If Obama wins the White House, will we see the return of domestic terrorists?

[NJmaverick]

Seems one thing having a republican in the White House did, was eliminate the threat of domestic terrorists (remember all the militant survialist groups and OK bombing?). Will the end of republican rule spark the return of radical right wing terrorists in the US?

[rurallib]

1. from what I understand it just isn't covered much anymore but

has actually increased.

[madrchsod]

2. they have`t gone away

the problem is that they are white americans and it`s hard to make them the scary guys who will kill your kids , rape your wife, and convert you to islam...

[liberal N proud]

5. No stereotype except they are white creeps

[Buzz Clik]

3. You've lost your mind. Domestic terrorism is alive and well.

Just yesterday we heard discussions about the trial of a man who was completely ready to kill hundreds of people at the Super Bowl. He was armed and in the parking lot. He wasn't thrwarted by Homeland Security or local cops or a citizen's arrest -- he changed his mind and turned himself in.

Remember Virginia Tech?


Jesu Cristo, man. Your OP is something I'd expect at the Free Republic, not here.

[NJmaverick]

8. I think you need to learn what terrorism is, so you don't make a fool of yourself

DEFINITIONS

There is no single, universally accepted definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)

The FBI further describes terrorism as either domestic or international, depending on the origin, base, and objectives of the terrorist organization. For the purpose of this report, the FBI uses the following definitions of terrorism:

l Domestic terrorism refers to activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. <18 U.S.C. § 2331(5)>

International terrorism involves violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any state, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any state. These acts appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping and occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum. <18 U.S.C. § 2331(1)>
THE FBI DIVIDES TERRORIST-RELATED ACTIVITY INTO TWO CATEGORIES:

A terrorist incident is a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, in violation of the criminal laws of the United States, or of any state, to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
A terrorism prevention is a documented instance in which a violent act by a known or suspected terrorist group or individual with the means and a proven propensity for violence is successfully interdicted through investigative activity.

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terror2000_2001.htm

[Buzz Clik]

9. I thank the FBI for that definition.

In your mind, was the bombing of the Murro Bldg in OKC terrorism?

I'm really curious -- how many incidents in the US in the past 20 years actually fit this narrow definition? It's pretty easy to declare victory in a war that you've eliminated simpy by defining it out of existence.

[NJmaverick]

14. What you are ignoring is that you were clearly mistaken when you claimed

the VT shooting was an act of terrorism.

[Buzz Clik]

21. We're past that. Back to my question: Over the past 20 years...

... how many acts of domestic terrorism have there been? What were they?

[NJmaverick]

23. The biggest would be the right wing terorrist bombing in OK

beyond that, I suggest you use Google, if you need to futher your education.

[Buzz Clik]

30. In other words, you've got nothing. This is rightwing agitation bullshit.

This thread is about to drop off my radar screeen.

[NJmaverick]

32. lol, you are funny you really need to learn to read and THINK

this is about right wing terrorists groups staging a come back, because they lost control of Congress and the White House. The only "rightwing aggitation bullshit" has been your thoughtless responses.

[Buzz Clik]

37. I need to read and think. Beautiful. You've redefined the discussion twice.

How convenient. At first it was simply a question about domestic terrorism. Then it was domestic terrorism but only within the strict definition set forward by the FBI. Now, you've decided that it's only about rightwing extremist groups. Next put up a title that actually describes your intent.

btw -- It's your twisted opinion domestic terrorism only is instituted by rightwing extremists? Remember the various acts of violence when WTO was in Seattle? Those were leftists with a political agenda trying to intimidate.

twit.

[NJmaverick]

43. You know it's funny, after the immediate knee jerkers, the thoughtful posts

followed. They understood the subject and discussed it intelligently.

[shraby]

10. I think you'd better read it yourself.

"Acts to intimidate" are what happens at abortion clinics, to gays and other minorities.
"Acts that are a danger to human life" encompasses the arsonists who start forest fires.

[NJmaverick]

13. I read it and it clearly doesn't cover the VT shooting

which was why it's important for the poster to understand what is and isn't a terrorist act.

[shraby]

4. The white house DIDN'T

stop domestic terrorism. Abortion clinics are still being terrorized, gays are being terrorized, there was that pesky Anthrax problem that never got resolved, don't forget that couple of guys who ran around the eastern cities randomly shooting people. I'm sure other du'ers can easily add to this list. Oh...the arsonist in Florida who started the wildfires and the ones in California who set a few of the fires..domestic terrorism if I ever saw it.

[Tesha]

6. Somehow, the news just never gets around to providing national coverage...

...when women's clinics are burned to the ground
and the like.

Tesha

[ProfessorGAC]

7. No

They're still there. The increased attention on such activities have made them lay low. The administrative elements of that attention will be there no matter the party of the president.
The Professor

[Bucky]

11. Once the terrorists leave the White House, no secret service detail will be keeping an eye on them.

Yes, that worries me.

[NightWatcher]

12. terra terra terra, the libural might be elected

take this crap elsewhere

[NJmaverick]

15. Are you insane????? Do you think people would vote republican because they fear the return of

domestic terrorism? Either that or are there topics that you like to censor from discussion?

[Gabi Hayes]

16. I dunno if the OP was purposely inciting, sarcastic, or what, but perhaps he/she missed this:

was made into a very evocative thread here, as well

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:_M-lLcCU5NgJ:journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%2520Taylor+texas+church+bombing+white+democratic+underground&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

If you do not recall the case of the three young terrorists in Burleson, Texas (a suburb south of Fort Worth) who conspired to blow up a Church that was under construction and were caught at the scene attempting to set off a homemade bomb, do not blame your memory. Blame the Bush DOJ and the U.S. news media. This story has gotten the kind of VIP news whitewash usually reserved for dead hookers in the hotel rooms of billionaires.

Now, before I describe the Burleson terrorist trio, just to put things in context, the DOJ is preparing to launch its third attempted prosecution of the Sears Catalog Terra-ists, a bunch of weed smoking Black guys who were offered free rent and free stuff by the FBI if they would listen to a bunch of phony Al Qaeda propaganda. Marijuana and poverty can do funny things to your head. They can make you say “Sure” and “Uh huh” and “Whatever you say. Do we still get to keep staying here rent free?” Note that the Sears Catalog Terra-ists did not have any bombs, any weapons, any plans and a single clue between the seven of them. They did describe themselves as Muslim, however, and so they are looking at stiff 70 year prison sentences …if only Federal Prosecutors can put together a jury gullible enough to convict them.

Maybe if the FBI put a bunch of Federal prosecutors in a Miami warehouse rent free, gave them all the weed they could smoke, they could motivate them to mount a successful prosecution of these guys.

Those who despair at the lack of get up and go shown by American youth will be relieved to know that some disaffected young people do not have to be bribed with drugs and toys to get political. Muslims are not the only people who misunderstand the meaning of the word jihad .

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/680468.html
..................

that was the first I'd heard of it.

[NJmaverick]

22. I find it comical the knee jerk reaction when I discuss the return of the right wing terrorists

It's like some people are incapable of actually discussing an issue, in an intelligent manner.

[Gabi Hayes]

25. perhaps when you begin discussing it in an intelligible/less confrontational manner,

a rational discourse might take place

am I the only one here having trouble making sense of your POV?

your OP is at best inaccurate, as has been amply demonstrated in several of the responses.

clearly RW terrorism has never been eradicated, just ignored by the M$M, as the McCamy Taylor link, among others clearly points out

[NJmaverick]

26. Does more then one person screwing up make something right?

That's a faulty assumption at best. It's funny that you others completely missed my point. It's like you are so blinded by partisan thinking, that you are incapable of a rational discussion of a simple topic. The point was right wingers and their terrorist ways. It's something that was forgotten, as they had their way with the government these past 8 years. You would do well if you started thinking more and reacting less.

