Right-wing domestic terrorists

**panama hat** · 18-06-2009, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by ItsRobsLife

Ah here she is right on cue.

Doesn't have anything constructive or reasonably intelligent to debate so just reverts to form and trolls with her usual dull witicisms.

Used to be she was once quite the wordsmith. but even then it was all window dressing and no content, now she's just no content.

Constructive? Jet?

I'd agree with Papillon on this, the act and intent is important, not their background.

**Butterfly** · 18-06-2009, 09:22 AM

atta, you silly twat, background profiling doesn't mean shit

plenty of crazy people in this world, and yet all of them don't commit crimes,

you start profiling people on background and other shit, you might find yourself locked up

**attaboy** · 18-06-2009, 09:30 AM

She and her son don't qualify as terrorists. Unless we are going to water down the term so that just about everyone qualifies. If a victim is terrified during a crime it doesn't make the criminals terrorists.

Read the article. By "background" I mean the article I posted so you can get an idea of who she is. She's a criminal and a loon; not a terrorist. She doesn't come anything near Bin Laden.

**Butterfly** · 18-06-2009, 09:58 AM

she is a terrorist, she has a cause

her and her friends are more likely to carry out domestic terrorist attacks than Bin laden and friends

**raycarey** · 18-06-2009, 10:09 AM

even though he's doing it in his typical hamfisted manner, i think we'll find that attaboy's strategy will be the MO for right wing bloggers and AM talk radio hosts in the coming years......try to label these terrrorists as common criminals, and furiously attempt to disassociate themselves from the terrorists they helped to create.

**attaboy** · 18-06-2009, 11:06 AM

I'm so inside ray's head he has me in his sigline in a repetitive manner. You realize the repetitive nature could be considered a sign of some sort of maladjustment, don't you? What is it you're failing to adjust to?

Hey everybody get a look at this before he changes it.

**panama hat** · 18-06-2009, 11:34 AM

'Merkins can't be terrorists, they don't sport beards and bang their head on the ground 5 times a day.

Common criminals. Heck, in one month, more people are murdered by guns than that nasty old Bin Laden bogeyman could muster up during 9/11, but let;s not concentrate on that, they say, let's throw trillions at the war machine and invade, kill and be killed.

Kind of makes little sense.

**Butterfly** · 18-06-2009, 11:36 AM

so, atta, how does it feel to be a terrorist sympathizer ?

**sabang** · 18-06-2009, 12:14 PM

Shall we try and inject some sense back into this increasingly trivial debate?

What is the role, if any, of the right wing media and/or GOP in inciting potentially dangerous Right wing extremism? Here's Paul Krugman from the NY times-

Today, as in the early years of the Clinton administration but to an even greater extent, right-wing extremism is being systematically fed by the conservative media and political establishment.

Now, for the most part, the likes of Fox News and the R.N.C. haven’t directly incited violence, despite Bill O’Reilly’s declarations that “some” called Dr. Tiller “Tiller the Baby Killer,” that he had “blood on his hands,” and that he was a “guy operating a death mill.” But they have gone out of their way to provide a platform for conspiracy theories and apocalyptic rhetoric, just as they did the last time a Democrat held the White House.

Exhibit A for the mainstreaming of right-wing extremism is Fox News’s new star, Glenn Beck. Here we have a network where, like it or not, millions of Americans get their news — and it gives daily airtime to a commentator who, among other things, warned viewers that the Federal Emergency Management Agency might be building concentration camps as part of the Obama administration’s “totalitarian” agenda (although he eventually conceded that nothing of the kind was happening).
But let’s not neglect the print news media. In the Bush years, The Washington Times became an important media player because it was widely regarded as the Bush administration’s house organ. Earlier this week, the newspaper saw fit to run an opinion piece declaring that President Obama “not only identifies with Muslims, but actually may still be one himself,” and that in any case he has “aligned himself” with the radical Muslim Brotherhood.
And then there’s Rush Limbaugh. His rants today aren’t very different from his rants in 1993. But he occupies a different position in the scheme of things. Remember, during the Bush years Mr. Limbaugh became very much a political insider. Indeed, according to a recent Gallup survey, 10 percent of Republicans now consider him the “main person who speaks for the Republican Party today,” putting him in a three-way tie with Dick Cheney and Newt Gingrich. So when Mr. Limbaugh peddles conspiracy theories — suggesting, for example, that fears over swine flu were being hyped “to get people to respond to government orders” — that’s a case of the conservative media establishment joining hands with the lunatic fringe.
It’s not surprising, then, that politicians are doing the same thing. The R.N.C. says that “the Democratic Party is dedicated to restructuring American society along socialist ideals.” And when Jon Voight, the actor, told the audience at a Republican fund-raiser this week that the president is a “false prophet” and that “we and we alone are the right frame of mind to free this nation from this Obama oppression,” Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, thanked him, saying that he “really enjoyed” the remarks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/opinion/12krugman.html

At least McCain did not resort to this sort of incendiary rhetoric.

