Profile of a future domestic terrorist or assassin

[Hugabear]

Let's flash forward a year, and some nutball has done the unthinkable - committed an act of mass destruction (ie Oklahoma City bombing), or assassinated a prominent public figure. Chances are that individual will...

...identify themselves as either an "independent" or "libertarian"
...belong to some fringe white power group, possible ties to Stormfront, National Alliance or KKK
...will have attended a couple of "tea parties" - but not really an active participant (ie sign holder, speaker)
...will have attended a few town hall meetings - again not an active participant, not one of the "shouters" - but quietly feeding his rage
...will have posted a few rants on internet forums like FR, Topix
...will have prior military experience, most likely will have served in Iraq or Afghanistan
...will have been considered a "law abiding citizen" prior to the incident; friends and neighbors will be shocked ("I knew he was angry, but never thought he'd do that")

[valerief]

1. Maybe even be a member of the CIA. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. It won't be CIA... just saying

for once the CIA will not have a hand in this civil war. It already started by the way...

[valerief]

9. Hell, seems like it never ends. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. Why would the CIA promote a civil war in the US?

what would be the motive?

[valerief]

18. Dunno what they do. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. The CIA does not have a good reason to push a civil war in the US

some VETS of the company may, but that does not mean they are part of the company anymore.

[stillcool]

16. Larry Johnson seems like he..

would be cool with it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Remind me, is Larry Johnson still in the employ of the CIA?

Thought so.

When people say CIA, they mean ACTIVE members of the Company, not people who left a while ago... like close to a decade ago.

[stillcool]

19. Oh..they have to be 'active'..

I see. I guess that goes for the military as well?

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. Yes, being a vet makes you a CIVILIAN, and subject to CIVILIAN control

so if Larry uses his skills to actively raise against the guv'ment, he is subject to the same laws you and I are subject to.

I have no idea why this concept is so hard to comprehend.

[stillcool]

22. I think that the militaristic attitudes..

that is pervasive in our culture due to endless wars, has a direct correlation to the break-down of our society. At least in my case it does.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. I am talking of laws and how they apply to vets

not about the culture.

That said endless militarism? Sorry, but less than 5% of the population are even directly affected, and less than 1% serves.

Now if you use the term endless imperialism, we have no argument there...

[stillcool]

24. Directly affected?

Sorry but WWII, and Vietnam directly affected me, and I did not serve. I would love to see a study done on how war 'directly' affects families for generations.

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. Today, RIGHT NOW...

and that is the fracking point. RIGHT NOW about 1% of the population is under arms, and about 5% are directly affected. Why most people really don't give a rats ass about those under fire... after all, they volunteered.

That is what I am talking about... RIGHT NOW.

Jeessus age, people really have trouble readying these days!

Care to compare notes on WW II though? My mom's brother served in an intel unit, and my dad became a DP due to that wonderful Hitler's Travel plan, and fifty of my relatives went up a smokestack at Treblinka... the fifty we know off.

Now do you have somebody who has directly served in the last generation?

I don't care what national army... have you?

[stillcool]

30. Do I want to compare notes?

I'd love too..but no. I used my own personal experience to respond to your 'personally affected'. Do I know anyone who has 'directly served' in the last generation? Why yes..yes I do, but that has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make. I did not realize that a civil war, in which military people might be involved, was restricted to 'active' members. Thank you for your condescending explanation. I hope it was good for you.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. It will not be active members, hell no armies invovled I am betting

but somebody who left the army, or the CIA, or the left handed widget and joins insert militia here, or cell here, to carry on terrorism, is no longer a member of the military, the CIA or the left handed widget.

And again that is the fracking point.

If they are active members and desert to go join the militia, well a firing squad is waiting for them if they should be on the losing side. Oh and by the way, rightly so.

Now again, if you want to say that this culture is fully into Imperial thought, you get no argument from me, but to say that a vet of any service is part of that service is down right STOOOPID. And yes, deserves condescension.

[gateley]

2. ...is a Good Christian nt

[Hugabear]

4. Fundamentalist Christian - good catch

n/t

[B Calm]

6. Like the ones who kill doctors. . . .

[valerief]

10. For killing zygotes. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. You know perhaps not even a vet... just saying

after that... yep absolutely.

The ones doing "recon" are wearing Obama T-Shirts and being quiet about it.

[Hugabear]

7. A vet would probably have the most technical experience to pull something like that off

Thankfully, most of these anti-government types are pretty stupid, and get themselves caught before they get too far. To be successful would take a lot of training, patience, and discipline - which is exactly what the military provides.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. Why they try to recruit from vets and are somewhat succesful

why they have JOINED themselves.

But the militias also train as para military organizations, with a chain of command in a classic cell structure.

All that readying that I did on this back in the 1990s is now relevant again.

It dies not have to be a vet to do this, at all. It might help, but not essential.

[valerief]

11. A new Osama bin Laden, perhaps, so that Rethugs can get a two-fer?

"See, he didn't protect you, but we will! Now we must start World War III to protect ourselves!"

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. White and "christian" I doublt it

[BuyingThyme]

12. Terrorist profile:

[Hugabear]

13. Will almost definitely be a Glen Beck fan

That's pretty much given.

[Beer on a stick]

26. No, sorry. Libertarians are absolutely against such acts.

"Chances are"?

Can you actually quantify that risk factor?

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. McVeigh WAS a libertarian, you do know that, RIGHT?

His favorite book was the Turner Diaries, he even had pages of it on him when arrested.

By the way welcome to DU

[Beer on a stick]

28. Ummm....huh? The Turner Diaries are in no way libertarian, and McVeigh

wasn't in the least libertarian (or Libertarian, for that matter). Where are you getting this?

Thanks for the welcome.

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. He was, and he was also a member of the OH militia

the libertarian movement in the US ranges from the extreme cookie right, to the extreme cookie left.

Most people do not realize that. And when most people think of libertarians, we think of people like Ron Paul...

[Beer on a stick]

32. Uh-huh. Please cite the evidence that he even knew what the word...

meant, let alone adhering to the philosophy (which his actions clearly refuted) or the the party.

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. If you think he wasn;'t and that the libertarian party is all peaches and cream

and does not have some cooks on the fringes fine by me.

Suffice it to say that Rage across the Plain and other books exploring the Order and other RW (the cookie right) have pointed out to the elements of libertarian thinking in the extreme right wing.

Don't worry, they exist on the extreme cookie left too.

Now the PARTY may not want, and will not want, to associate themselves with these cookie elements, and they are right not to. But that is a whole different matter.

[Beer on a stick]

34. Where did I say that? I'm simpy saying that your contention....

that he was a libertarian is not in the least back up by any facts.

And forget about the party: The Order and other nutjobs simply do not adhere to the libertarian philosophy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. You are a Libertarian I take it.

why the exception, and that is fine.

I'll give the party credit where it is due. Unlike the GOP, it has distanced itself from cookie elements and it did that a while ago... like over a decade ago, if not longer.

The GOP, on the other hand, has embraced the Kooks.

[Beer on a stick]

37. Newp. I am a libertarian. Huge difference.

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. yeah I know, I think we are done, since the experts in this

truly don't agree.

by the way some of the extremes are not members of the order, or other kook elements, but classic (in the classic sense of the word) anarchists.

By the way, fun discussing this... what is scary is that when things get ugly, and they already are, nobody will give a hoot over the small or large philosophical differences between your wing of the party, and many of these guys. You may want to accuse people of ignorance, but trust me, it will not matter.

And yes, Tim was one... I will stand by what I said. He was a Kook, and a militia member, funny thing, the OH militia refused to even acknowledge he was one of them as well. I guess they didn't want to play a game of thousand questions with the FBI... and I suspect the surveillance went up by orders of magnitude anyway.

[Beer on a stick]

49. His primary act in life, the murder of hundreds, utterly violates...

the supreme principle in libertarianism: respect for, and non-violation of, the rights of others.

Again, I can call myself a 6'9" NBA guard, but it doesn't mean that I actually am one.

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. You may try, but he was

sorry.

I understand why you want to distance yourself from Kooks like McVeigh, or other libertarian projects. As I said, and I will stand by it, the problem with the movement is that it truly ranges from the extreme right to the extreme left. And sections refuse to knowledge each other's existence. for philosophical reasons, which is exactly what you are doing right now.

[Beer on a stick]

56. Sorry, but on the very face of it, what he did was fundamentally....

anti-libertarian. There is simply no getting around this fact.

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. In your view and that of your friends, not in his view

and those of his friends.

The democratic party is like cats being herded. The Libertarian movement, or libertarian movement is worst... it is even less organized than the Dems in that sense and far more splintered.

Don't worry I personally enjoy the cat fights.

:-)

And yes I do know the slight differences from one section to the next. but all stand on one thing... NO guv'ment anywhere in personal affairs or life. Some take it to the extreme, others accept silly shit like Social Security...

The range is wide.

Oh and the history goes a while back as well... it is actually an undercurrent in the US, just like CLASSIC liberalism (different from other forms of liberalism) are also part of the undercurrent of the US.

[Beer on a stick]

61. Well, no, that's not exactly accurate.

NO guv'ment anywhere in personal affairs or life.

Those who believe that are, in my estimation, not libertarian, given that the redress of violation of personal or property rights must include the government, and thusly must include the gov't (in the form of police, courts, etc...) at least to some degree in personal life, when such an event occurs. Likewise, the same structures must be there to stop said violations.

To maintain otherwise, for the gov't not to be involed in these matters, is to advocate anarchy, or something that's just as well anarchy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. Anarchy is the extreme of the movement

you are a more moderate one. Congratulations. You are actually to the left of one strain running through the movement.

As I said, I enjoy the cat fights...

By the way, this is one reason why the Liberatian party will have a hell of a time becoming one of the two major parties in the US, let alone a majority one.

In my estimation that is a good thing, but that is where we truly part company.

[Beer on a stick]

66. Well, it seems we're getting down to fundamental semantic differences...

Anarchy, in my estimation, is not the extreme of the movement, because it's a wholly different animal. I suppose, for an academic exercise, one could splinter off countless sub-groups and name them things like anarcho-libertarianism, socialist libertarianism, capital-libertarianism, etc... but that simply serves to dilute the meaning of the word to practically nothing.

[Touchdown]

38. Philosophy and Libertarian in the same sentence. That's too funny

I've never met 2 libertarians who can agree on a single definition of the word.:rofl:

[Beer on a stick]

41. You, too, are confusing libertarianism with Libertarianism.

I adhere to the small 'L' philosophy of libertarianism, not the to the Libertarian Party, which is Libertarianism.

John Locke, Bakunin, Hayek, etc... It deals with liberty and rights, not party platforms and pie in the sky bullshit like private ownership of sidewalks, etc...

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. John Locke and Hayek in the same sentence??? WOW

have fun... some of us do know who they are.

And no I don't think we are confusing much. They are part of a continuum... and you just illustrated the wide range of the philosophy. Locke is not right wing, otoh, Hayek... my lord... talk about right wing. By the way, have fun...

[Beer on a stick]

46. Fun is, indeed, a good thing to have. While the poltical....

philosophies of both men may have differed, they were both in lockstep as to the sovereignity of the individual, the supremacy of rights, and the principle of non-violation of the rights of others, and that, as they say, is basically the whole shootin' match. Or, at least, what's important about it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. The means to achieving that is what makes them so different

John Locke is philosophically closer to Jefferson, while Hayek is closer to... Ayn Raynd and Objectivism. Yes, there are differences, very large ones between the two.

Hayek was also a fan of authorities, while Locke was not. Another huge difference, as Hayek was an Aristotelian true and true. Oh and funny thing, not truly a fan of open societies...

What can I say... as I said some of us have read these people, very closely. Hayek is the forefather, with Leo Strauss of the Neo Conservative movement, Locke is the forefather of the classic Enlightenment project leading to classic liberalism. More apart they could never be.

[Beer on a stick]

51. We appear to disagree, in that case.

Hayek and Strauss were two very, and I would say, fundamentally, different thinkers, and Hayek would have abhored what the Neocons have wrought, given his background being exposed to hard right fascism and his hatred of it.

I don't want to lecture, or bore (especially) so I find this quite succinct: http://books.google.com/books?id=swmJAiVfEc4C&pg=PA99&lpg=PA99&dq=hayek+leo+strauss&source=bl&ots=JiI9SAdVVb&sig=1BJjwpNqwq7N45RViIN5V0c5sXg&hl=en&ei=gJCDStXiGo2otgOksp2TBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#v=onepage&q=hayek%20leo%20strauss&f=false

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. I've read both of them

and experts do not agree with you insofar as Hayek.

