The Glade 4.0

They also explicitly warned people of attacks so that they would not take a life. Ayer's group never killed or injured anyone not involved in making their own bombs.



I'm sorry, but that is not the case. The only reason they killed anyone was incompetence. They warned people about their attacks, and no one was hurt as a result. Their incompetence at bomb making killed their own people.



Well, if you would like me to do your work for you, I can link that article. Unless you want me to provide direct evidence that I have collected in the field, or something. Anyone with any knowledge about right wing militia groups would probably back my argument, though. YMMV.




Exactly my point. These are not just pedestrian crimes. They are terrorism.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

In some cases they did, in other cases not. Moreover, avoiding the taking of lie does not change excuse one from being a terrorist.



No, that isn't the case at all. They may or may not have issued warnings in some cases; in others no warning was issued.



That would be YOUR work. You claim the relationship, you show it.



I'm saying this may or may not be true depending on which right wing groups we're talking about. It certainly says nothing about this instance.



Just because they have some things in common does not make them bedfellows, feeders, or even friendly to each other. Like the Shi'ite groups I mentioned, just being Shia isn't good enough when one group wants a secular or mildly religious society with a secular governmnet and another wants an extreme religious government and society.



You just got done talking about them being "bedfellows", but you've shown no commonalities other than very vague similarities. Which is it? On one line you're making claims about how they are bedfellows based on very broad commonalities which are sort of generally right wing, then you're denying that you're claiming a link on that basis. Either you're contradicting yourself, or you need to clarify specifically what links you think exist and how they pertain to the case in question.



WHAT association? Where is the evidence of the association?



You haven't established that. You need to show some evidence that the actor had, or was the instrument of, some definite political goal. Just having a political motive isn't enough; that makes him just a nutcase.

If all you want is to be able to slap the label "terrorist" on this guy in order to argue there's right-wing nutcases out there, then it's really just an exercise in semantics in order to get a label on something for the connotations. That isn't terribly useful, however. A label that's excessively broad isn't useful for categorization. A more useful and professional definition of terrorism confines it to acts that have a political motivation beyond simple belief; some tangible end goal they are working towards. Defining every crime with a social/political/religious aspect to it as "terrorism" is silly because it blurs the line and ultimately leads to wasting resources screwing around trying to combat what amounts to mental illness as "terrorism".

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

So all we have to do to put an end to terrorism is stop being afraid. Then, we'll just have violence. Got it.

Sorry, Monte, your definition blows.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Specifically, which cases are you referring to?

I agree that his group was indeed a domestic terror organization, and that he should have done time (and would have, had the prosecution not botched the case). One need not take a life to qualify.



Show your work, please. Which cases? Were the targets places that were unlikely to have people there?



I already posted an article from the SPLC. Did you read it?



However, in the US, it often makes them bedfellows. Groups share information, members, and work together to advance their mutual interests. I'm not sure what other word would describe it better.




But I never once made the claim you indicated. I would prefer it if you stick with what I write. If you are confused about what I mean, feel free to ask. Please don't assume.



Please go read the article at SPLC. If you still need more data, I will do what I can to find it.




I am somewhat shocked that you don't see Tiller's murderer as fitting exactly that definition.



Please don't conclude things about my motivations. It borders on the kinds of arguments no longer welcome on the board. You are attempting to argue about my motives instead of the merits of the case I am making.



The tangible end of ending Tiller's life in order to shut his clinic down and stop him from practicing medicine there. Seems pretty clear to me.




In the US, we have a sad habit of equating all acts of domestic terrorism to the actions of lone wolf nutjubs that have no history before their act was committed. Tim McVeigh is an *excellent* example of this. He was not just a lone bomber.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

So because he had a partner, Nichols and McVeigh are now a "Terrorist Organization"?

That's just reaching man.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

That is not what I argued. Both of those men were bred and groomed by the militia movement in the US, and they timed their attack to coincide with the one year anniversary of the Waco incident. They were terrorists, pure and simple. So was the guy who shot Tiller, and so may be the guy who shot the victim of this most recent assassination.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Show your work, please. Which cases? Were the targets places that were unlikely to have people there?



That article doesn't establish anything. It refers to the "return of militias", but cites no objective research or raw intelligence or any analytical method to establish this. What citations it does have are vague claims about "One law enforcement agency", name unspecified. It's just a collection of anecdotes without sourcing material, taking pot shots at everything from people "affirming oaths to the Constitution" to gun shows. What do you suppose would be the reaction if I were to brief my commander on some threat with something like that?



Again, some groups obviously engage in some of these activities some of the time. Most groups probably engage in at least one of these activities at some point. That tells us nothing useful about this particular case. We can't take generalities and apply them to specific instances when they are not universal, unless you want to argue that ALL right-wing groups do these things with ALL others ALL the time.



I'm not. You said that groups like Freemen are feeders for AoG and similar groups. You've called them "bedfellows". Then you claim I'm assigning claims to you that you haven't made when I go with that. I'm not assuming anything



I read as much of that article *** I could put up with before I grew tired of its rambling. It showed no sign of providing anything other than a listing of people engaging in actiities SPLC doesn't like, some of which are far more sinister than others. If you have something else, kindly provide it. Preferably something that lays it out in a succinct, readable fashion, with some sort of hard facts and an analysis that leads to your conclusion.

You shouldn't be. Tiller's killer had no real goal that we know of beyond venting his spleen in a murderous fashion. Some document or quote from him indicating some sort of specific goal would be nice, at a bare minimum.



You're not in a position to say what is and isn't welcome here, and I concluded nothing about what you want. I said IFthat's what you want and made no statement as to whether it, in fact, was.



That doesn't come up to the level of terrorism. Ending Tiller's particular medical practice isn't a matter of public policy or behavior.



That's because most of them ARE lone nutjobs. Most of the other nutjobs like to talk tough, but don't acually DO much of anything. As for McVeigh, he was only not a loner in the sense that he had an accomplice.

The sad habit we have in the U.S. is of leaping to broad conclusions based on poor factual and analytical basis. You're hardly alone in this; you haven't been properly trained, and the media encourages and engages in it all the time, on both sides of the political coin. I'm trying to push you to apply some rigor towards your claims. I would never cite such a poor, agenda-driven source as SLPC in any sort of formal setting except maybe to establish something about that organization itself.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

McVeigh and his partner were indeed terrorists, but they were lone nutjob terrorists, or at least a nutjob duo. Being "groomed" or "bred" or something is just a vague "they were in militias at some point." You can't draw any conclusion about a connection between their bombing and the militia they were in; you need some smoking-gun evidence to establish that. In fact, even his connection to militias is weak; he was well known as a loner even if he did share many beliefs with militia groups.

Tiller is not, based on the available evidence, a terrorist. At most he's a wannabe. He was a man venting his spleen at another man for a religious/political reason.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Regardless of whether this is or isn't "terrorism" (however we want to define that), I still don't see the point of prosecuting it as a terrorism case. In fact, I'm not sure I really see the point in prosecuting anything as a terrorism case. If the acts committed are themselves criminal in nature, what's the point?

That is, practically speaking, what would prosecuting this guy for a terrorism crime really achieve that just prosecuting him for murder wouldn't?

And, moreover, it seems that all of the definitions provided boil down to acts of mind-reading. Either: what was the person's intent in committing the act of violence? Or: how did other people react to the crime (were they suitably "afraid" for it to be terrorism). These are not things that subject themselves to evidence and proof. That's not to say that they're immaterial, necessarily, but merely that they have no place in a court of law, which is supposed to rest on the principles of evidence and proof.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

I agree. It seems that the evidence needed to convict in either case should be the same, and that good enforcement of our normal criminal laws should suffice. Further, you don't elevate the criminal's status. Remember that much of what a terrorist is looking for is attention to their cause. By making it a boring old criminal case, you take some of that away from them.

Most of us have "bomb making" materials in our cars - I am certain all of us have "bomb making" materials in our house.

You got a pipe a clock, a battery and normal household **** like cleaners and sugar? - You got all you need.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Let me get this straight, Montegue:

You're getting your hackles up because you're being judged on your assumed motivations instead of your actions, while arguing in favor of convicting crimes as terrorism based on their assumed political motivations instead of the factual, evidenciarily-supported crimes of violence committed?

I love irony.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Aren't the people in this case going down for Murder 1? If so, the terrorism charge carries little meaning. Most acts of so-called terrorism involve premediated murders, so what is the point of the terrorism charge?

Not to mentioni that the definitions of terrorism are predicated on something intangible that can't really be proved either way; there's no substantive way to say one way or the other that one person's actions cause fear which inevitably led to political/societal change and reform.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Kaffis, no hackles are up. However, in reading the definitions given in the general thread, that post seemed to qualify.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Your armchair moderation (of a discussion you're engaged in, no less) aside, I was merely observing that your response to being judged on your presumed motivations was amusing and ironic considering you are advocating judging based on presumed motivation. Perhaps raised hackles was the wrong descriptor of your tone, but you certainly seem to be rejecting the judgement of your motivations (about wanting to judge motivations!). I was merely pointing out the conflicting standards and irony in such a position.

Positing that my pointing out a logical flaw or behavioral inconsistency (depending on which side of the issue you decide to settle on) is an ad hominem attack, however, is silly. I'm not insulting you or attacking your person, merely pointing out that your argument doesn't seem to match your behavior; I do so merely to provide you the opportunity to introspect over that self conflict and mature (or evolve, if you prefer) either your position or your reaction.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

So I'm curious. Can we say that Keith Olbermann created a "climate of hate" against anti-abortion protesters during the Tiller murder media buzz and lay the blame at his feet? It's interesting to me the disparity in media coverage of this recent event versus the Tiller murder.

_________________
The Dude abides.

I don't think so. Admonishing another person's hate is not the same thing as ginning up crazy people. He never advocated a violent response to that act, in fact, quite the opposite. There is a qualitative difference between Bill O'Reilly hammering on "Tiller the Baby Killer" until someone takes they guy out, and Keith Olbermann laying the smack down on Bill O'Reilly for that. Don't you think?

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

No. Advocating violence against someone is saying something like "Would one of you please go shoot Dr. Tiller?". Just calling him a baby killer isn't advocating violence against him.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I'm glad we can agree on that.



My motivations are entirely irrelevant to the conversation.



Which, even if they are in conflict, is entirely irrelevant to the conversation at hand.



The definition of ad hominem includes the logical fallacy of discussing the motivations of the speaker. Now, that's not necessarily a personal attack in the form of a direct or indirect insult, but it's still a logical fallacy.

When I read the new rules, that was a part of the definition DFK posted as to what constituted an infraction. If that's not the case, great. I'm told a more concrete (yet, not concrete) set of rules is being currently crafted. It will be nice to have a better idea of what we can expect from moderation.



Which is a logical fallacy.



I appreciate the favor, but it has nothing to do with the conversation at hand. Please stay on topic and discuss the issues based on their merit, so we can continue to maintain our current level of pleasant, even headed debate.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Not necessarily Monty. It is a logical falicy if someone said your position was wrong because your behavior violates your staed position. It is not, however, a falacy to point out that you are violating your stated position in order to give you the oppourtunity to either modify your position or modify your behavior.

Edit: Or of course, the 3rd option, which is to confirm your position, and not change your behavior. Hypocricy is a perfectly valid option.

So, in your opinion, the only way to advocate violence against someone is to directly tell someone to go kill them?

What about "will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?"? Did that not constitute an indirect call to violence? How about when southern baptist preachers openly pray for the President's death? Don't you think at some point, they are simply trying to avoid prosecution for advocating violence or assassination by not just up and saying what they are intending to get across? It's more insidious to do what they did, but that doesn't make it any less of a call for violence.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

No, that was pretty direct.



No, that's not a call for violence, unless you mean they're asking God to do something violent, but that's pretty irrelevant since there's nothing we can do about what He decides anyhow.



If, by "avoid prosecution" you mean "are complying with the law", then yes. They are not advocating anyone actually do anything. There are lots of ways a person can die other than murder. I find praying for anyone's death to be theologically atrocious but that doesn't make it a call for violence.



Sure it does. Otherwise we can simply call any negative comment about a person a "call to violence". It's not insidious at all. Calling things like that a "call to violence" is simply a form of exaggeration and demonization.

What I DO find insidious, however, is trying to paint these things as a call to violence. Inciting to riot or calling on people to engage in violent activity is illegal, and not protected under the 1st Ammendment. This sounds to me like an attempt to get speech one doesn't like into an unprotected status so as to be able to regulate or prohibit it.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

DE, are you familiar with the term "dog whistle politics"?

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Yes. It's a lot of nonsense. Basically, it's saying "I can assign whatever meaning I want to what someone else said by calling it a code word."

It also claims that these hidden meanings are to certain "subgroups" but who these are, how they are identified, or if they exist at all, is simply not determinable.

Its an essentially unfalsifiable hypothesis, and therefore a poor one, at best.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."