but OH BOY right?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
From what I've read, and it's all very preliminary, it might have been a dud, but if it had gone off as planned, it could have been highly deadly and destructive.
It remains to be seen why it was done or who was responsible...but if it was some sort of coordinated effort from foreign terrorists, it really emphasizes the role that luck plays, rather than draconian surveillance efforts. If it's not Al Qaeda or their ilk, then it's probably some home grown wacko, which emphasizes the dangers from home grown terrorists. Either way there's something to take from this.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
I hope Obama uses this as a chance to refocus attention on the war in Afghanistan. This should be a reminder of the importance of the region.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Everyone who didn't realize it was going to be an Islamic thing, raise your hands.
Posted by Xann. (Member # 11482) on :
Don't raise your hand, it's a trap! Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Except we've got a perfectly credible history of domestic, non-Muslim terrorism here from Americans to Americans, Lisa. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I'm surprised this is leaning towards some Muslim extremist stuff...but you ought to know better than to suggest it was a given. C'mon, even as adamant you are about these topics have to acknowledge domestic terrorism was at least a significant possibility. Right?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Everyone who didn't realize it was going to be an Islamic thing, raise your hands.
Do we know yet that it IS an Islamic thing, as opposed to something done by someone who happens to be Islamic?
Let me rephrase, do we know for a fact that Islamic extremism was the motivating factor, and not some other political motivation?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Well, he does appear to have recently gone to Pakistan for the express purpose of bomb-building lessons with the local Taliban.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah I saw that, in Waziristan. However, to date, has the Taliban been exclusively responsible for international acts of terrorism for the sake of destroying the enemies of Islam, or various other religious reasons?
If it was Al Qaeda, it would make a lot more sense. But the Taliban and Al Qaeda haven't always played well together, especially in the last few years, where their relationship has devolved into open hostility at times. If this was conceived, planned and executed solely by the Taliban, then that's new, and it's also likely even less about Islamic fanaticism than it might otherwise be.
I'm not ruling it out as a possibility, but I think we need more information before we can assign motivation.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Except we've got a perfectly credible history of domestic, non-Muslim terrorism here from Americans to Americans, Lisa. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I'm surprised this is leaning towards some Muslim extremist stuff...but you ought to know better than to suggest it was a given. C'mon, even as adamant you are about these topics have to acknowledge domestic terrorism was at least a significant possibility. Right?
Possibility, maybe. Not much of one, though. The fact that the guy was a Muslim was no surprise at all. Had he not been a Muslim, I would have been very surprised.
And how much homegrown terrorism have we had? One right wing looney (McVeigh) and one left wing looney (Unabomber).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Let me rephrase, do we know for a fact that Islamic extremism was the motivating factor, and not some other political motivation?
From what I've seen, he was unable to make the payments on his house, at which point he flew overseas to take some terrorist training. Seriously.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: From what I've seen, he was unable to make the payments on his house, at which point he flew overseas to take some terrorist training. Seriously.
quote: But shortly after becoming a U.S. citizen a year ago, he gave up his job, stopped paying his mortgage and told a real estate agent to let the bank take the house because he was returning to Pakistan.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Tom, DK is right on this one. He gave up the job voluntarily; he was not fired.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: ... And how much homegrown terrorism have we had? One right wing looney (McVeigh) and one left wing looney (Unabomber).
This is more of a response to Rakeesh, you might not necessarily consider it "homegrown" (and conversely, I might not consider it terrorism), but technically while Muslim, Nidal Hasan of the Fort Hood incident was born and grew up in Virginia.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Yeah I saw that, in Waziristan. However, to date, has the Taliban been exclusively responsible for international acts of terrorism for the sake of destroying the enemies of Islam, or various other religious reasons?
The difficulty is unravelling this particular knot is that even in Afghanistan proper (yes, I know this guy is from Pakistan, but I'll get to that), a big pull for recruitment for the Taliban is not their religious ideology although that plays a factor, but recruitment jumps after large numbers of civilian deaths from American airstrikes.
It wouldn't surprise me if this guy felt he was responding to the drone strikes in Pakistan or some such, by joining/acting for the Taliban in Pakistan.
Is that religion or "Islamic extremism"? Meh Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:...Aliou Niasse, a Senagalese Muslim immigrant who works as a photograph vendor on Times Square, was the first to bring the smoking car to the police’s attention...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: Fun Fact:
quote:...Aliou Niasse, a Senagalese Muslim immigrant who works as a photograph vendor on Times Square, was the first to bring the smoking car to the police’s attention...
COINCIdENCE??!?!?/11
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
What let me down was the journalist on MSNBC that said she was disapointed that it turned out to be a muslim that made the bomb. As opposed to what? A Tea Party supporter? A democrat?
How about being disapointed there was an attempt made at all?
I am impressed on the work the NYPD and Federal Authorities did to catch this guy though. The work involved and the way they were able to figure out who it was and where he was was nothing short of amazing.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am interested that the FBI defines WMD differently for purposes of terrorism than the "usual" chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear definition that we use for other purposes.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Let me rephrase, do we know for a fact that Islamic extremism was the motivating factor, and not some other political motivation?
From what I've seen, he was unable to make the payments on his house, at which point he flew overseas to take some terrorist training. Seriously.
Now that's perfectly understandable... I mean who hasn't felt the urge to take a little terrorist training when the finances get tight... anyone? Anyone?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am interested that the FBI defines WMD differently for purposes of terrorism than the "usual" chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear definition that we use for other purposes.
I am also interested in this. We found Sarin in Iraq, yet we were told we never found weapons of mass destruction. UN Resolution 687 classified it as a WMD, but hey, who cares what they say.
Firecrackers and fertilizer though...THAT is a WMD?
At the end of June, can someone remind me not to pick up fireworks after I finish a visit to my local plant nursery? I don't want to be picked up and charged with possessing WMD .
I understand his intent was to cause bodily harm and create panic and terror. The bomb, if properly made, could have created a large fireball that could have killed many people. I am FINE with charging him, even with reading his Miranda rights (He is a US citizen afterall) but come on.
On a side note, Senator Lieberman is trying to get legislation passed that revokes your citizenship if you commit an act of terror in the country. I don't know how I feel about this. Senator Graham did mention that the man should be tried with treason.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Except we've got a perfectly credible history of domestic, non-Muslim terrorism here from Americans to Americans, Lisa. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I'm surprised this is leaning towards some Muslim extremist stuff...but you ought to know better than to suggest it was a given. C'mon, even as adamant you are about these topics have to acknowledge domestic terrorism was at least a significant possibility. Right?
Possibility, maybe. Not much of one, though. The fact that the guy was a Muslim was no surprise at all. Had he not been a Muslim, I would have been very surprised.
And how much homegrown terrorism have we had? One right wing looney (McVeigh) and one left wing looney (Unabomber).
How far back do you want to go? What do you think the KKK were/are? Burning a cross on a lawn is an act of terrorism. Lynchings were acts of terrorism. Eco-terrorism out west comes to mind. America is no stranger at all to domestic terrorism, but I think we've been pretty quick to forget how our particular brand of it was created and executed. And I think we tend to brush over the very real acts of terrorism that still occur across the country.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:From Geraine: Senator Graham did mention that the man should be tried with treason.
Here's a constitutional question (if Dagonee is still lurking around, he might be able to answer it better): If the guy refuses to plead guilty to treason in open court, and the police can't find two eyewitnesses, is the video evidence enough to convict him?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Yeah I saw that, in Waziristan. However, to date, has the Taliban been exclusively responsible for international acts of terrorism for the sake of destroying the enemies of Islam, or various other religious reasons?
The difficulty is unravelling this particular knot is that even in Afghanistan proper (yes, I know this guy is from Pakistan, but I'll get to that), a big pull for recruitment for the Taliban is not their religious ideology although that plays a factor, but recruitment jumps after large numbers of civilian deaths from American airstrikes.
It wouldn't surprise me if this guy felt he was responding to the drone strikes in Pakistan or some such, by joining/acting for the Taliban in Pakistan.
Is that religion or "Islamic extremism"? Meh
Right. That sort of thing is precisely my question. If that is his motivation, then his being a Muslim doesn't seem to matter a great deal. I think we need to at least verify someone's motivations before we assume it's Islamic extremism. It may be, it may even be likely, but it doesn't appear to be confirmed yet.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Geraine: we found pretty much unusable sarin (precursors) left over from sarin (precursors) we knew they had, that nobody in the military in Iraq knew they had. That's only slightly above saying a country has WMDs because some citizen managed to brew some nerve agent in their basement. We knew they had made WMDs in the past, and we knew their bureaucracy was so messed up that they had almost certainly lost some of them. That's not "having WMDs", that's failing at having WMDs.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Lyrhawn: they aren't required to be eyewitnesses. Though I think it would be wrong to call this levying war. Dignifying it with that description is unnecessary. He attempted to murder a group of people in a terrorist act, yes; he did not levy war.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Right, which is why he can be charged with a multitude of other things. But a case could be made for 'adhering to our enemies,' don't you think? And regardless, apparently at least one major official wants a treason charge.
Either way, I guess I was less concerned with the specifics of this particular case than with how a modern day treason trial would work. If they specifically charged this guy with treason, would they need to have eyewitnesses for that specific charge, or would video evidence be enough?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Except we've got a perfectly credible history of domestic, non-Muslim terrorism here from Americans to Americans, Lisa. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I'm surprised this is leaning towards some Muslim extremist stuff...but you ought to know better than to suggest it was a given. C'mon, even as adamant you are about these topics have to acknowledge domestic terrorism was at least a significant possibility. Right?
Possibility, maybe. Not much of one, though. The fact that the guy was a Muslim was no surprise at all. Had he not been a Muslim, I would have been very surprised.
And how much homegrown terrorism have we had? One right wing looney (McVeigh) and one left wing looney (Unabomber).
How far back do you want to go? What do you think the KKK were/are? Burning a cross on a lawn is an act of terrorism. Lynchings were acts of terrorism. Eco-terrorism out west comes to mind. America is no stranger at all to domestic terrorism, but I think we've been pretty quick to forget how our particular brand of it was created and executed. And I think we tend to brush over the very real acts of terrorism that still occur across the country.