[kestrel91316]

35. When their buddies are in power, RW terrorists are relatively happy.

When liberals are in power, they aren't, and they get to agitating and putting up a fuss.

Like that's going to scare us off from voting for Obama. Hah. Bring 'em on. We're loaded for bear this time around.

[NJmaverick]

41. It shouldn't scare us. In fact we shouldn't vote for the people

the terrorist want in power.

[Sundoggy]

17. You bet - back to their Oregon compounds they go n/t

[ColbertWatcher]

18. The groups went underground.

The GOP-controlled media didn't cover them.

The Southern Poverty Law Center released a report earlier this year that they couldn't find the time to report on.

The haters are there, they will just get more airtime as it suits the GOP.

[rucky]

19. They've never really left us. They just got promoted.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. Yes, you'll see a re-birth of the militia movement.

The people over at freerepublic will go back to what they were doing the last time there was a Democratic president. Sitting around feeling sorry for their emasculated selves, talking about how much they hate America, and sympathizing with people who molest girls and blow up federal day cares.

[NJmaverick]

24. Finally someone with the brains to get what I was saying

this is an indictment of the right wing and their terrorist mentality. So many have had comical knee jerk reactions to this topic.

[anigbrowl]

34. I heartily agree

I found your OP and the questions it raised entirely reasonable, but unfortunately there are just as many on the left as on the right who completely lack a sense of proportion and have a bad case of tunnel vision.

Yes, I believe you'll see a resurgence in domestic terorism, as well a corresponding right-wing rediscovery of civil liberties within 24 hours of Obama taking office if he is elected. All the voices on the right who currently defend or wave away issues like torture, signing statements, haebeas corpus, posse comitatus and so on will suddenly complain that Obama is the greatest threat to Americans' freedom EVAR. You can bet that a certain proportion of these folks will be simultaneously trying to market books about the 'End Times' and guns and ammo.

[NJmaverick]

45. The sad part is they will not even hide their hypocrisy

they will simply reverse everything they have been saying, and pretend like nothing happened.

[Buzz Clik]

39. Learn how to communicate using the written English language.

And knock off the fucking insults. It's hardly our problem that you were incabable of expressing your thoughts.

[NJmaverick]

40. I suggest you read this post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3476615&mesg_id=3477403

and practice what you preach, in terms of insults. You really are embarrassing yourself, you had a foolish knee jerk reaction. Instead of simply admitting it, you keep digging yourself deeper.

[anigbrowl]

47. You might want to take that advice yourself.

Having read the whole thread, you do not strike me as a very polite person, but rather someone in search of an argument.

[madinmaryland]

27. I don't think it has ever gone away. Though either through lack of coverage

by the Corporate Media and less things for them to oppose in the government, they have not been visible for the last few years. Given the hatred is still there, it will obviously return with a vengence if the democrats win the POTUS and make gains in both the house and senate.

[lurky]

28. If by "domestic terrorists", you mean organized RW racist militants..

then I do think there is a danger of them being energized when Obama becomes president. They were very noisy under Clinton, but seemed to quiet down under Bush. Then again, I think the Bush DOJ has pretty much left them alone, so we haven't had any high-profile sieges like Waco or Ruby Ridge. That probably makes a difference.

[NJmaverick]

29. Yes that's what I mean. The right wing hate groups

although it does seem a bit redundant to say right wind and hate.

[Buzz Clik]

31. And by this definition AND the current hands-off policy ...

... we can safely say that "domestic terrorism" enforcement has gone the way of environmental regulation enforcement: we don't know if they're a problem or not if no one is looking.

[Wilber_Stool]

33. They'll be back in force when the

economy goes into the tank. Nothing like unemployment to swell the ranks of the hate groups.

[gkhouston]

36. Yeah, it will be bad when Blackwater loses its contracts. n/t

[NJmaverick]

42. Good point

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. YES

and there are many reasons, but we will see them

[NJmaverick]

44. Besides that they will be unhappy with losing power

what other reasons do you see?

[Atman]

46. I'm sure Cheney's already making plans.

Just sayin.

.