What is Digg?184 Comments
- dukeeeey, on 10/12/2007, -33/+224when america commits terrorism, it's called spreading freedom and democracy !
- quakerorts, on 10/12/2007, -24/+123If they're not Muslim then it doesn't fit in with the official storyline, therefore, it's not important.
- lieutenantmudd, on 10/12/2007, -25/+93@ChickenBot
Good and bad are completely subjective terms and should never be used to define something or someone. - painted82, on 10/12/2007, -28/+73@ChickenBot
US government has killed more innocent civilians than any other entity in the history of mankind.
The term terrorism is only used when it is involved with the globalist agenda of taking away our civil rights and liberties and bringing more countries under the direct influence of the international banking elite. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+46For those of us outside America, the first experience of terrorism came well before Al Qaeda and Islamic terrorists - especially with domestic terrorism. Think ETA or the IRA (who the US public largely funded through support of Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein). I know the world has changed in the last 6 years, but it is only in the US where the view is so polarised and narrow.
- sweetescapamos, on 10/12/2007, -4/+32Not only does it not fit in with their agenda it is another example of how prejudice and the desire to appear pure has permeated this country. I do not remember racial profilingoccurring after Timothy McVeigh and his cohorts bombed federal building and killed men, women and children.
God bless America to be fair, just, and to take the rafters out of its own eyes. - Stevethegreat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+27@pjpark: Wrong terrorism has nothing to do with the weird definition of yours. An act of terrorism is an act which purpose is to instill terror to certain groups of people or to the general public. Planting a bomb in a nursing home fills all those criteria, also taking down two towers by striking them with airplanes does too, demolishing a building in Oklahoma even planting bombs to anything you think promotes technology is an act of terrorism. People who commit acts of terrorism are being defined as terrorists so Unabomber was a terrorist, among the bunch of others who committed the other acts I wrote about. Terrorism knows no boarders co calling it domestic or otherwise doesn't make it a difference...
- Yez70, on 10/12/2007, -3/+29"an act which purpose is to instill terror to certain groups of people or to the general public"
You mean like when Bush or Cheney says the terrorists will win or come here if we vote for a democrat or leave Iraq? Isn't most politics about scaring people, instilling fear in the general public? Vote for me or die kinda stuff?
Should we bomb the politicians? They scare me more than any Muslims I know. - gmarks, on 10/12/2007, -11/+36I live in the US, I see so much racism from all these people about Muslims and Iraqis. It is so stupid. I hate racists.
- gardnert1, on 10/12/2007, -25/+48How about we classify them as a militia? It IS legal under the constitution to be in a militia within the US. In fact, the purpose of the 2nd Ammendment is to allow citizens to stay armed in the even the government needs to be overthrown. If the government has a monopoly on firepower in this country, then they cant do whatever they want. You think they are going to provide oversight on themselves forever?
- atticus8, on 10/12/2007, -7/+28@Chickenbot
Deconstructing (and destroying) your comment in three parts:
1) "We kill bad guys" : This iron clad reasoning is EXACTLY the kind that Osama uses. It's just so convincing and persuasive! You are actually putting the cart in front of the horse. It more like "whoever we kill become bad later, because hey, we killed them didn't we?"
2) "terrorists kill innocent civilians" : What do you think happens when the US bombs a population-dense Baghdad from 30,000 feet? If you think so smart bombs are so smart, may I recommend "Why We Fight", which goes into some detail about the first bombings and their highly predictable results (hint: lots of non-military kids and elderly in pieces)
3) "and [terrorists kill] their own kind." : I could go a lot of ways with this, but I'll just say two words: Pat Tillman - ricree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20Seriously, terrorism isn't a matter of guns or bombs, it is a question of intent and tactics. There certainly have been domestic terrorists. For example, abortion clinic bombers fit the bill, as well as people like the Unabomber and a number of evnironmentalist terrorists. However, just being heavily armed is not terrorism in and of itself.
- toddcat, on 10/12/2007, -9/+27These guys scare me a lot more than any supposed Muslim terrorists, espeically since, oh, we haven't found ANYONE since 9/11/01 and I've met plenty of crazy-ass white government haters in the US since then. (Not that all government haters are white but.....)
- atticus8, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21@painted82
I'm sympathetic to your aim (as you might prove by looking at my comments), but we can make our point and still stick to real facts. We have killed many innocent civilians through military operations throughout history - I say as much about Iraq in my post in this thread earlier - but we are not the record holders. Just in the 20th century, USSR under Stalin, a paranoid psychopath who had all the doctors in his country ordered exterminated from his deathbed because he thought there was a conspiracy against him from them, had around 20 million killed, far more than one can convincingly argue have died under the United States and its actions. Further, the "Great Flowering", a total disaster in Red China under Mao, killed (primarily through completely avoidable famine and mismanagement of vital resources) around 25-40 million (the exact number is not known). The Holocaust killed around 6 million Jews, and those were innocents. The US cannot yet claim a higher number than these dubious "achievements". I might be dug down for not saying the United States has been the WORST EVER IN HISTORY, but I will still to the facts, stick to saying that America has a LOT of innocent blood on its hands but not the most, and to hell with the popularity contest. - masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -10/+27Militias are categorized as "violent and anti-government"?
It's actually quite the opposite; militias are directly authorized by the Bill of Rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Furthermore, this article *shouldn't* have anything to do with terrorism OR muslims -- it's a story about a militia that had a large stockpile of illegal weapons. Militias aren't terrorist organizations (they CAN be, but largely aren't), and the original article has NOTHING to do with muslims. This is just partisan blabber - fantasticFlan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15No, they were freedom fighters when they were fighting the Soviets.
- Rekzai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Scientologists are terrorizing your country
- magicRob, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16And those bombings (Oklahoma City) were initially reported to have been done by Islamic Terrorists...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+19well, this is not completely true... 2 of the top terrorist organizations in the USA are Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front.
- magicRob, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Damn it, edit box closed... Anyway here's some information about that mis-reporting...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing#Media_coverage - schnuck, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13muyoso "Haven't found anyone since 9/11?? What are you talking about? Do you seriously not watch the news at all?"
do you seriously never use your brain at all? show me some of those found terrorists. they are all at gitmo, right? how many of those poor chaps are really guilty? yes, fox is presenting them to half-brains as you as terrorists but i daresay none of them are proven guilty.
p.s. if there is anything like the ***** made up "axis of evil" - the only nation on there should be the bush's USA. - loganhid, on 10/12/2007, -8/+18SO TRUE
Its like when a Muslim is fighting for for his/her right, then he or she is labelled as a Terrorist but when someone else does it their known as Freedom fighters - gardnert1, on 10/12/2007, -16/+25ooooo... we dont LIKE the defence of weapon-ownership HERE! Ok, fine. But you cant call them terrorists if they ARENT terrorizing anyone.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Anyone else find it utterly ***** pointless that we have a Bureau for *ALCOHOL* *TOBACCO* and Firearms?
Alcohol and Tobacco? WTF? Why not Cough Syrup and Nasal Sprays? - heavensblade23, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Call me crazy, but I think they should probably have to commit some violent crimes, maybe make some demands or something before we label them terrorists. Simply stockpiling weapons doesn't make you a terrorist, domestic or otherwise.
- newstart, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14As humans we try to find answers to terrorist acts, and other incidents. We try to answer the Billion Dollar questions:
"Why did it happen?" "Why did he/she do it?"
In our search for answers, the easy way out is to try to associate a person's origin, religion, even appearance to the attack. Our brains foolishly wants us to associate a particular community with that attack.
For example:
We start hating muslims because the attacker was a muslim (in case of 9/11)
We start hating Koreans because the attacker was a korean (in case of recent VT shootings)
We think have found the answers to our questions by hating a particular community but as it turns out, WE ARE WRONG.
Sometimes Governments and politicians play with these feelings to get their dirty work done. We know who they are! ITS TIME TO WAKE UP AND STOP MAKING THE SAME MISTAKES! - SouthsideIrish, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9So, if you paranoid, and fear the government, and have weapons you are a terrorist. I guess all Libetarians are terrorists.
Militia's used to exist, prior to the civil war, but the Supreme Court has ruled that the state militia is the National Guard, so the ATF decided that anyone that stockpiles this many weapons must be a terrorist. - localzuk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Wow, what a bigoted and ill informed rant. Maybe you should do some reading and find out what Islam actually teaches. Those muslims who kill are not true muslims, they are simply murderers. A christian who kills is a murderer. A person who thinks they are a follower of a faith who kills is simply a murderer.
Why bring religion into it at all? It is irrelevant.
(BTW. I am an atheist, but I respect other people's beliefs) - atticus8, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@muyoso
I don't know how or why his comment was supposed to "explain" the Iranian hostage takers. That wasn't even being discussed, and what he said does not at all negate (or even concern) the Iranian hostage takings, which everyone agrees happened. You didn't even point out the truest and most valid claim he made, which was that people on this site are not anti-american, whatever they might seem to you. They are, as he said, anti-Bush and anti-ignorance. My economics are quite conservative, for instance, and I hate Bush on those conservative grounds. Bush is not a terrible force against the liberals in this country. He is a terrible force for all of America, (TRUE) conservatives and progressives alike. I go to a rather conservative school and all the smartest Republican I know are hugely disappointed in Bush, and why wouldn't they? They believe in facts, not spin, and the spin is not there.
Second, I don't think the most influential terrorist act in history was 9/11. I'd have to go with the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand (he was killed with guns and bombs by a group called "The Black Hand" in an attempt to cause Slavic unification and general destablization and terror) that sparked WWI. Not only did it cause all the eventual deaths of WWI, but the conditions of Germany's surrender created the atmosphere that allowed Hitler to come to power. Avoiding this would have avoided all of WWII. Further, the events of WWI and WWII restructured the entire Middle East through partitioning, government manipulation, and the creation of Israel, which have all hugely affected the area and are the principle concerns of all these modern terrorism. - nepawoods, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8""We classify these groups as violent and anti-government"
And what violent act did they commit? Gee ... none cited. Well, maybe they *might* be violent, if they had to defend themselves.
Sorry, being prepared to defend one's liberty does not make one a terrorist. - atticus8, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12@ rlh1
What it took me 250 words to say you did it in 2. Maybe I'm just wordy...... - baldick, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12I'm waiting for the very balanced, educated and bright comment from AdmiralAdama telling us how, in fact, it *is terrorism only if the perpetrators ARE Muslim. Every time I read one of his comments I visualize LGF members orgasming at every thought he expresses.
- mlfoley, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Wow, exercising your second amendment rights is a crime now? Very nice.
The ATF is nothing but thugs. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Thank you, Captain Obvious.
- schnuck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7people like you will never understand the basic principles of cause and effect. people like you will always vote GOP.
so lately, 90% of all terrorists are Muslims? dude, you only see a Saddam gassing 1500 (or possibly more) Kurds to death with chemicals sold to him by no one else than the US. the US then invades Iraq under false premises and causes the death of hundreds of thousands of deaths. what do people like you conclude: Muslims who defend themselves against pure evil (by means of suicide bombings) are the only terrorists. the expression Islamic terrorism didn't exist before bush's political advisers made it up. it is called: PR. - rune420, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Am I the only one who thought working at the "federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives operations in portions of the South" sounds like one hell of a party?
