[lotuseclat79]

Article here.
In the years since the bombing in Oklahoma City, the radical right has produced some 60 terrorist plots. These have included plans to bomb or burn government buildings, public areas and churches; to assassinate; and to amass weapons. Where is the 'War' on THIS terror? And why is FOX ignoring it?

-- Tom

[linskyjack]

Where did you get these statistics and what constitutes a terrorist plot?

[WarC]

The islamic extremists are far-right, too.

Whats the point?

[lotuseclat79]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

Where did you get these statistics and what constitutes a terrorist plot?

Hi linskyjack,

Your asking the questions to the wrong person. All I did was post a link to an article that looked worthy of discussion and possible debate.

Its obvious to me (at least) that any source of information should be vetted, i.e. throughly scrutinized for the veracity of its information value and in such a way that it can be verified independently.

WarC, if you read the article, you would know the point.

-- Tom

[Knotbored]

Just curious why those events were considered "far right" although they seem to represent overt super-liberal attitudes. I have no sympathy for either "far" side I see no comparison between right wing politics and those events, but I do see liberal attitudes (although to extremes.)

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

Where did you get these statistics and what constitutes a terrorist plot?

As his usual custom and practice, he cites an article from some fringe web site which has little in the way of any facts to back it up. If you call him on it, he won't be able to substantiate the claim nor will even try--he'll tell you to disprove it. I'm wondering when the moderators are going to say something on the proliferation of these types of garbage threads that are started regularly by lotuseclat79--certainly does nothing to foster any sort of real debate on real issues.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by lotuseclat79

Where is the 'War' on THIS terror? And why is FOX ignoring it?
-- Tom

Why do you claim its ignored? Your own article documents arrests so obviously somone's paying attention to it (the FBI particilularly). This is just your garden variety hate crime that's existed since the country began--its a domestic issue and normally isn't something federal agencies outside the FBI would be involved in. Its not "newsworthy" because no one gives a rats arse about a group of kooks in Montana with little ability to carry on much in the way of any significant "terror" anywhere.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by Mulder

As his usual custom and practice, he cites an article from some fringe web site which has little in the way of any facts to back it up. If you call him on it, he won't be able to substantiate the claim nor will even try--he'll tell you to disprove it. I'm wondering when the moderators are going to say something on the proliferation of these types of garbage threads that are started regularly by lotuseclat79--certainly does nothing to foster any sort of real debate on real issues.

that's a bit harsh

A draft internal document from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security that was obtained this spring by The Congressional Quarterly lists the only serious domestic terrorist threats as radical animal rights and environmental groups like the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front. But for all the property damage they have wreaked, eco-radicals have killed no one — something that most definitely cannot be said of the white supremacists and others who people the American radical right.

you can certainly take issue with the opinion that any of the sixty groups listed should be taken seriously....but it is odd that the only internal threats to domestic security are considered to be the more militant environmental and animal rights groups, whose threat apprears to be primarily economic in nature

methinks the point is more along the lines of: if domestic security is concerned with the safety of the population, then why aren't these more militaristic and hateful homegrown groups considered a threat, the same way that islamic zealotry is considered a threat?
do we have to wait until one of them kills enough people to take them seriously?

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by iltos

methinks the point is more along the lines of: if domestic security is concerned with the safety of the population, then why aren't these more militaristic and hateful homegrown groups considered a threat, the same way that islamic zealotry is considered a threat? do we have to wait until one of them kills enough people to take them seriously?

What makes you think they aren't taken seriously?

[iltos]

Originally Posted by Mulder

What makes you think they aren't taken seriously?

ah...that would be the value of cut and paste
lemme try it again

A draft internal document from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security that was obtained this spring by The Congressional Quarterly lists the only serious domestic terrorist threats as radical animal rights and environmental groups like the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front. But for all the property damage they have wreaked, eco-radicals have killed no one — something that most definitely cannot be said of the white supremacists and others who people the American radical right.

what makes you think they are?

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by iltos

ah...that would be the value of cut and paste
lemme try it again


what makes you think they are?

Uhhhh--again--as I mentioned at the start of this thread, this guy has a habit of C&Ping garbage from fringe cites--its like me posting something from Rush Limbaugh. First, we have no idea what the memo is and the context and I can guarantee you one memo is not the extent of the investigative work done on domestic crime organizations. Why isn't the mafia listed? I would suggest if the memo represents the sum total of the government's position on groups, then its probably because of the available resources and members--these fringe right wing groups tend to be very small, not well organized, and have very little capital. A group like "animal liberation front" probably gets millions in donations from irrational liberals concerned with saving animals from torture!

[Mulderator]

The bottom line is this--this thread is intended to imply that there is some sort of "look the other way" when it comes to "right wing" skin head groups presumably because the Bush Administration is just fine with violation of minority's civil rights--its just irrational garbage that isn't worth discussing unless your a tin-foil hat liberal and you want to bite into another conspiracy theory!

[iltos]

Originally Posted by Mulder

Uhhhh--again--as I mentioned at the start of this thread, this guy has a habit of C&Ping garbage from fringe cites--its like me posting something from Rush Limbaugh. First, we have no idea what the memo is and the context and I can guarantee you one memo is not the extent of the investigative work done on domestic crime organizations. Why isn't the mafia listed? I would suggest if the memo represents the sum total of the government's position on groups, then its probably because of the available resources and members--these fringe right wing groups tend to be very small, not well organized, and have very little capital. A group like "animal liberation front" probably gets millions in donations from irrational liberals concerned with saving animals from torture!

no...on that we agree....i'd love to see the memo as well..........and if i was a subscriber to the congressional quarterly i'd be able to....but neither it nor the southern povery law center are exactly "fringe" sites, mulder....you may not like what the SPLC is all about, but it is acclaimed internationally for its work

but your point was also that there is nothing to debate here, because the article is from a fringe group....it would seem you're as eager to put the congressional quarterly and/or the SPLC on one fringe as you are to put the american zealots on another.

or is your point only that domestic security should look at the size of the funding before assessing how potent the threat is? that would explain why the mafia was omitted.....nobody GIVES them money .......they earn it

[lotuseclat79]

Mulder,

In case you didn't notice (yeah, your eyes and brain don't seem to be too coordinated) I don't C&P as you have been ranting about in another thread, but merely offered a link to pose the question. I don't have a habit of C&P as you put it. Better watch your blood pressure, you could bust an artery the way you rant if you have more of a cow than you already have.

The import of this thread was - Why isn't the media, including FOX covering it, and what about these terrorist groups?

Don't choke on your rants Mulder, just swallow and accept the fact that you don't always get it right.

-- Tom

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by iltos

no...on that we agree....i'd love to see the memo as well..........and if i was a subscriber to the congressional quarterly i'd be able to....but neither it nor the southern povery law center are exactly "fringe" sites, mulder....you may not like what the SPLC is all about, but it is acclaimed internationally for its work

Acclaimed for addressing poverty--not as a source on the efficacy of the US government's war on crime and terror. They should leave that to organizations that really have the facts. If you went to the FBI web site I guarantee you they would take any serious threats by any groups seriously. However, there's probably a half million bone head radicals out there who have ammassed firearms and talk about grandiose plans of world domination at their poker games--it doesn't make them "terror" threats--a person who is being raped would tell you its the worse terror they could imagine, but that doesn't make their attacker a "terrorist." That definition is rightfully constrained to sophisticated groups with plenty of money and organization structure to carry out terror attacks on a large scale (large being either in number or in volume of deaths). The radical right wing grouips in the US simply don't have that level of sophistication. That doesn't mean they aren't capable of blowing up a building, but that's really not what the government considers a "terrorist" act.

Again--this is much ado about nothing--an attempt by the thread starter to cast aspersions on the right side of the political aisle with a bunch of hooey and not a very cleverly disguised one either!