But hey, we can agree to disagree. Good night

[Beer on a stick]

57. Good night.

[Touchdown]

67. Nah' Not confusing anything.

I know you and other well meaning people are seeking to take back the meaning of the word, but it's been redefined for you, without your input through years of fanatical propaganda from adherents who liked the word 40 years before you cared about it. That train has left the station and you're not going to catch it anymore. No matter what case the 'l' is in, l/Libertarian does not have the meaning that you wish it to have anymore. Time to find a new cause.

[Hugabear]

36. Libertarians are pieces of shit.

FUCK the Libertarians and their "survival of the fittest" attitude. And YES, a lot of the people going to these so-called "Tea Parties" and shouting down the town hall meetings call themselves Libertarian types. Doesn't matter if you want to embrace them or not, they're yours, buddy.

[Beer on a stick]

39. Ah, the sweet stench of pig-ignorance.

You are confusing libertarianism with Libertarianism.

It doesn't matter if you know what you're talking about, you just talk anyway.

[Hugabear]

40. The man in New Hampshire who brought a gun to Obama's town hall was a libertarian also

Enjoy your stay here on DU

[Beer on a stick]

42. I see zero evidence of that, other than the most cosmetic

indication that it's a catchphrase that people like him toss about without understanding what it actually means.

[Hugabear]

45. Actually his Myspace page pretty much labels him a libertarian

He's part of the libertarian "Free State" project, hence the reason he's in New Hampshire.

It's pretty well established that he had very strong libertarian leanings.

But of course I fully expect you to come back and deny that, troll that you are.

[Beer on a stick]

47. Anyone can call themself a libertariank, but you see....

I wouldn't expect you to know the difference, given that you've amply demonstrated that you have zero interest in honest discourse or that you know thing one about what the philosophy espouses and why, consequently, he could not possibly be one.

Troll, indeed.

[Hugabear]

52. Why don't you go back and read the OP again, genius

I said that a future terrorist or assassin would identify themselves as a libertarian. Now you want to sit here and play games, and say that someone who calls himself a libertarian isn't really a libertarian, blah blah blah.

Sorry, you do not define the entire libertarian movement, just because you don't like what you see out there - or want to admit.

[Beer on a stick]

55. I'm sorry, quite clearly you're the only one playing games here.

Namely, that one would identify him/herself as a libertarian, and it was pointed out to you that such an act under consideration are the antithesis of what libertarianism is about.

Since you clearly don't understand what the word actually means, or the philosophy behind it, why do you insist on talking about it?

[Hugabear]

59. Well it's nice to have the national spokesman for libertarians here on DU

Maybe we can come to you whenever we have a question about who is and isn't a true libertarian?

:sarcasm:

Again, enjoy your stay here on DU.

What kind of pizza toppings do you prefer?

[Beer on a stick]

62. Whatever. There is no national movement, there is no spokesman.

There is a philosophy of a few very simple principles, and one either adheres to it or one does not.

[Hugabear]

64. "philosophy of a few very simple principles"

Yep, we know all about that. Every man for himself. No social security, no health care, no medicare, no corporate regulation, no unemployment compensation, no government assistance, no income taxes (and all other taxes at a bare minimum), etc etc etc. If you can't make it on your own, fuck off and die already, quit breathing someone else's air.

I listen to Neil Boortz on occasion, I know just how compassionate you libertarians are :puke:

[Beer on a stick]

65. Once again, you are almost laughably mistaken

Libertarianism as philosophy does not de facto mean every man for himself, and to portray it as such is rather dishonest. What you are citing are platforms of the Libertarian Party, the LP. I have specifically differentiated between the two, and here you are, yet again, attempting to conflate them.

Neil Boortz is no libertarian, so if that's your source, then no, you cleary have no clue about the compassion of libertarians.

[mamaleah]

54. Meh. You just described a few of my in laws

Libertarians, veterans, conservative.

But they aren't terrorists.

[Hugabear]

60. Didn't say that everyone who fits that profile is a terrorist

But chances are that if there is a domestic terrorist incident, that person will possess at least a few of those characteristics.