• DHS intelligence report warns of domestic right-wing terror threat; "possibly a bigger threat than I
    48 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Fish Muffin;47179974]Even bat boy?[/QUOTE] Especially Bat Boy
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;47179994]Yeah man, that's the true threat to the American people. More American lives have been claimed by bat boy than ISIS could ever dream of.[/QUOTE] But... but... [img]http://i57.tinypic.com/2s804rp.jpg[/img]
I think it's correct to say they are a threat to police, not to classify them as a terrorist group. I strongly oppose that word in this situation because it doesn't correctly describe the group and seems to only be used for its popular connotation of "evil bad guy that must be eliminated".
[QUOTE=sasherz;47180170]I think it's correct to say they are a threat to police, not to classify them as a terrorist group. I strongly oppose that word in this situation because it doesn't correctly describe the group and seems to only be used for its popular connotation of "evil bad guy that must be eliminated".[/QUOTE] I would say it depends on the group - essentially terrorism is defined as "the use of violence (or the the threat of doing so) to intimidate and/or coerce a civilian population and/or government" - the random nutjobs who kill police during traffic stops probably wouldn't fall under that, but the stuff that happened to do with the Bundy ranch probably would - they attempted to use the threat of physical force to intimidate law enforcement over taxation.
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;47179789]Seems like "X could possibly be a bigger threat than ISIS! Oh no!" is the latest trend in news reports these days. It's all fear mongering as far as I'm concerned.[/QUOTE] Compared to ISIS guys like Sovereign Citizens are actually a threat to the US however, they're already in the country, SCs are known to have relatively organised groups, they have attacked and killed police officers over menial shit in the past, and show a generally awful grasp of how the country works to the point they think the laws don't apply to them at all, justifying their bullshit. It may well be "fear-mongering", but SCs are a massively overlooked source of domestic terror in the States from what I can see, people worry too much about outside attackers like ISIS, who so far haven't really shown any capability to attack the US directly.
The WUO of the Right.
[QUOTE=Camundongo;47180799]I would say it depends on the group - essentially terrorism is defined as "the use of violence (or the the threat of doing so) to intimidate and/or coerce a civilian population and/or government" - the random nutjobs who kill police during traffic stops probably wouldn't fall under that, but the stuff that happened to do with the Bundy ranch probably would - they attempted to use the threat of physical force to intimidate law enforcement over taxation.[/QUOTE] and back when gun control really started picking up there was constant talk of how many police officers would be killed if the laws were enacted, and even a small wave of people here who were making similar threats. a couple people here even suggested seizing military bases and igniting civil war over it
[QUOTE=hexpunK;47181098]Compared to ISIS guys like Sovereign Citizens are actually a threat to the US however, they're already in the country, SCs are known to have relatively organised groups, they have attacked and killed police officers over menial shit in the past, and show a generally awful grasp of how the country works to the point they think the laws don't apply to them at all, justifying their bullshit. It may well be "fear-mongering", but SCs are a massively overlooked source of domestic terror in the States from what I can see, people worry too much about outside attackers like ISIS, who so far haven't really shown any capability to attack the US directly.[/QUOTE] I'm far more concerned about corruption within our own government than I am a bunch of loosely organized nutjobs who aren't even a threat to me personally. There have only been 24 relatively isolated incidents of SC's attacking police and government officials since 2010. A bigger threat than ISIS? Sure, ISIS isn't all that far reaching, but we have much more pressing issues at home.
[QUOTE=Megadave;47178821]It's shit like this that make me wish the Republicans would win.[/QUOTE] Which would do what exactly? I don't think it would change the fact that the DHS sees the Sovereign Citizens as a terrorist group?
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;47181204]Which would do what exactly? I don't think it would change the fact that the DHS sees the Sovereign Citizens as a terrorist group?[/QUOTE] It would show that some of the left are just as crazy as the right. Though people always forget this every 4-8 years.
[QUOTE=Megadave;47181286]It would show that some of the left are just as crazy as the right. Though people always forget this every 4-8 years.[/QUOTE] There are violent radicals inhabiting every inch of the political spectrum.
[QUOTE=Cone;47181114]and back when gun control really started picking up there was constant talk of how many police officers would be killed if the laws were enacted, and even a small wave of people here who were making similar threats. a couple people here even suggested seizing military bases and igniting civil war over it[/QUOTE] To be fair, we don't have any systems in place for wide-scale weapons confiscation. If something needs to be seized, we send law enforcement. It's usually against a single person, a clubhouse at most, and if we think there may be problems we send SWAT to do it. Disarming militias on the other hand is something a bit over the heads of most law enforcement agencies, and there will not be an element of surprise as something like this would be widely reported on. If my understanding of our laws regarding domestic military force is correct, we can not use them unless very specific requirements are met. It implies we would not be able to use it unless significant resistance is met by law enforcement first, otherwise military force cannot be legally justified. Ergo, it would put significant stress on our law enforcement bodies over a fairly long time frame (there are a lot of places to visit).
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;47178687]Hi DHS![/QUOTE] Seriously. I hope they at least have someone monitoring me who's into the same fucked up shit I am. On that note, call me. ;)
[QUOTE=Camundongo;47180799]I would say it depends on the group - essentially terrorism is defined as "the use of violence (or the the threat of doing so) to intimidate and/or coerce a civilian population and/or government" - the random nutjobs who kill police during traffic stops probably wouldn't fall under that, but the stuff that happened to do with the Bundy ranch probably would - they attempted to use the threat of physical force to intimidate law enforcement over taxation.[/QUOTE] As far as I'm concerned with the whole Bundy Ranch deal, it was way overblown by both sides. Bundy was willing to pay the bill to his local county office, but did not want to pay it to federal. Why this wasn't done is beyond me as the money could simply be transferred to the fed and all issues would be dealt with. But nope, whoever was in control of the police went braindead mode and ordered snipers to take up pitch, further pissing off the protesters, and they tried to ham-hand the situation with tasers which ended up getting hundreds of militiamen and militiawomen from across the country responding to it as an attack on fellow Americans. The militia groups were already irritated with the whole gun control bill things going on for the last few months, and the situation wasn't going to go anywhere after more snipers were called in, effectively turning the situation into a standoff. Bundy Ranch could of went Kent State, but instead of a bunch of university teachers preventing a violent confrontation, a violent confrontation would of happened. A lot of people were also not paying attention to how semi-truck drivers felt the need to blockade roads entering Nevada, preventing further police reinforcements from coming in via road. The whole situation was a rebirth for the Sagebrush Rebellion, but the fact the militia movement is now openly supporting the Sagebrush Rebellion, I'm not sure how long it'll be before we have another standoff going down to protect a ranch.
[QUOTE=The fox;47179223]You can speculate all you want, but Right wing terrorism is not a threat; At least not as much as left wing is.[/QUOTE] You realize attacks perpetrated by Islamic extremists are an example of right-wing terrorism as well, right? "Sovereign citizens" like in OP's article, nationalist extremists like Anders Breivik, and ISIS all hold varying degrees of right-wing ideology so by definition it's "right-wing terrorism". When was the last time a left-wing group committed mass murder or perpetrated widespread violent attacks?
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;47181303]There are violent radicals inhabiting every inch of the political spectrum.[/QUOTE] Except since 9/11, right-wing domestic whack jobs have killed more people that Islamists or leftists. I can't think of any time in the last twenty years that domestic leftists have killed [I]anyone.[/I] There is really only one ideology in the US that is actively going out and shooting people on political and religious grounds.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47188110]Except since 9/11, right-wing domestic whack jobs have killed more people that Islamists or leftists. I can't think of any time in the last twenty years that domestic leftists have killed [I]anyone.[/I] There is really only one ideology in the US that is actively going out and shooting people on political and religious grounds.[/QUOTE] We'll probably never know his true motivations so it's hard to say for sure, but that atheist who shot the two Muslims [i]could[/i] be an example of a left-wing attack. But as far as I know he had no manifesto and belonged to no extremist organizations so whether that can count as terrorism as opposed to just a hate crime is up for debate.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;47187893]When was the last time a left-wing group committed mass murder or perpetrated widespread violent attacks?[/QUOTE] It's not mass murder, but there have been ongoing terrorist actions by left-wing groups like the ALF going on for decades, they just don't get much attention. I'm reluctant to call motivated, violent terrorism 'right-wing' or 'left-wing' because there's a lot of horseshoe effect involved. What they do and believe is so far from what reasonable conservatives and liberals believe that it might as well be its own entity.
[QUOTE=catbarf;47188278]It's not mass murder, but there have been ongoing terrorist actions by left-wing groups like the ALF going on for decades, they just don't get much attention. I'm reluctant to call motivated, violent terrorism 'right-wing' or 'left-wing' because there's a lot of horseshoe effect involved. What they do and believe is so far from what reasonable conservatives and liberals believe that it might as well be its own entity.[/QUOTE] The so-called 'horseshoe effect' is a bunch of crap. The gulf between Marxism-Leninism and anarcho-capitalism, for example, is far wider than the gulf between the Republican and Democratic parties.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.