[quote]Individual acts of terrorism in the U.S. are mounting into one big problem, Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Sunday.
A hatchet attack on police officers in New York, a shooting on Parliament Hill in Canada, the Boston Marathon bombings, the beheading of a woman by a disgruntled worker in Oklahoma — all of it represents a growing threat of "lone-wolf" terrorism, she said on CNN's "State of the Union."[/quote]
[quote]Police and soldiers in uniform are at a greater risk of terror attacks, and it's important that they remain on guard, she said. But the federal government must also work in new and existing ways to protect these individuals, she said.
"This is very difficult," Feinstein said. "Halls of government have to be on guard, the way the parliament in Canada was penetrated. In Canada, you had an armed sergeant at arms who took action and killed the perpetrator. And I think we need to think in some new ways."[/quote]
[url]http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2014/10/feinstein-lone-wolf-terrorism-a-growing-problem-197643.html?hp=l15[/url]
Preventing lone-wolf terrorism is almost impossible. They work by themselves and normally leave little indicators about what they are planning.
Dianne Feinstein's definition of a terrorist is anyone who owns a semi automatic firearm
[QUOTE=Leon;46345800]Dianne Feinstein's definition of a terrorist is anyone who owns a semi automatic firearm[/QUOTE]
Color me terrorist.
she says soldiers need to stay on guard but military personnel can't even legally carry a firearm 80% of the time
Feinstein doesn't even want people to have guns to defend themselves
[quote]Sen. Dianne Feinstein [/quote]
And despite its content, the article looses all credibility.
Dianne Feinstein could be president and sign a bill legalizing weed and she'd still be an old hag.
[QUOTE=download;46345845]And despite its content, the article looses all credibility.[/QUOTE]
I'm confused about how her views on gun control somehow discredit her from making comments about lone-wold terrorism. The article literally says nothing about guns.
steal a car - terrorist
[QUOTE=Code3Response;46345921]I'm confused about how her views on gun control somehow discredit her from making comments about lone-wold terrorism. The article literally says nothing about guns.[/QUOTE]
Because it's quite reactionary. A few high-profile cases of "lone-wolf terrorism" blown up by the media says little aside from the fact that people have an easier time caring about a handful of soldiers in their home country as opposed to >9300 civilians killed by ISIS this year. Which is perfectly reasonable, but it's hard to do anything about the former without getting up in people's business.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;46345921]I'm confused about how her views on gun control somehow discredit her from making comments about lone-wold terrorism. The article literally says nothing about guns.[/QUOTE]
She's going to use this to further her anti-gun agenda, that's the only reason she's making these comments.
[QUOTE=SnakeHead;46345959]She's going to use this to further her anti-gun agenda, that's the only reason she's making these comments.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't worry too much about it, bitch is like 80-something anyway. She'll kick off soon enough.
[QUOTE=Leon;46345828]she says soldiers need to stay on guard but military personnel can't even legally carry a firearm 80% of the time
Feinstein doesn't even want people to have guns to defend themselves[/QUOTE]
I fucking hate this logic. Like do even MP's get a pistol?
[i]You see, the solution to social and mental health problems is more police enforcement.[/i]
She is a fucking moron, move along people. She is as disturbed as the people she talks about.
[QUOTE=Leon;46345800]Dianne Feinstein's definition of a terrorist is anyone who owns a semi automatic firearm[/QUOTE]
I guess I'm boned. I have a Ruger 10-22. It's semi-automatic [i]and[/i] a rifle.
With how much damage and harm this lady has done to places like California and to the United States as a whole, she is one of the few people, including Bloomberg who I cannot await for to drop dead.
Bloomberg specifically for getting most people in NYC and east New York to refuse to clean up the nuclear waste along Cattaragus Creek, and Feinstein for consistently taking the piss on gun owners, fucking over conservation efforts in California[and Arizona!], and being one of the people responsible for never enforcing policies to aid California's drought issue.
[editline]27th October 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=counterpo0;46346010]I fucking hate this logic. Like do even MP's get a pistol?[/QUOTE]
Depends on the base, level of alertness, and security area. At the front door? Nope.
I hope we don't bring our political rhetoric back to 2003, where "terrorism" became the buzzword for "fucking nutjob". "Terrorist" is a poor choice of words when talking about enemies, but at the very least, it's someone using terror to achieve a political goal. A Disgruntled worker in Oklahoma who snaps and cuts a womans head off is not a terrorist, he's a fucking nutjob.
Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist
Choi Seung-Hui was a nutjob
The War on Terror is coming home. People like Fienstein are dying to see the massive surveillance apparatus we built to target Al Qaeda turned against Americans to root out domestic dissenters and potential mass shooters. The only way to prevent "long wolf" incidents is pervasive 24/7 surveillance of every moment of every American's life, and that is the direction we're heading. Really, the capability is already here. The NSA's multi-billion-dollar facility out in Utah isn't for hunting terrorists, it's for stockpiling information on Americans and building a digital time machine that can be used to retroactively gather evidence against people.
Suddenly, any crime committed is an act of terrorism.
Off to Gitmo for robbing banks, killing people, and smoking weed.
[quote]Sen. Dianne Feinstein said...[/quote]
Oh god the Irony. A terrorist is warning us about the dangers of terrorism.
What a coincidence, I just watched Rampage (both of them).
Glad to see that there are people from both left and right here concurring that Diane Feinstein is not Fein to have in Congress
Why is every murder nowadays considered terrorism? Why can't we just call these people criminals? Why are they "terrorists"? Does "normal" murder not cause enough terror? What are the exact criteria?
[QUOTE=Pantz Master;46351385]Why is every murder nowadays considered terrorism? Why can't we just call these people criminals? Why are they "terrorists"? Does "normal" murder not cause enough terror? What are the exact criteria?[/QUOTE]
It's like pornography, "I knows it when I sees it". Or, whenever there are points to be gained by invoking terrorism.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.