You don't need to go back more than a couple of monts. The most recent terrorist act in this country was a plane flown into an IRS office by a tax protester. Given the current climate in the US, I figured this was at least as likely to be a Tea Party terrorist as Muslim terrorist.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The testimony of two witnesses that he did it would be plenty. That those people arrived at the idea from watching the video and other investigation would not be an impediment. The requirement has never been for eyewitnesses.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Ah. Thanks.
Out of curiosity, was there ever any dispute between it having to be an eyewitness and a witness? For centuries it would have automatically been an eyewitness, since video evidence didn't actually exist. I'm wondering if there has been a case where someone was indicted with treason and tried to claim that non-eyewitness testimony was unconstitutional.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that it would have had to be an eyewitness for centuries. Witness is not applied solely to people who see a crime as it occurred -- that it is used more and more that way is probably because people are using it as a short form of eyewitness.
The witness stand is not merely for people who see a crime as it occurred.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Except we've got a perfectly credible history of domestic, non-Muslim terrorism here from Americans to Americans, Lisa. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I'm surprised this is leaning towards some Muslim extremist stuff...but you ought to know better than to suggest it was a given. C'mon, even as adamant you are about these topics have to acknowledge domestic terrorism was at least a significant possibility. Right?
Possibility, maybe. Not much of one, though. The fact that the guy was a Muslim was no surprise at all. Had he not been a Muslim, I would have been very surprised.
And how much homegrown terrorism have we had? One right wing looney (McVeigh) and one left wing looney (Unabomber).
How far back do you want to go? What do you think the KKK were/are? Burning a cross on a lawn is an act of terrorism. Lynchings were acts of terrorism. Eco-terrorism out west comes to mind. America is no stranger at all to domestic terrorism, but I think we've been pretty quick to forget how our particular brand of it was created and executed. And I think we tend to brush over the very real acts of terrorism that still occur across the country.
You don't need to go back more than a couple of monts. The most recent terrorist act in this country was a plane flown into an IRS office by a tax protester. Given the current climate in the US, I figured this was at least as likely to be a Tea Party terrorist as Muslim terrorist.
Which only shows how gullible you are. Or, possibly, how effective the mainstream media's smear campaign against the Tea Parties has been.
Joseph Stack was a depressed crazy person. He wasn't a Tea Partier. He wasn't a conservative. I'm not saying he was a liberal, either, I'm just saying he was crazy.
There have been zero instances of Tea Party terrorism. At the major Tea Party in DC earlier this year, there were zero arrests. This myth that the Tea Party is a seething cauldron of violence that could erupt at any moment is absurd.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Joseph Stack was a depressed crazy person. He wasn't a Tea Partier. ... There have been zero instances of Tea Party terrorism. ... This myth that the Tea Party is a seething cauldron of violence that could erupt at any moment is absurd.
And:
The 9/11 terrorists were extremist nutjobs. They were not mainstream Muslims. There have been zero instances of mainstream Islamic terrorism. This myth that Islam is a seething cauldron of violence that could erupt at any moment is absurd.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'm not sure if you're trying to convince me that they're both seething cauldrons of violence or that both are not Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale:
quote:Joseph Stack was a depressed crazy person. He wasn't a Tea Partier. ... There have been zero instances of Tea Party terrorism. ... This myth that the Tea Party is a seething cauldron of violence that could erupt at any moment is absurd.
And:
The 9/11 terrorists were extremist nutjobs. They were not mainstream Muslims. There have been zero instances of mainstream Islamic terrorism. This myth that Islam is a seething cauldron of violence that could erupt at any moment is absurd.
Really? That's where we're taking this? Okay then, I didn't want to post this before because I was afraid people would assume I was trying to liken Stack to a leftist, when in fact I just think he was depressed, angry, and generally crazy. Nevertheless...
Joseph stack railed against Bush & Cheney. He declared that health care is a travesty in America and desperately needs to be fixed. At the end of his manifesto he writes...
quote:Originally posted by Joseph Stack: *The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.*
*The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.*
I'm not saying "Stack was an extremist Tea Partier and you can't lump him in with the Tea Party." I'm saying that anybody who claims he is in any way affiliated with the Tea Party is either woefully ignorant or lying through their teeth.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Additionally, I would argue that Islamic terrorism is mainstream Islam, if you look at it globally. Certainly a large number of organized Islamic clergy seem to endorse it.
But I guess you were being facetious?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I agree with Dan. There has been no evidence that Tea Party supporters have been violent.
In fact, during the rally in DC there were numerous people marched into the rally to try and get some sort of rise out of the crowd. They had cameras following them around. These people came back and said that they were called names and threatened, but no tape has ever surfaced showing anything that these people claimed. One journalist even offered $100,000 for a tape showing unruly Tea Party supporters, and as of yet no one has come forwards.
While the Tea Party supporters are often referred to as a conservative movement, most of the polls I have seen show that there are quite a few democrats and independants involved in the rallies as well.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: You don't need to go back more than a couple of monts. The most recent terrorist act in this country was a plane flown into an IRS office by a tax protester. Given the current climate in the US, I figured this was at least as likely to be a Tea Party terrorist as Muslim terrorist.
Which only shows how gullible you are. Or, possibly, how effective the mainstream media's smear campaign against the Tea Parties has been.