And the Oklahoma bombing happened during the Clinton adminstration. But 911 happened during the Bush administration.

Right wing extremism is potentially highly dangerous, and it was totally irresponsible of the Republicans to decry the report, which was not politically motivated. Surely, the GOP must be in desperate straits if it is trying to apeal to, or even appease, Right wing lunatics. I see no evidence of the Democrats adopting such a tactic with Left wing revolutionaries.

**Butterfly** · 18-06-2009, 12:20 PM

^ Translation: They are mad

I think they suffer from deep pathological issues,

it's a national healthcare issue actually, maybe a few camps to "cure" them would be in order

**raycarey** · 18-06-2009, 12:28 PM

here's an interesting piece about an under reported story....

Richard Poplawski, the man who allegedly murdered three Pittsburgh cops, was clearly influenced by Fox News's Glenn Beck and right-wing radio.

Did Paranoid Right-Wing Media Fuel the Pittsburgh Cop Killer's Rage? | Media and Technology | AlterNet
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Originally Posted by attaboy

You realize the repetitive nature could be considered a sign of some sort of maladjustment, don't you? What is it you're failing to adjust to?

it was taken from ONE of your posts this morning.

so yes, this repetitive nature could be considered a sign of some sort of maladjustment.

Originally Posted by attaboy

Hey everybody get a look at this before he changes it.

yeah, "everybody!"

honestly, how old are you?

and btw, i've got no plans to change it anytime soon....especially because you've got your panties in a twist about it.

**attaboy** · 18-06-2009, 12:34 PM

I don't have a post that looks like that. Show me. let's see them side by side so we can compare them.

**attaboy** · 18-06-2009, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by panama hat

'Merkins can't be terrorists, they don't sport beards and bang their head on the ground 5 times a day.

Common criminals. Heck, in one month, more people are murdered by guns than that nasty old Bin Laden bogeyman could muster up during 9/11, but let;s not concentrate on that, they say, let's throw trillions at the war machine and invade, kill and be killed.

Kind of makes little sense.

PH, I'm not saying Americans can't be terrorist. McVeigh was one. He had his philosophy and he carried out an attack on a government building killing innocents. Him and his buddy were terrorists. I don't think we should water down the word to include Bonnie and Clyde.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

she is a terrorist, she has a cause

her and her friends are more likely to carry out domestic terrorist attacks than Bin laden and friends

Cite the evidence of her carrying out her "cause". She sought to enrich herself by ripping off a drug dealer. Here's her so called "cause" from one of the links S. Landreth posted:

He and other family members grew suspicious of Forde and started talking to police about her after her husband was shot in their Everett home in December.

That's why, Metzger said, he had an audio recorder running when she visited his Northern California home in early May.

"She sat right here on my couch and told me that she was going to start an underground militia. This militia was going to start robbing drug-cartel dealers — rob them and steal their money or drugs," Metzger said.

... Investigators think the May 30 robbery was intended to be the first in a series of such attacks intended to fund the border-watch group and a new venture, O'Connor said. Forde planned on starting a business of helping free kidnap victims in other countries, he said.

She also spoke of the venture to her brother, he said.

"She was telling me that they were going to start some sort of militia that was going to go overseas and aid and abet those who are kidnapped. She said she was going to go to Syria," he said.

Take the money and march off to Syria to "aid and abet those who are kidnapped". That was her plan. Some terrorist. It's back to defining her as a criminal and a nut.

**raycarey** · 18-06-2009, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by sabang

What is the role, if any, of the right wing media and/or GOP in inciting potentially dangerous Right wing extremism?

here is more info on the right wing domestic terrorist that killed 3 cops in pittsburgh earlier this year.

the alleged killer posted a YouTube clip to Stormfront of top-rated Fox News host Glenn Beck contemplating the existence of FEMA-managed concentration camps. ("He backed out," Poplawski wrote cryptically beside the video.) Three weeks later, Poplawski posted another Youtube clip to Stormfront, this time of a video blogger advocating "Tea Parties," or grassroots conservative protests organized by Beck and Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich (see here and here) against President Barack Obama's bailout plan.

the above is taken from the link in the first post on this page.

