in the terrorists class.
 
I guess white cops don't count in your world...

:rofl If you had a clue who Taylor is you wouldn't be as foolish with your comments.

BTW, first link, suspected only. Nothing conclusive. Nice try.


Your second link was not a coordinated terrorist attack but a response by a nutjob who fired at officers after they were there responding to a disturbance:

Three Pittsburgh police officers were fatally shot when they responded to a domestic dispute at the home of the alleged killer

And shooting isn't bombing. Those are 2 separate things. :2wave:

Hint: It helps to actually read the links you provide before you post them.
 
Actually, up until 9/11, the most dangerous terror attacks WERE homegrown terrorists. We have a lot of nutjobs here, from whackadoo polygamists in the southwest to the sig heilers in the northwest to who knows what in Maine.

At this point, it's anyone's guess. And, a guess of white supremacists or homegrown militia types isn't any less likely to be accurate than a guess of Islamists.
Actually even if you stick to saying the most dangerous attacks against the US by terrorist, in the US, something that was not stated previously, we were still struck here before 9/11. It was not hillbillies, white supremacist or polygamists but an organized Muslim terrorist organization. You might even have heard of them, though from your comments so far it seems not so much. Well until 9/11.:roll:

Thanks for playing though.;)
 
Actually even if you stick to saying the most dangerous attacks against the US by terrorist, in the US, something that was not stated previously, we were still struck here before 9/11. It was not hillbillies, white supremacist or polygamists but an organized Muslim terrorist organization. You might even have heard of them, though from your comments so far it seems not so much. Well until 9/11.:roll:

Thanks for playing though.;)

'cuse?

I'm not following your post.
 
'cuse?

I'm not following your post.
Nor should you be, it was aimed after all at the person I was speaking to, see the quote box above my comments? The one I was responding to?;)
 
I was under the impression that except for a case or two of window breakings the Code Pinkos were primarli obnoxious, stuoid, and just plain wahacked out AH's but nothing in the terrorists class.

Nah they openly aided the insurgency in Fallujah with the aid of a Democrat congressmen IIRC.
 
Official: Suspect in custody in NY car bomb attack - Yahoo! News

A suspect in last weekend's failed car bomb attack on Times Square was taken into custody late Monday while trying to leave the country, a law enforcement official said.

The suspect, a Pakistani, was identified at midnight Monday at John F. Kennedy International Airport and was stopped, said the official, who spoke to The Associated Press early Tuesday on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation.

The suspect was identified as Faisal Shahzad, but his hometown wasn't disclosed. He was being held in New York.
 
Yea, that attack by Timothy McVeigh was nothing. Sheesh.

Not at all, it was a large act that is probably the pinnacle of domestic terrorist activity in this country. That said, it’s kind of my point. Compare 9/11 to that.

Oklahoma’s death toll was eclipsed almost by a magnitude of 20 by 9/11, with around 10 times more injuries as well. The cost estimated for Oklahoma City was around $650 million. 9/11’s estimated cost was around $100 billion. This s not including the damage 9/11 placed on the economy as the stock market lost $1.4 Trillion dollars in that week.

Oklahoma was the big domestic act and it is like a candle next to a bonfire when you set it next to 9/11. I do not say that to belittle Oklahoma or the tragedy it was but to illustrate the scope of difference between the two.

Recent history simply shows us in my opinion that those exterior to this country seemingly are better coordinated, planned, funded, and capable both mentally and in practice of pulling off larger and more devastating attacks than domestic ones. Does this mean it’s always the case? No. Could a domestic terrorist pull off something bigger? Sure. But right now out of the two I do not feel that is the more likely case, in part for the exact same reason you gave why you thought this was domestic. Sloppy, more luck than skill, and crude is more a trademark of domestic terrorists it seems than foreign.

As I said, I think Domestic Terrorists are likely to have a higher frequency and a more localized distracting and terror inducing affect where as I think Foreign Terrorists are more likely to have higher damage and national effect. This is not to say that I think they’re restricted just to this, but I’ve seen no reason at all to just assume that suddenly Domestic Terrorists are going to jump up in scale and scope so much.
 
Arch, thanks for a GREAT post.

There are a couple of things that I find interesting when comparing Homegrown Terrorism and International Terrorism.

First, Homegrown Terrorists have a completely different image than International Terrorists. If Muhammad al-Jihad, born in Pakistan, killed 20 people, and interrupted Manhattan business with a car-bomb, then we would have an image of a foreign enemy attacking Americans because he hates Americans. If Carl Sagan, born in Dallas, killed 20 people and interrupted Manhattan business with a car-bomb, then we would look into Sagan's life and be horrified at his living condition, his mental issues, or his socio-economic background.

I actually disagree to a point. I think you have people on both sides doing this at different times for this. I can point to many of the liberals and libertarians at a point a bit after 9/11 telling us how we need to understand why we make these people hate us, very much akin to what some republicans and libertarians were saying about the guy that flew into the IRS building recently as well. However, despite that, I think by and large everyone wrote both up as crazy assholes with no regard for others.

Yes, I think you're right to an extent we're more apt to look at domestic terrorist a little closer because of that slight identification as "one of us" in some way shape or form, but I don't think its as extreme as you suggest and I think its usually coupled with still blaming the person and his irrational reasons typically.

Would you believe a report that said that al-Jihad was not an Islamic extremist, although he was Muslim, and acted for "rational" reasons?
Would you believe a report that Carl Sagan acted as an agent of Islamic extremism even though he grew up Protestant?

Once the report came out for sure, yeah. Early on I'd probably give the second less credance than the first, but as I always do I attempt to withhold full judgement until facts are out, not speculation.

Second, there is the question about how savvy the terrorists are. It seems to be that we expect more from an international terrorist, and that we count on them to be Professionally Terrorists.

For a few reasons. One, there is an inherent notion of planning in the very notion of coming over into the country to perpetrate an attack. It’s this assumption of planning, and patience, that generally makes people look at foreign terrorists as more likely being somewhat more professional. Second is the assumption typically that terrorists that are foreign are most likely operating within some kind of network, even loosely, while often times the notion for domestic terrorists is more of a loner. While this plays into your suggestion of assumptions and biases in people, I think it’s a bias in part backed up somewhat with history.

I agree with your statements on Al-Qaeda and Terorrism save for the goal. While I agree that completing the attack isn’t always required for the goal the preference is always to complete the attack because it significantly increases the affect of said goal.

I have to disagree with #4. I believe the magnitude of deaths in 9/11 significantly contributed to the impact it had on people.

I can’t disagree more on #5. Case in point the best example would be the 1993 WTC attempted bombings and 9/11. The amount of economic, emotional, and psychological damage done to the country cannot even be seriously compared between the two of them and they can’t primarily and almost singularly based on the success on the part of 9/11 and the failure on the part of 1993.

I think you made a great post and some really well reasoned arguments. I do think there is a definite stereotyping done in our minds and biases inherent from it on foreign and domestic terrorism. That can be seen in the OP even when the notion that this was sloppy immediately made him think domestic. That said, while I think some of it is likely overblown I think some of it is bred there for legitimate reasons.
 
Actually even if you stick to saying the most dangerous attacks against the US by terrorist, in the US, something that was not stated previously, we were still struck here before 9/11. It was not hillbillies, white supremacist or polygamists but an organized Muslim terrorist organization. You might even have heard of them, though from your comments so far it seems not so much. Well until 9/11.:roll:

Thanks for playing though.;)

Actually, I have considerable familiarity with homegrown terrorists in the U.S., moreso perhaps that probably anyone else on this board, since I've actually worked directly with and interviewed a few.
 
I think both types of terrorists are a threat. As McVeigh proved, there are some very angry, white bread terrorists who can pull off quite a large scale event. Then, as 911 illustrated, Muslim terrorists have a bigger potential. What is really frightening is the threat of biological or nuclear terrorism, and I think the well-funded Islamists are more threatening on that account.

There is a brewing anti-government, homespun movement though. That is a reality.
 
Back
Top Bottom