Joseph Stack was a depressed crazy person. He wasn't a Tea Partier. He wasn't a conservative. I'm not saying he was a liberal, either, I'm just saying he was crazy.[/quote]
Dan, could you please try to use language that encourages dialog? Calling someone gullible is only going to cause them to shut down and refuse to consider anything that you say subsequent to that in your post. What use is that?
In any case, I think that you're misreading The Rabbit. She made no claim that the pilot of that plane was a member of the Tea Party, or that he was sane.
quote:There have been zero instances of Tea Party terrorism. At the major Tea Party in DC earlier this year, there were zero arrests. This myth that the Tea Party is a seething cauldron of violence that could erupt at any moment is absurd.
How long has the Tea Party been around?
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Additionally, I would argue that Islamic terrorism is mainstream Islam, if you look at it globally. Certainly a large number of organized Islamic clergy seem to endorse it.
But I guess you were being facetious?
Nope.
quote:Such negative perceptions spiked after 9/11, then revived sharply in the wake of the recent, murderous attack by the soldier at Fort Hood and the Christmas Day attempt to blow up a plane that landed at Detroit's metro airport from a flight originating from Amsterdam. A common view is that these were crimes committed by Muslims using Islamic thinking to justify their actions, Jamal said.
Yet, in reality, the two horrific incidents represented massive intelligence failures that failed to recognize the two perpetrators' sharp disengagement from mainstream Muslim life. For instance, the airplane bomber's father notified authorities of his grave concern over his son's disappearance and radical development, and the soldier from Fort Hood had been visibly active in jihad chat rooms.
Ninety-five percent of Muslim-Americans hold a negative opinion of Al Qaeda, with the remaining 5 percent amounting to "random noise" that is considered statistically insignificant in such polls, according to Jamal.
quote:‘Abdulaziz bin ‘Abdallah Al-Ashaykh, chief mufti of Saudi Arabia: "You must know Islam’s firm position against all these terrible crimes. The world must know that Islam is a religion of peace and mercy and goodness; it is a religion of justice and guidance…Islam has forbidden violence in all its forms. It forbids the hijacking airplanes, ships and other means of transport, and it forbids all acts that undermine the security of the innocent."
quote:57 leaders of North American Islamic organizations, 77 intellectuals, and dozens of concerned citizens: “As American Muslims and scholars of Islam, we wish to restate our conviction that peace and justice constitute the basic principles of the Muslim faith. We wish again to state unequivocally that neither the al-Qaeda organization nor Usama bin Laden represents Islam or reflects Muslim beliefs and practice. Rather, groups like al-Qaeda have misused and abused Islam in order to fit their own radical and indeed anti-Islamic agenda. Usama bin Laden and al-Qaeda's actions are criminal, misguided and counter to the true teachings of Islam.”
quote:President Muhammad Khatami of Iran: “[T]he September 11 terrorist blasts in America can only be the job of a group that have voluntarily severed their own ears and tongues, so that the only language with which they could communicate would be destroying and spreading death.”
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I thought that the dems/independents involved in the tea party were mostly independents when you broke down the numbers. Also, considering how many people have stopped self identifying as republican, a lot of those independents a few years ago were probably republican.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
IIRC, the largest separation shows up in polls when they ask a question like, "Do you consider yourself an independent?" The smallest percentages typically show up in polls that ask something like "Did you vote for Bush or Kerry?" or "Did you vote for Obama or McCain?"
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that it would have had to be an eyewitness for centuries. Witness is not applied solely to people who see a crime as it occurred -- that it is used more and more that way is probably because people are using it as a short form of eyewitness.
The witness stand is not merely for people who see a crime as it occurred.
Well it sort of seems like a silly requirement, or at least, a useless requirement then. I know that the witness stand is used for expert witnesses to give their opinions, among other kinds of witnesses not merely eyewitnesses. But if all you have to do is convince two people that a crime occurred and so and so did it, then throw them up on the stand for the sake of constitutional formality, then what's the point? I always assumed that the requirement of having two witnesses was to increase the burden of proof a bit for so heinous a crime, but now it would appear to be a mere formality.
Also, I assumed that from the wording in the constitution "witness to the act" that they would have needed to see it. A character witness, or a professional on explosives or any other sort of witness who might testify on the case would not be witnesses to the act, unless "witness to the act" is intended to be far, far more general than I'm applying it, but I would think that would mean witness to the case, as opposed to the actual act in question, which is why I assumed such a literal meaning in the first place. Then again what did "witness" mean in this context in the 1780s?
ETA: Nevermind. I just did a little digging on the case history regarding treason and found my own answer.
[ May 05, 2010, 06:56 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Its a bit more strict than that people have been convinced. The witnesses need to have direct evidence of their senses to the fact. For instance, someone who saw certain things after about the act could be considered a witness to the act.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Sorry for the late editing there. I see now that I was probably being hyperliteral, especially for something like the US Constitution. I think that my initial assumption, that the requirement was there to make sure a person couldn't be convicted on scant or circumstantial evidence, was correct. But I was over-analyzing how the two witness requirement might work in practice, given its purpose. Thanks for helping clear that up for me.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Noemon... really? I'm misreading her? That's always a possibility, certainly. If you're right, then I'm relieved. But Rabbit said...
quote:The most recent terrorist act in this country was a plane flown into an IRS office by a tax protester. Given the current climate in the US, I figured this was at least as likely to be a Tea Party terrorist as Muslim terrorist.
The second sentence pretty clearly seems, to me, to be logically continuing from the first. Is my reading of this truly that unreasonable?
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:There have been zero instances of Tea Party terrorism. At the major Tea Party in DC earlier this year, there were zero arrests. This myth that the Tea Party is a seething cauldron of violence that could erupt at any moment is absurd.
How long has the Tea Party been around?
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. If you're saying it's absurd to compare the Tea Party and Islam or Islamic extremism, I agree completely. White Whale made that comparison, and I think it makes no sense.
If you're saying we should just give the Tea Party a bit more time and it'll become violent... well, I guess nobody knows. But most media outlets are reporting on them as if they're already violent crazies who could explode at any moment.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
PS: Rabbit I'm sorry for calling you gullible. I think it's much more likely that you get your news from dishonest sources and, quite reasonably, assume they're more accurate than they really are. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:There have been zero instances of Tea Party terrorism. At the major Tea Party in DC earlier this year, there were zero arrests. This myth that the Tea Party is a seething cauldron of violence that could erupt at any moment is absurd.
How long has the Tea Party been around? [/QB]
Noemon, that's unworthy of you. Your argument is that the Tea Party is violent, even though there has been zero evidence of it, because you are sure someone WILL be? You are willing to think the very worst based on a guess that something that hasn't happened will happen? In the face of zero evidence and stated intentions otherwise, you have based your opinion on future hypothetical?
That's why the constitution includes things like the "two witnesses" bit for treason. People can talk themselves into anything, including condemnation for something that hasn't happened.
It's a convenient way to demonize, but it takes willful enmity to do it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Noemon, that's unworthy of you. Your argument is that the Tea Party is violent...
It is?
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
CNN says RFK bridge has been shut down because of an abandoned U-Haul.
--j_k
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Follow up says it was a false alarm.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Guys, stop not noticing that there is already a page two!! Posted by Week-Dead Possum (Member # 11917) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: That's why the constitution includes things like the "two witnesses" bit for treason. People can talk themselves into anything, including condemnation for something that hasn't happened.
It's a convenient way to demonize, but it takes willful enmity to do it.
You don't think the constitution forbids suspicion, do you? Personally I don't see wilful enmity in the suggestion that Tea Partiers *could* become violent. It's a new fringe movement, and we don't really know yet what it may turn into. It would be wrong to suggest that they *are* violent when they have not been, but pointing out that there is a danger of violence among an angry fringe group with an alarmist conservative agenda is hardly demonizing. Acting on that suspicion of a threat by punishing these people would be wrong. Being suspicious? Acting on that suspicion by exercising caution? Not so much. We're suspicious of lots of people, and we don't punish them for it, or at least we should not punish them- when our caution gets the better of us and we start infringing their rights to speech and assembly and the security of their persons, then we have a problem. That's why suspecting Tea Partiers or extremist Muslims of having violent intentions is not wrong, but wire tapping them without warrants and preventing their assembly is.
Ori at work
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And the Tea Partiers do keep threatening violence.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: Fun Fact:
quote:...Aliou Niasse, a Senagalese Muslim immigrant who works as a photograph vendor on Times Square, was the first to bring the smoking car to the police’s attention...
COINCIdENCE??!?!?/11
Not at all. The guy deserves a medal. Not all Muslims are terrorists. Or terror supporters. But it's extremely common among Muslims to at least support such things. And when something like this happens, it's good odds that it was Islamically motivated.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: And the Tea Partiers do keep threatening violence.
Can you give us a source please? The only "threats" I've seen are ones that people say have been made but can never be substantiated by proof. Please show me a source that does not consist of a news outlet with someone on that just claims to have heard these threats. I want video of a tea partier threatening someone.
To go one step further, If one tea partier does something violent, is it the tea party as a whole or one person that is responsible?
If one muslim commits a horrific act, does it mean that all muslims are violent?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Making a point of the fact that one has a gun, is a threat of violence.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: [QB]But it's extremely common among Muslims to at least support such things.
I have seen no evidence for this. Can you provide any?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Your post wasn't very clear, are you saying that if you have a gun on you, that you are threatening violence?
Goodness, we have open carry here in Las Vegas. I see people with holstered weapons all the time in the grocery store, cofee shops, and malls. Are these people threatening me by having this gun, or are they law abiding citizens?
If I misunderstood you I apologize, your post was just unclear to me.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I didn't write "having a gun"; I wrote "Making a point of the fact that one has a gun".
Signs like, "We vote with bullets",or "If Brown can't stop it a Browning can", are threats of violence.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It takes a particular kind of tendentious enmity to assume the worst of people in the face of contrary evidence. An unpleasant, nasty kind.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Are you talking about Tea-Baggers or Muslims?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Nice slur, there. You are revealing your prejudices.
----
I believe that innocent until proven guilty applies to everyone. Even people who part of a movement attractive enough to topple your favorite political candidates.
I think that's the source of the slurs - fear. Fear of the genuine power of large numbers of people voting as a bloc, driven by ideals which your favorite candidates do not serve.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:From Geraine: Goodness, we have open carry here in Las Vegas. I see people with holstered weapons all the time in the grocery store, cofee shops, and malls. Are these people threatening me by having this gun, or are they law abiding citizens?
We have open carry in most places in Michigan too, yet in all my life the only guns I've seen up close are hunting rifles, and one time, my uncle's hand gun when my cousin was playing with it. I never felt threatened by those (well, my cousin spooked me a little) because I knew the people who owned them, and it wasn't randomly in public. But most people around here would be pretty leery about seeing someone with a gun in a grocery store, and probably would find it somewhat threatening. I'd be willing to bet that legal gun ownership in Michigan is higher than in Nevada, per capita, as well, so it's not like we're unfamiliar with guns, just with openly displaying them like that.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Oh, no insult intended. I've really been paying very little attention to the whole Tea Party thing. Is Tea Partiers the preferred term?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I think that's the source of the slurs - fear. Fear of the genuine power of large numbers of people voting as a bloc, driven by ideals which your favorite candidates do not serve.
Surely at least some of it is motivated by signs threatening violence.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Nice slur, there.
Not necessarily.
quote:Feb. 27, 2009: At the first anti-stimulus "New American Tea Party" rally in Washington D.C., a protestor carries a sign reading "Tea Bag the Liberal Dems before they Tea Bag You!!" The Washington Independent's David Weigel calls it "the best sign I saw."
quote:April 1: Several Tea Party protest sites encourage readers to "Tea bag the fools in DC." Jay Nordlinger at National Review Online later admits: "Conservatives started [using the term]... but others ran and ran with it."
quote:September 10: Badges with the message "Proud to be a Tea Bagger" are still on sale at Tea Party events, according to an article written later in the year.
quote:April 14, 2010: Prominent conservative Andrew Breitbart posts a video on the site Big Government in an attempt to reclaim the term. "I'm Proud to be a Tea Bagger" currently has over 90,000 views.
If they were only threatening to vote, I would not have accused them of threatening violence. They are threatening to use guns. How is that not threatening violence?
"I want X", is worlds different than, "I want X and I have a gun."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I believe that innocent until proven guilty applies to everyone. Even people who part of a movement attractive enough to topple your favorite political candidates.
I think that's the source of the slurs - fear.
The tea party is really a "movement attractive enough to split the vote of my least favorite political candidates" and a fearful, emotionally-driven movement that is continuing the gradual reduction of conservative electability by punishing moderacy in the G.O.P.
It's a comforting implication of motive for you to use, but I don't think nearly anyone here actively fears the tea party.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
I sure don't, for the same reasons I don't fear the possibility of Sarah Palin ever actually running a part of this country ever again.
Posted by Mucous (Member # 12331) on :
Motive works even less well for us Canadians.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Again, because a few people have signs that say these things, the entire movement is full of a bunch of potential terrorists?
Goodness, we see signs like this in every rally from every type of protest. Two weeks ago someone smeared a swastika made of refried beans on the door of a government building in Arizona. Should we assume now that all illegal immigrants are vandal?
I have not seen the signs that say "We vote with bullets" but if you can provide pictures, please post a link. I'd be interested in seeing them.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:There have been zero instances of Tea Party terrorism. At the major Tea Party in DC earlier this year, there were zero arrests. This myth that the Tea Party is a seething cauldron of violence that could erupt at any moment is absurd.
How long has the Tea Party been around?
Noemon, that's unworthy of you. Your argument is that the Tea Party is violent, even though there has been zero evidence of it, because you are sure someone WILL be? You are willing to think the very worst based on a guess that something that hasn't happened will happen? In the face of zero evidence and stated intentions otherwise, you have based your opinion on future hypothetical? [/QB]
No, that's not my argument. I'm kind of puzzled as to why you thought that it was, but I'm also okay with letting it go if you don't feel like going into it. I've reread your post a couple of times, trying to figure out if you were making a point that wasn't on the surface--a critique of my style of argument or something--but I'm not seeing anything like that in there.
My argument was that the Tea Party is in its infancy, and that there are currently a number of different directions in which members and sympathizers could take it. Violence is one of those directions. I don't think that it's certain that it will go that way, but I definitely think that it could. I think this because of the Tea Party sympathizers I personally know. A few of them are fairly sober conservatives, but many the others, while not prepared to pick up a gun themselves, are actively praying for the death of a number of our elected leaders, and would be happy if someone were to kill those leaders. This isn't a scientific sampling, of course--the Tea Party sympathizers I personally know may not be representative of the group as a whole. It's enough, though, to make me think that violence is a direction that the movement may gravitate toward as it matures.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Again, because a few people have signs that say these things, the entire movement is full of a bunch of potential terrorists?
Well, no. But the fact that the movement accepts signs like this is bothersome. It's not one guy holding up a "Obama = Hitler" sign, it's that same guy in a large crowd that accepts his contribution to their rally.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:From Geraine: Goodness, we see signs like this in every rally from every type of protest. Two weeks ago someone smeared a swastika made of refried beans on the door of a government building in Arizona. Should we assume now that all illegal immigrants are vandal?
Emphasis mine. Why would the assumption be that an illegal immigrant, and not a legal one did this?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Or an immigrant at all for that matter.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not advocating the immediate use of force against the government. It isn’t time, and hopefully that time will never come. But one thing is certain: “Now is the time to rattle your sabers.” If not now, then when?
When the government ignores the First Amendment, it is time to rattle the Second Amendment sabers. It’s all about accountability. So long as our elected officials believe we will rise up and overthrow them under certain conditions, then they will not allow those conditions to occur. Their jobs and their very lives depend on it.
I understand that sounds harsh, but these are harsh times. Now is the time to rattle the saber. Now is the time to answer the very personal, very serious, very intimate question: “When do I remove the saber from its scabbard?”
I hear the clank of metal on metal getting closer, but that’s not enough. The politicians have to hear it too. They have to hear it, and they have to believe it.
Come and support me at the Second Amendment March on April 19th on the Washington Monument grounds. Let’s rattle some sabers and show the government we’re still here. We are here, and we are not silent!
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:From Geraine: Goodness, we see signs like this in every rally from every type of protest. Two weeks ago someone smeared a swastika made of refried beans on the door of a government building in Arizona. Should we assume now that all illegal immigrants are vandal?
Emphasis mine. Why would the assumption be that an illegal immigrant, and not a legal one did this?
Why would you be under the assumption that a tea party support was holding the sign that says "We vote with bullets" and not someone from crashtheteaparty.org ?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Why would you be under the assumption that a tea party support was holding the sign that says "We vote with bullets" and not someone from crashtheteaparty.org ?
That actually doesn't really matter. If the Tea Party participants accept that sign as a valid contribution to their rally, then it becomes a message of the rally, regardless of the identity of the author.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I disagree with you on that point Matt. There are nuts on every spectrum of the political landscape, but the actions or opinions of a few do not represent the actions or opinions of the majority. The tea party isn't a group of people from one party. There are democrats, republicans, and members from other parties there. There is no policing unit that tests you to see if you pass the bar to be able to participate in a rally or protest. If it were a republican or democratic event, then I would be a little more understanding of your position. In this case I have to disagree. For all we know someone could have asked the guy to take the sign down, and he could have refused. What other recourse would they have?
I went to a tea party rally last year here in Vegas, and I saw none of those signs. I mostly went to take a look, and I didn't see a huge right wing fringe group like the media portrays. There were Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and even Greens there, and many of them spoke. Candidates had booths set up meeting people, and there was not an atmosphere of hate and violence like the media is portraying.
Listen, let's assume I am a journalist and I am at a tea party rally for coverage. I see one guy with an inflammatory sign. I know that if I make a big deal over this sign and show it on national television, it could help out my career because it will bring in ratings. What do you think I am going to do?
Again, the opinions of a few do not represent the opinions of the majority.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I disagree with you on that point Matt. There are nuts on every spectrum of the political landscape, but the actions or opinions of a few do not represent the actions or opinions of the majority.
Well, the opinions of the majority also tend to be pretty discouragingly wacky.
what percentage of them still think Obama is a Muslim? That he wasn't born in the U.S.?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Sam,
Probably quite a few. On the flip side, how many believe Bush planned 9-11? How many think Republicans did not have an alternative health care plan?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Wow, really, really bad comparisons. Well, maybe not the Republican thing, but certainly the Bush/9-11 thing. Didn't a recent poll show that something like a third or half of the nation think he's a secret Muslim, and that he might not be an American citizen? You aren't going to find more than a tiny fraction who think that Bush planned 9-11.
And I wouldn't call what the GOP had a plan, so much as a set of ideas. Individual GOPers had a couple plans, but the GOP leadership pushed a dozen page leaflet with ideas and hopes in it, rather than a comprehensive bill. They spent most of their time demonizing, not promoting.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: [QB]But it's extremely common among Muslims to at least support such things.
I have seen no evidence for this. Can you provide any?
Read up on the biographies of some of the men quoted in that link you provided. The ones you touted as proof that Muslim clergy don't support terrorism.
The second quoted individual condones terrorist attacks against Israel.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Do you even follow your own links? Man. Very first article that brings up tries to lump the 9/11 truthers, a thoroughly leftist group of loons, with the Tea Party. It's true they sometimes show up at Tea Parties... so do LaRouchers (LaRouchers are typically the ones sporting Obama-as-Hitler signs, by the way). This doesn't mean either group are actually Tea Partiers. They show up to pretty much any protest that happens in their area. Those types of kooks live for protests.
Also, I have yet to locate an actual photo of that sign. There certainly aren't any evident with a quick google search, the way you implied. I'm willing to believe someone, somewhere, had a sign that said that, but barring any evidence I doubt it's a widespread sentiment.
Also, with regard to certain fringe elements, Tea Partiers do often try to identify them with "infiltrator" or "not a Tea Partier" signs. The only Obama-as-Hitler signs I've ever personally seen at a Tea Party were flagged that way.
Whereas the countless Bush-as-Hitler signs I've seen at leftist protests were always embraced by the protesters and even by the media.
[ May 07, 2010, 02:15 AM: Message edited by: Dan_Frank ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Dan, what about the picture and the article I linked?
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
I'll admit. I know very little about Islam and the Middle East. I read what I can, but you can spend a lifetime studying and still not understand it.
But from what I see, time and time again, is that most Muslims do not support terrorism.
I've been trying to provide links for what I find. Does anyone have a source that shows that a majority of Muslims support terrorism?
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: How many think Republicans did not have an alternative health care plan?
Very few. Most recognized that they had presented an alternative model, but not very coherently, it was not an organized response. And it was not a very good plan.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Besides tort reform and allowing insurance companies to cross state lines (thus avoiding regulation) what was in the Republican plan?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Lyrhawn, the health care plan I read (and is still available for those who care to look) was more than just a set of ideas over a couple of dozen pages. It was 219 pages to be exact. A simple google search would have shown you this.
Its not hard to find. Its on the GOP website if you care to look.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Besides tort reform and allowing insurance companies to cross state lines (thus avoiding regulation) what was in the Republican plan?
Not much. wasn't even given much of a recommendation by comptrollers or the CBO. Tort reform is pretty wedge-issuey at this point anyway, considering that it gives nearly no end benefit to the healthcare situation or patients.
Avoiding regulation was also a terrible idea. Make health care reform the next usury.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Besides tort reform and allowing insurance companies to cross state lines (thus avoiding regulation) what was in the Republican plan?
Not much. wasn't even given much of a recommendation by comptrollers or the CBO. Tort reform is pretty wedge-issuey at this point anyway, considering that it gives nearly no end benefit to the healthcare situation or patients.
Avoiding regulation was also a terrible idea. Make health care reform the next usury.
You forgot, "scrap, shelve, pitch, toss, ditch, forsake, abandon, shutter, scupper, reset the bill, start over, rinse, repeat.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Nice slur, there. You are revealing your prejudices.
I think that's the source of the slurs - fear. Fear of the genuine power of large numbers of people voting as a bloc, driven by ideals which your favorite candidates do not serve.
You said that twice. And as long as *your* making assumptions about other people's prejudices, I'm going to venture that you are pushing that language because you want to belittle the American liberal movement in a way that has been popular of late among conservatives, by construing political or ideological alignment with a cult of personality centered on "celebrity" candidates. It'd be a neat trick, but you've never been anywhere near as subtle as you think you are. Would you like me to start referring to Tea Partiers in the same way, say, referring to "the candidates they hate?" See, it doesn't feel very nice to have your politics demeaned that way.
I mean, I do it all the time, so it's not like I can cry foul over it- at least I'm aware of how I sound. You crying foul over this stuff though, it's a laugh.
quote: tendentious enmity
I struggled with the meaning of this a bit before I figured out that you don't know what "tendentious" means, or at least how to use it. The word collocates most with words related to expression, such as "tendentious speech," or "history," "art," "book," etc. It does not collocate with nouns related to feeling such as "hate," "love" "enmity," etc. A quick phrase match search in google scholar and google books brings zero results matching these from tens of millions of pages of source material... meaning your construction is at least... unique. I wonder if the problem might have been that you thought "enmity" was used to describe a type of expressive behavior? Like, "She silenced them with her blazing enmity?" If so, no, enmity isn't commonly used that way either.
In conclusion, either look up words before you use them, or don't use words you found in a dictionary unless you've read a few examples first. You don't help your case trying to sound cleverer than you are.
[ May 07, 2010, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Lyrhawn, the health care plan I read (and is still available for those who care to look) was more than just a set of ideas over a couple of dozen pages. It was 219 pages to be exact. A simple google search would have shown you this.
Geraine, something to keep in mind about the legislative process is that this 219 pages would, almost unavoidably, spool out to the same length as the bill that was passed given a similar legislative process and environment. Republicans don't point out that their adding of amendments to the different bills padded its length, or that their fierce opposition to reform was manifested in a great deal of nitpicking, which led to finer and finer language and more and more exceptions to exceptions in order to satisfy as well as stave off criticism. There is also the fact that the particular reform bill in question was big. It needed to be big because it was and continues to be a complex plan. Complex doesn't equal bad- I know that's a big conservative pundit bugbear, and I don't personally see why. The health care industry is immensely complex, and to deal with it simply and broadly is, I think, naive. Especially considering the amount of time and money spent by that same industry making sure that legislation can be and is rendered ineffectual.
The Republic bill proposes some disastrously bad policies which would be fought against by a progressive administration and the progressive cohorts of house and senate. It would also not pass under a Democratic president, which is why, Geraine, it was not brought to the floor. If the progressive health care bill seemed doomed by staunch opposition, this bill died in-vitro. In fact it is not a real bill, with any real kind of legislative purpose. It's a prop that was thrown together by GOP leadership because they were being criticized for "obstructing without constructing." The fact that it is beyond fantasy that any of the key proposals unique to that bill would pass is mostly immaterial to the PR campaign- hey, they got you to believe it meant something, so clearly it worked.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Besides tort reform and allowing insurance companies to cross state lines (thus avoiding regulation) what was in the Republican plan?
Not much. wasn't even given much of a recommendation by comptrollers or the CBO. Tort reform is pretty wedge-issuey at this point anyway, considering that it gives nearly no end benefit to the healthcare situation or patients.
Avoiding regulation was also a terrible idea. Make health care reform the next usury.
You forgot, "scrap, shelve, pitch, toss, ditch, forsake, abandon, shutter, scupper, reset the bill, start over, rinse, repeat.
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)