**ItsRobsLife** · 18-06-2009, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Translation: They are mad

Translation: They are mad and they've got guns.

**Butterfly** · 18-06-2009, 05:31 PM

yeah, that too. Another reason why firearms ban is a must. What kind of civilized country need to have citizens with guns.

**Panda** · 18-06-2009, 05:34 PM

You cant blame some people in USA for being a bit mad, (or perhaps paranoid would be more accurate) considering the secretive way their government operates.
There is no end to the accounts of how the US government has lied to its citizens, or simply denied them access to information to cover up underhanded dealings. Put that together with a heavily armed population (all be it with a lot of ultra right wing religious nutters in the mix) and you have a recipe for domestic terrorism.

**Panda** · 18-06-2009, 05:39 PM

Originally Posted by Butterfly

yeah, that too. Another reason why firearms ban is a must. What kind of civilized country need to have citizens with guns.

Correct me if I am wrong. But it isn't it something to do with the citizens protecting themselves from a government that get out of control and becomes too authoritarian?

**Butterfly** · 18-06-2009, 05:43 PM

^ they have their independent National Guard for that, they don't need guns

the law is completely outdated, time to amend it

**Butterfly** · 18-06-2009, 05:44 PM

the only reason that law was not removed is for commercial reasons,

big industry,

**Panda** · 18-06-2009, 06:25 PM

Originally Posted by Butterfly

^ they have their independent National Guard for that, they don't need guns

the law is completely outdated, time to amend it

Is that them same dudes who shot those kids in Ohio back in the Vietnam protest days?

**Rural Surin** · 18-06-2009, 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by Panda

You cant blame some people in USA for being a bit mad, (or perhaps paranoid would be more accurate) considering the secretive way their government operates.
There is no end to the accounts of how the US government has lied to its citizens, or simply denied them access to information to cover up underhanded dealings. Put that together with a heavily armed population (all be it with a lot of ultra right wing religious nutters in the mix) and you have a recipe for domestic terrorism.

One might even suggest that the population doen't have the ability to recognize that they are apart of the world's {historically} greatest terrorist and rogue state to have assembled. Surely, if this is the nature of the state, would not this be instinctively ingrained throughout the citizentry?

**Rural Surin** · 18-06-2009, 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by Butterfly

^ they have their independent National Guard for that, they don't need guns

the law is completely outdated, time to amend it

The {American} National Guard exist purely to protect the interests of the corporate state. Same ideals behind military and police systems.

**S Landreth** · 18-06-2009, 06:33 PM

Originally Posted by Panda

Originally Posted by Butterfly

^ they have their independent National Guard for that, they don't need guns

the law is completely outdated, time to amend it

Is that them same dudes who shot those kids in Ohio back in the Vietnam protest days?

yes

the shooting of unarmed college students by members of the Ohio National Guard

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

**robuzo** · 18-06-2009, 06:35 PM

Not having been issued a secret religious cryptography decoder ring, the significance of Jon Voight calling for someone to “bring an end to this false prophet Obama” eluded me entirely.

UCLA prof and Torah scholar Mark Kleiman caught the dog whistle religious code significance of Voight's remarks, noting the following:
The Reality-Based Community: Voight's deadly dog-whistle
The Book of Deuteronomy has two references to false prophets: one in Chapter 13, the other in Chapter 18. They are unequivocal. The false prophet, whether marked by making incorrect predictions or by preaching unsound doctrine, is to be killed:

that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death (13:5)
But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. (18:21)

Of course, no one in his right mind cares what a washed-up minor actor says; but Voight was chosen by the party committees as the MC of the event. The well-heeled Republicans and lobbyists applauded, and the candidates will gratefully take their share of the loot. And as far as I can tell not a single Republican or conservative protested the fact that someone got up before them and called, in quite unambiguous language, for the murder of the President of the United States.

Or is there some meaning of the phrase "put to death" or "shall surely die" with which I'm not familiar?

The effectiveness of the dog-whistle technique is demonstrated by the fact that, as far as I can tell, no mainstream media outlet mentioned the meaning of Voight's words; Frank Rich mentioned Voight's "pseudo-sciptural call for action" without coming out and naming the "action."
---
It seems to me Kleiman may have a case here in terms of incitement to assassination. Wonder what the Teak Door verdict will be?

Thread: Right-wing domestic terrorists

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions