More of the Idiot in Chief's "fine people" thinking they're acting on orders:

I-5 wrote:Tripping or not, they are not 'armed militia' as some want to call them...they are simply terrorists, to use the correct word. According to the FBI, right wing extremists are the biggest terrorist thread within the US by any measure, and it's not even close.
Of course, Trump sides with the 13 men. Why would we expect anything else from our 'Law & Order' president?
You get to decide which is which based on what side you're on and who holds the power.
I-5 wrote:If it was a Civil War coming, how would you know what that would look like? Would it be a full blown army coming over the hill to engage...antifa? Or would it be little incidents like this?
If we go by your broad definition that it's in the eye of the beholder, then that means protestors, rioters, what have you...can be called freedom fighers. I don't think I've heard that label here before.
Regardless of our differing opinions, the Dept of Homeland Security has no doubt or hesitation defining who the biggest terrorist threat to the US is, and that's even coming from Trump's appointment, Chad Wolf: “As Secretary, I am concerned about any form of violent extremism. However, I am particularly concerned about white supremacist violent extremists who have been exceptionally lethal in their abhorrent, targeted attacks in recent years.”
https://whdh.com/news/white-supremacists-remain-deadliest-us-terror-threat-homeland-security-report-says/
c_hawkbob wrote:I can't believe this has gone unnoticed here. A dozen men arrested for plotting to kidnap and try a sitting goernor and othe govenment officials: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 923650002/
More of the Idiot in Chief's "fine people" thinking they're acting on orders:
c_hawkbob wrote:It was Shep Smith's lead story last night, as well my local news.
NorthHawk wrote:I noted it in the Kamala vs Pence thread.
These guys are terrorists and you can't sugar coat it. Any time a group wants to take a democratically
elected public official and execute them, by definition it's domestic terrorism.
c_hawkbob wrote:And I even responded to it ... sorry about that (it sucks getting old)
c_hawkbob wrote:And I even responded to it ... sorry about that (it sucks getting old)
RiverDog wrote:It's better than the alternative!
I noted it in the Kamala vs Pence thread.
These guys are terrorists and you can't sugar coat it. Any time a group wants to take a democratically
elected public official and execute them, by definition it's domestic terrorism.
I noted it in the Kamala vs Pence thread.
These guys are terrorists and you can't sugar coat it. Any time a group wants to take a democratically
elected public official and execute them, by definition it's domestic terrorism.
I-5 wrote:Yep it is, Northhawk. It doesn't matter who is doing it, it is terrorism and it's scary.
I-5 wrote:Yep it is, Northhawk. It doesn't matter who is doing it, it is terrorism and it's scary.
RiverDog wrote:It's scary, but no more so than the 100 or so days of riots in Portland, CHAZ in Seattle, etc. The whole frigging year has been scary.
I-5 wrote:Yep it is, Northhawk. It doesn't matter who is doing it, it is terrorism and it's scary.
RiverDog wrote:It's scary, but no more so than the 100 or so days of riots in Portland, CHAZ in Seattle, etc. The whole frigging year has been scary.
c_hawkbob wrote:Not even close IMO. I've lived through much worse "race riots" and they didn't scare me nearly as much assassinations or even attempted assassinations.
Riots, if they are organic and not set into effect by bad actors on the other side (as many of these have been) are disorganized and unpredictable but unless idiots with gun get to go in hunting in the middle of them, are usually confined to property damage for the most part. Assassinations are much more both intentional and deadly, and almost always target important influential people.
And don't bother with all the numbers you're about to throw at me refuting my position, just trust that I have given that aspect due consideration and my opinion remains that assassinations are scarier.
I-5 wrote:Sorry riv, I wasn’t intending my comment towards you at all - just a general comment that there can be no excusing that incident as anything but terrorism.
I-5 wrote:You are hilarious. I ask why not apply the freedom fighter label to protestors, and you take that to mean I’ve never heard of the term? I was talking about never hearing a righteous label like that attached to protestors.
I would never defend violence from any group, left or right. Which specific cop shootings by BLM are you talking about? I just haven’t heard of specific incidents. What have I missed? If so, I definitely condemn it.
Aseahawkfan wrote:I keep wondering how did we become the most powerful country in the world if our people are this dumb? I can only surmise that the politicians are more intelligent then they seem and the manipulation of the masses is done because they realize how dumb the average American is and thus treat them accordingly, while ensuring the behind the scenes government runs well enough. What Riverdog calls the people in the smoke-filled rooms.
I-5 wrote:Sorry if you're having a bad day, but what story from a left leaning source did I post that you're talking about? I was quoting the Dept of Homeland Security saying that white supremacists posed the biggest domestic terrorist threat (and they have numbers to back it up). I asked you if you know a cop that was killed by someone from BLM or antifa, because I hadn't heard of any such thing, but I'd like to know. I've heard of plenty of looting and rioting (which is not good, and I don't condone it), but are you talking about murder?
This year sucks for everybody, no need to attack each other.
We're the only major country that was unscathed after two world wars, mainly because we had two oceans to protect us. With the rest of the world either rebuilding or still in 3rd world status, the vacuum it created allowed us to build a giant, self sufficient economy and maintain the most powerful military in the world and the resources to do things like build an interstate highway system and put a man on the moon. It didn't have a lot to do with our politicians or business leaders. It was the result of a combination of geography and happenstance. We're still living off that momentum created in the middle of the last century.
I-5 wrote:Interestingly, most of the progress you outlined above (and it is truly impressive) was initiated by Eisenhower during his two terms in office. He initiated both NASA (as a reaction to the sputnik programme) and the interstate highway system, while at the same time fighting the spread of communism around the world (example: threatening China with nuclear war if they attempted to invade Taiwan, which forced China to retreat). He did also make mistakes like initiating planning of the Bay of Pigs invasion on Cuba and various regime changes in S America, but all in all, he did more good than bad. At home, he helped end the influence of Joseph McCarthy with a series of executive orders, and was against the idea of deficit spending to build a huge military complex. In hindsight, at least to me, Ike is one of if not the most important presidents of the century, as the postwar years is where the US pulled away from the pack in many ways. I think he deserves credit for a lot of the success we’ve had, along with the american people themselves.
I-5 wrote:I think you’re underselling Ike just a tiny bit but ok. A president can just as easily not go along with his advisors (ex: Trump). I think with the exception of NASA, he took initiative and applied his skill as a great administrator, which is something we all wish we had now.
I-5 wrote:Sorry if you're having a bad day, but what story from a left leaning source did I post that you're talking about? I was quoting the Dept of Homeland Security saying that white supremacists posed the biggest domestic terrorist threat (and they have numbers to back it up). I asked you if you know a cop that was killed by someone from BLM or antifa, because I hadn't heard of any such thing, but I'd like to know. I've heard of plenty of looting and rioting (which is not good, and I don't condone it), but are you talking about murder?
This year sucks for everybody, no need to attack each other.
c_hawkbob wrote:This whole 'left leaning source" and "liberal mainstream media" BS is just so drummed into conservative's skulls that they see it everywhere. The whole world was a liberal conspiracy until Rush Limbaugh started waking people up to it ... it's pure crap. Facts is facts just like they've always been. News outlets that vett their sources and check their facts are still viable no matter how hard the right has tried to discredit them.
c_hawkbob wrote:Didn't really answer his question though.
The answer would be: "Son, you salute them, they salute me and everybody holds there salute until I salute back to them".
I-5 wrote:ok dude, here’s the source report from the DOHS, not a left leaning rag:
“2019 was the most lethal year for domestic violent extremism in the United States since the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. We are still evaluating data for incidents occurring in 2020. VEs perpetrated 16 attacks, killing 48, whereas HVEs conducted 5 attacks and killed 1 person. Among DVE actors, WSEs conducted half of all lethal attacks (8 of 16), resulting in the majority of deaths (39 of 48). All the DVE attackers had a dominant violent extremist ideology, with many motivated by multiple violent extremist ideologies or violent extremist ideologies unconnected to global violent extremist groups.”
(DVE=Domestic Violent Extremists, WSE=White Supremacist Extremists, HVE=Homegrown Violent Extremists)
Can I get you anything else?
Nope. Read it myself. Can I instruct you how to analyze data so you can realize that that level of violence makes WSEs one of the lowest threats in the United States? Can you analyze data in entirety or do you select only data that confirms your biases?
Nope. Read it myself. Can I instruct you how to analyze data so you can realize that that level of violence makes WSEs one of the lowest threats in the United States? Can you analyze data in entirety or do you select only data that confirms your biases?
I-5 wrote:You are seriously tiring. Never did I mention homicide. I'm strictly talking about terrorism and terrorism only, which is the topic of this thread (Plot to kidnap Whitmer). It's not arguing about homicides. I'm done going on your tangents.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests