First of all, of course the FBI should be keeping an eye on groups like Stormfront, the Minutemen and Army of God. I'd be shocked and disappointed if they DIDN'T have undercover agents working them from the inside if they had the slightest clue that there was a connection. But openly calling these groups terrorist cells serves no purpose other then backpatting for calling bad people names... or worse: using them as proof that we need to crack down on the freedoms that they exploit to exist, so plz 2 hav Patriot Act II.Originally Posted by Matthew Gallant
Part of developing good intelligence is proper categorization and organization. To say that these three incidents are not part of a larger intelligence picture is foolish.
If you think these attacks have not inspired groups of like-minded individuals to organize and hatch their own plots, then fine. You can just go be wrong. Please give consideration to the request I make now to go do it somewhere where I won't read it.
You insisting that there is some connection between them doesn't make it so.
So I guess 9/11, an attack MANY TIMES bigger then all of these incidences put together, must have inspired like-minded individuals in the US, too? I can think of seven minor, isolated incidents off the top of my head, in more then 8 years. That's.. not exactly a terror outbreak on the level of the terrorist hysteria.
Or is that different? Or are you now going to tell me they didn't attack us 'here' because we went 'over there'? Are you going to suggest we invade another country now, maybe someone who we owe a lot of debt to, before one of those right wingers blows up a Mortgage office because they hate socialism?
Desslock circa 2004 called, he wants his bullshit fear mongering rhetoric back.
Do you deny that Al Qaeda got bigger after 9/11? Or have you set some weird standard that only American recruits count? There's just not that big a pool of potential muslim fundamentalist sympathizers in this country. But, if you look at the causes of these nuts of the past few weeks, well, that's a different story.
But sure, let's get rid of the armed guards at the Holocaust Museum and tell all the abortion doctors to take off their kevlar vests and to feel free to drive the same route to work every day. The wingnuts have obviously all got it out of their system now. Let's just chalk it all up to dumb luck.
Are YOU setting some weird standard that only muslim fundamentalists could harbor ill will against Bush era USA? That's kind of racist, Matt.
Your living in fear of the great Right-Wing Menace is pretty dumb and, yes, I DO think it's still safe for you to drive your car with that faded Obama'08 bumper sticker without checking it every morning for carbombs.
I'm pretty sure everyone in Al Qaeda is a fundamentalist muslim and they never teamed up with any other group that hates jews. I would be willing to look at your intel source that disagrees.
Now, did the Al Qaeda movement grow after 9/11 or did it not grow? And why do you think that answer does not apply to these various other movements employing terrorism?
Take your time. Or just realize you are not very read up on terrorism and shut up.
Terrorists exist at all places in the food chain. It's just that more powerful terrorists have more diversified portfolios and get to slide in under all kinds of other categories that are more palatable to their fans. The asymmetry can refer to the means that are actually employed in a given scenario, not necessarily what is possible for them to do at the max range of their power.
So what? Your point is that systems of terrorists that are not actually systems in any meaningful sense are equivalent to actual systems of terrorists? The cell metaphor used for some terrorist organizations can only get you so far in the absence of actual, evidence based assertions of coordination.Terrorism in general is a collection of isolated incidents. Tim McVeigh was not part of a large organization, only a sympathizer to a cause. Same for Roeder, von Brunn, and this Forde woman. The "cell" system of terror is borne out of necessity and out of the extremist nature of the views it espouses. These isolated incidents are rally points for cell growth. It is terrorism, and to call it just a few kooks is ignorant of how many more kooks are out there, paying attention.
Are you counting foiled plots?
And nice manipulation of the facts. Four of those incidents were in the last year alone. Does that mean anything?
Why are you so vested in protecting the current state of right-wing propaganda? It's certainly not helping the GOP politically.
Yes, of course they grew. But Al Qaeda was an established network with previous operations and a ranking structure established.
You still haven't even established that Tiller's murderer had any real connection with the Holocaust Museum shooter. You can't prove that von Brunn was even right-wing, so their only similarity is that they're both insane angry white guys.
Even speech I dislike (and believe me, I hate AM Radio) is worth protecting.
Coordination, shmo-ordination. Was Tim McVeigh a terrorist? Yes. He coordinated with one whole other guy.
Let's see, he loved Sarah Palin, but he also hated Fox News (for being beholden to jews). I dunno, he could be a centrist?
Liking Sarah Palin is a pretty good indicator you're not left wing. That's all there is to it. Seriously, I don't know why, but all this is driving you to make bugfuck assertions.
Are they terrorists now?
Accused ringleader Shawna Forde told her family in recent months that she had begun recruiting members of the Aryan Nations and that she planned to begin robbing drug-cartel leaders, her brother Merrill Metzger said Monday in a telephone interview from Redding, Calif.
"She was talking about starting a revolution against the United States government," he said.This isn't about speech. It's about the consequences and responsibility of speech.
You sound like Glenn Beck. Literally a direct quote.
By the way, did anyone see this new information?
Oh, you did. My bad.Forde's brother, Merrill Metzger, has told the Arizona Daily Star that Forde had been talking recently about "starting a revolution against the United States government," and had said she planned to recruit members of the Aryan Nations as part of a plan to rob drug cartels.
Threat level red-neck.
Except you didn't provide an actual, you know, quote.
So, more accurately, you think I sound like something you think he might say.
Exciting!
Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised. Turns out you human's can actually say one thing when they mean the opposite, especially when you have a bit of power.
Note for instance, the constant abuse of the word "freedom" over the last eight years.
No, you're the guy who makes it nearly impossible to have a coherent conversation after he enters a thread. I can pithy that up for you, though, if you've become as incapable of reading posts that don't contain a 'zinger' as you are of making them.
Why the fuck would he need to do that? No one is claiming those two are part of the same terrorist organization, merely that their motivations are vaguely similar.
A lone person can be a terrorist. Organization is not required. I don't know why you keep insisting that calling someone a terrorist is implying that they are part of some large terrorist enterprise.
Yeah it's from an old catch he had in a radio ad for his radio show a year or two ago. I don't know how much AM radio you've heard but for ads of shows that are on the same network they always have a quote or two from the host. A Google search is useless; I'm literally stunned how huge he has gotten since the last time I listened to him. Seems like every blogger out there wants to write about him.
Special note to quat that I avoided the temptation to snark about the "you know" crutchphrase. :)
So by your measure is that a terror cell? Two terror cells working a coordinated counterinsurgency? It's still a criminal matter on a relatively small scale.
I really hope you're not going to be proven wrong on this.
My point wasn't that these were terror cells of one, two, or three, it was that these "isolated incidents" are how terror cells can get started. They're touchstones for whackos. McVeigh was a touchstone for anti-government militias.
If the FBI takes Anti-Bunny's attitude and doesn't identify, infiltrate, and disrupt the groups that will form around these incidents, then what?
I hope so, too! I mean, until then, Matt will just have to live in fear of lone-wolf terr'ists hiding under his bed. Poor Matt. If only rational people would believe that Sean Hanity is driving the right-wingers insane and mind controlling them with subliminal coded messages!
Anti-Bunny, come on. You seem to be putting a lot of words in a lot of mouths. If I am following correctly, Matthew and others are simply saying that a lot of what comes out of Fox News and conservative talk radio plays to the fears and prejudices of right-wing folk. There is a subset of these folks who believe violent action is the best way to change things (or keep them the same). Glenn Beck and others are certainly not averse to stoking that fire.
edit: Don't get me wrong, there is a subset of the far left-wing that also sees violence as a solution. But you hardly see mainstream rhetoric from left-wing commentators that echo the feelings of these people.
Last edited by Cubit; 06-17-2009 at 06:43 AM. Reason: punctuation
I know you're embarrassed that you've gotten so entangled in your thesis that you've reached a point where you can't identify a supporter of Sarah Palin as right-wing, Anti-Bunny, but let's not turn this into a hyperbole contest. I do not live in fear.
I was not aware that he had the hots for Palin.
And yet now you're saying we shouldn't have a hyperbole contest in a thread where you accuse right-wing commentators of supporting terrorism.
Well then, thanks for your not even somewhat informed commentary! You are an asset to the intel analysis community.
So this revolution that they've encouraged, it's to be conducted via open warfare? How is their side going to gain the necessary air superiority to allow their infantry to hold territory?
Probably hell freezes over, since the FBI hardly needs a legitimate threat of violence in order to justify identifying and infiltrating "dangerous" and dangerous groups. I guess I just don't get what your point is, since I don't see A-B arguing that the FBI shouldn't take action against criminally bent activist groups. Unless, of course, you are including Fox News and Limbaugh in that category as a result of believing that there is a level of criminal culpability attached to being an irresponsible blowhard. Which there is up to a point, at least in the court of public opinion, but not much in a way that's going to meaningfully prevent these things.
Is there really a problem calling von Brunn or Roeder or McVeigh a terrorist? Really? I feel like I'm back in intel basic course, and I'm arguing with someone that insists BMPs are cars with a gun on it.
I think it's a well established fact on this forum that you're a wilting flower terrified of conflict, Matt. Anti-Bunny is clearly on to something here.
What are you advocating? A new & improved COINTELPRO or something?
No, nothing illegal. Undercover work. Standard law enforcement using the profile of terrorist activity. Because they're terrorists.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote