Domestic Terrorism

[Syn7]

If a Muslim fundamentalist builds a home made bomb and blows up an ER for political and/or religious reasons that is terrorism right?

If a right wing pro life extremist makes a home made bomb and blows up an ER that has abortion workers for political and/or religious reasons, how is that not terrorism? the news says things like "it was only a home made bomb" and don't even mention the word terrorism. WTF?

Anyone else annoyed by this clear and unacceptable bias? Causing terror for these reasons is called terrorism regardless of whether you are a Muslim, Christian, Scientologist or whatever. This double standard is so annoying. For a left wing socialist liberal media bias they sure don't act like it alot of the time.

That brings me to something that always makes me chuckle. Calling the Dem's a left wing party. That sh1t is laughable. Most Dem's wouldn't know socialism if it kicked them in the head. I won't even get in to the GOP's idea of who and what socialism is, way too retarded to even bother talking about. They are center right by all other standards aside from American. All bought by the same people. Recently they just voted down the oil subsidies instead opting for less subsidy to wind power(way less) but of course the GOP filibustered. OF COURSE. They say they are free market but they always side with the donors that want free money and then go and attack sick and poor people who really need it calling them parasites. Those that voted against oil subsidy, Dem's and republicans, received 4 times the amount of money from the oil lobby than those that voted against. Hmmm, who's the real parasite. The US system is so broken. And it's starting to rot our barrel of apples in Canada now too. It's like a disease that is spreading greed and ignorance by the trainload. At least in Canada election reform is a real possibility in the near future. I think compulsory voting should be first. Not so bad. Tax's are compulsory, jury duty too. Are these things all unconstitutional? No, of course not. Australia has a 20 dollar fine for anyone who doesn't vote and they have had over 90% turnout since 1925. That puts Canada and the US to absolute shame. No wonder they have a better economy. Not to say they don't have problems too.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Anyone who uses fear (terror) to push a political agenda is a terrorist.
If you want to force everyone to vote you must first make sure there is someone WORTH voting for.
Election reforms.
As long as elected officials need millions of dollars to be elected then their first priority will always be to where the money came from.

[Syn7]

OF COURSE and anyone with half a brain knows the only fair way to do this is to make everyone have the same resources. But we cant't have just anyone say "ok i'll run, gimme the resources. You should be required to get signatures to get funding in each individual state, maybe even every riding. I know thats general, but I really do have a great plan that is fair and keeps out the idiots who would run just coz they can and give money to those who actually deserve to run and be funded. Maybe one day I'll write it all outy for ya, but those of you with tha ability to think even a wee bit utside the box prolly knows where I went with all that.

[Syn7]

Still haven't heard many refer to this as terrorism in the news. None on the conservative side despite all the recent talk about the clinic bomb and that firebombing recently. Over 50,00 attacks is not random and not unorganized. Anyone have any sources that actually call this terrorism? Especially from the right?

[sanjuro_ronin]

OF COURSE and anyone with half a brain knows the only fair way to do this is to make everyone have the same resources. But we cant't have just anyone say "ok i'll run, gimme the resources. You should be required to get signatures to get funding in each individual state, maybe even every riding. I know thats general, but I really do have a great plan that is fair and keeps out the idiots who would run just coz they can and give money to those who actually deserve to run and be funded. Maybe one day I'll write it all outy for ya, but those of you with tha ability to think even a wee bit utside the box prolly knows where I went with all that.

I think that anyone that can get a minimal number of supporters/signatures should be allowed to run and have access to the funds.
The number would have to be based on the population base of the area he/she is running in and for what they are running.

[David Jamieson]

You mean you want to see some self loathing news?

lol, dude...

A broadcast organization won't downplay it's own country for the same reasons that serial killers moms still love their sons.

Human nature is an ugly thing. Altruism in the press? hahahahahahaha, not gonna happen.

[wenshu]

Calling the Dem's a left wing party. That sh1t is laughable. Most Dem's wouldn't know socialism if it kicked them in the head. I won't even get in to the GOP's idea of who and what socialism is, way too retarded to even bother talking about.

This is so true on both sides of the aisle. The GOP isn't conservative by any definition of the word. They only groan about deficits when they don't control the executive branch. Otherwise they're all too eager to authorize massive expenditures while paying for them with massive tax cuts. Playing chicken little about intrusive government overreach with the right hand while at the same time the other hand is giving you a forced vaginal ultrasound.

[Syn7]

I think that anyone that can get a minimal number of supporters/signatures should be allowed to run and have access to the funds.
The number would have to be based on the population base of the area he/she is running in and for what they are running.

isnt that what i said? we both oversimplified it, but i think we are near the same page.

You understand that we cant just fund everyone who gets enough signatures tho right? what if two many get enough signatures? and if we give the funds to a certain number that get thier first we are rigging the game again. i have solutions, but i cant get into it today.

[Syn7]

terrorism

(ˈtɛrərɪz(ə)m)

[a. F. terrorisme (1798 in Dict. Acad., Suppl.), f. L. terror dread, terror: see -ism.]

A system of terror.

1.1 Government by intimidation as directed and carried out by the party in power in France during the Revolution of 1789–94; the system of the ‘Terror’ (1793–4): see terror n. 4.


2.2 gen. A policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation; the fact of terrorizing or condition of being terrorized. Also transf. Cf. terrorist 1 b.

- From Oxford


So FoxNews has finally decided that an attack by a lone wolf crazy guy on a socio-political group is domestic terrorism. So you gotta think, ****, must have been pretty bad right? I mean, they wouldn't call abortion clinic bombings terrorism, they wouldn't call the gabby gifford scenario terrorism, not even the recent Sikh Temple killings were labeled as domestic terrorism by FoxNews. So what horrific act and multiple slayings got them to use this terminology? Well, one guy went into a conservative groups HQ and was stopped by security right away since he clearly did not fit in, he pulled a gun and shot security in the arm. Police came, he went quietly. He clearly wanted to intimidate these people because of their conservative beliefs, that is terrorism. No question, that is exactly what terrorism is. But we must admit, on the scale of attacks that have been perpetrated in the US by citizens over the last few years, this is some mild sh1t right here.

So why would fox call this terrorism and not all the other clear cut cases of domestic terrorism? Simple, because for the first time in recent memory it is a liberal shooting at conservatives.

These new organizations that place an agenda over the truth are so fukcing transparent it's pathetic. What kind of serious moron is actually swayed by this crap when we all know full well the motivation behind the opinions? Sources like foxnews and msnbc that try to blur the lines between real news and opinion pieces should be slapped with some serious sanctions IMO. It's immoral, plain and simple. Why do we place the appearance of freedom over the well being of the culture? And why is regulating people who do wrong a threat to the freedoms of honest citizens?

[MightyB]

Well now I see the problem...

You thought Fox News is news. It's not. It's the PR Arm of the Corporate Oligarchy.

[mooyingmantis]

Well now I see the problem...

You thought Fox News is news. It's not. It's the PR Arm of the Corporate Oligarchy.

I want to be an Oligarchy when I grow up! :)

[bawang]

fox news isnt as evil now. when they had that filipino whoer, she sends me into a burning rage.

[Syn7]

Oligarchy's are cooooool!!!!!


No mighty, I never thought of foxnews as news. Infact my whole point was "why does anyone actually believe it is?"

It isn't just foxnews tho. Both sides of the aisle and especially their most ardent supporters are guilty of using the media to manipulate the dumber people in your society.

This is all quite elementary. My issue is that it is allowed to happen at all. No sanctions, no repercussions, nada. To me that is insane. I also don't understand why politicians aren't held more accountable for blatant lies. I know they are lying, you know they are lying, we all know it yet we let it slide with some bullsh1t "let the voters sort it out". I want to see sanctions. Sanctions sanctions and sanctions. Hit em hard and fast when they bullsh1t. Make the sanctions exponential. So by the 3rd or 4th we should be in the millions. Money is the only way to punish these j3rkoffs. Make some rules and enforce them for fukc sakes.

I also feel that EVERY politician running for office should have to publish an edict and should be legally binding. If you say you will do something and you don't, sanctions sanctions sanctions.

While on the subject I also feel that politicians on any level should be barred from being a lobbyist for life, and vice versa, lobbyist can never run for any office.

I won't even get started on campaign financing. Anywhoo, the first step is to reign in these irresponsible "news" networks.

I have the same issue with canadian politics too, albeit a lil different.

As for domestic terrorism, I think we need to set up new laws to deal with this specifically whether it be money, passion or ideology that motivates the crime. Technically, organized crime is domestic terrorism and should be treated as such. RICO just isn't good enough.

[Syn7]

fox news isnt as evil now. when they had that filipino whoer, she sends me into a burning rage.

Well, as long as it doesn't burn when you pee, you should be okay! ;)

[David Jamieson]

It's about variety that targets the likes and wants of a given demographic.


Why are there right wing political thinkers? Because there are. It's a construct and you can say whatever you like within it but really, it comes down to action and what is done.

How about the Left wing? What's up with them? They aren't different, they perceive things differently and want to proceed in a different way.

With the exception of a few Northern European states, each and every western liberal democracy is in fact under the blankets an oligarchy.I f anyone doesn't understand these constructs, I urge you to look em up.

When you think macroscopically, think microscopically as well and you will realize that what is big view is also little view. Your own model of being, thinking and taking action isn't 100% aligned to either left or right. It's more than likely that most people with a few exceptions are actually centrists but like the rhetoric of one side or the other.

As far as political systems go, they are going to be influenced by the people with actual power and wealth like it or not, that is human nature. That has been the way of humans always since the dawn of history.

Ideas can be crushed and wiped out easily. But it takes effort to dislodge any person who has assumed real power. Look how many lives are lost for the sake of one man in the last 10 years?
Did Osama Bin Laden rule you? No, but he held power over the world and still does even though he's dead. He still is on the lips of many of his victims and they are still talking about him! That is power! Very few look back on George W Bush terms as much more than an embarrassment and major set back to any peace that was in process. He is not spoken off much, hardly ever gets invited anywhere, will be arrested in several countries if he even shows up and mostly, is fading into obscurity as a bad memory. That is a lack of power.

The actions of those who stood against bin laden have manifested into even more power!He had a few followers in the late 90's and now he has hundreds of thousands across multiple countries. And he is dead! It's counterintuitive to make war these days. It is much better to befriend your enemy. This is a tenet that goes all the way back to sun tzu.

When you have emotional reactionaries in positions of decision making that can start a negative action, you have a real problem. You want a centrist to hold the decision making, not a wing resident.

No matter who you elect, they will be dragged to the center by the people. I wouldn't worry too much about it otherwise.

[MightyB]

No matter who you elect, they will be dragged to the center by the people. I wouldn't worry too much about it otherwise.

Somehow this thread has been hijacked (by terrorists), but anyway - what matters are a few small details that could lead to huge implications - that's why this election is very important. The first, 3 Supreme Court Justices are set to retire during this next Presidential term, the second - the threat of the elimination of the Capitol Gains Tax (if it's eliminated, this will massively accelerate the destruction of the middle class and set the ground for a "Hunger Games" tiered society. And, The future of Health Care. Whether people know it or not, the Affordable Care Act has had a lot of beneficial results and is setting the road for a more affordable health care system in America. Eliminating it now would be a disaster.

[Syn7]

Somehow this thread has been hijacked (by terrorists)

Kindasorta my fault. :o



Long term, I'm not worried. Short term, not too confident. You can do a ton of damage in 4 or 8 years. Look at GW Bush. And it wasn't as polarized coming out of the Clinton years as it is today. I blame cable news and politicians who aren't afraid to misinform, disinform and just flat out lie. When somebody messes up and is honest about what they really think, not just what's on their list of talking points, like this Aiken guy, they pay for it on occasion. Not very often tho, and the cable so called news shows get away scot free. It's becoming acceptable to make ridiculous claims and promises and never come through and still be a hero, wtf?