- Rickler, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9"Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism
Is running a militia instant terrorism? even if they haven't committed violence or harmful acts? I think people need to go read the 2nd amendment because it doesn't only say the right to bear arms. The ATF is committing treason disregarding the constitution like this. - SultanTravi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Not true. The DC sniper wasn't labeled terrorism. Lots of things that are, in fact, terrorism are not labeled as such because the government wants to say "we haven't experienced terrorism since 9/11!"
It's only "terrorism" when we stop it first. - marshallr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8So they were arrested for practicing the second amendment? That's pretty bad. If they committed an actual crime and the media only focused on the weapons, then it would make more sense, but just due to stockpiling weapons?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html - localzuk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Err... Can you provide sources for the 'hundreds of attacks' by muslims on the USA? They haven't been reported very will it seems...
I think you will find that the USA has suffered more attacks from Pro-life terrorists and christian fundamentalists than muslims in the last 30 years. And the UK has suffered more attacks than the USA, as has Spain due to ETA.
Your claim that it is down to muslims simply makes you look ignorant and bigoted. Can you back up your claims?
Also, whilst the attacks on 9/11 were the largest that have occurred, that doesn't mean as much as a sustained terrorist campaign in my mind. Having an entire country in fear of attack for 50 years with continual attacks (such as N.I and the UK) is much worse IMO. Ok, we are living in a situation similar to that now with islamic fundamentalists and their supposed world wide campaign against the USA and the coalition but I don't think it is actually as bad - due to the fact that much of it seems to be hot air.
You may want to look through http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm - trevorml0878, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6If all the guns are legal then the government can go screw itself. These people aren't doing anything wrong. It's unamerican to go around and claim other people are "paranoid" and therefore can't own guns or train as a militia. They are looking for any reason to claim that there are domestic terrorists, that way they can come down hard with REALID and lots of other government control tactics. They want check points all over the nation where they can "check your papers". This is just the social conditioning in action to trick us into letting them do it. BS!!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5As one would expect, Crooks & Liars attempted to deceive the public. Terrorists are those who target civilians. Muslims routinely target civilians. The Alabama Free Militia did not. Most terrorists are Muslim. End of story.
- gpd209, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I'm no fan of these stupid milita groups, but Crooks & Liars is undermining its bigger point by using this group as an example of domestic terrorists. Armaments do not a terrorist make. Plans to terrorize do.
I usually enjoy the links people submit to Crooks & Liars, but I'm marking this one INACCURATE. Find a real example, and let's have a real discussion about this important issue. - AhmedF, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@muyoso: wow. You are unbelievable.
1. You cite a site that hates Muslim. So there goes 90% of your credibility
2. The site cites *any* violence as begotten from religion. With that same logic, a murder in Chicago by a 'Christian' is the same thing. If you want to use such a counting system - I hate to tell you, but you are going to be disappointed with Christianity :( - loganhid, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8i wish i could digg this article a thousand times
- atticus8, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6You have no idea what "subjective" means. Subjective means it changes in the eyes of the beholder. You damn well know the terrorists think America is evil ("great satan", etc. etc.), you obviously think they were evil. That means its changing in different people's eyes. That's called subjective. As you say "go buy a clue"
And recent "liberal decay" or whatever the hell you think you are talking about is the cause of drive-by shootings? Before I start to uncontrollably giggle, remind me what liberal decay prompted the Crusades? War of the Roses? The annihilation of the Indians? our Civil War? The Holocaust? Jesus, as least give me a more credible reason for all the United States' violence. You know, like video games. - jabroni9900, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8In the words of the great Noam Chomsky:
"Terrorism is the bastardised child of American foreign policy and American corporate greed..." - localzuk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4No, you are bigoted, racist and ignorant. Your outburst shows that to anyone who is rational. Religions generally teach peace. Ok, some facets of Islam are outdated and, in my view, wrong but you can not label an entire religion (with an estimated 1.4 billion adherents - which is about a fifth of the world's population) as being terrorists. That would be as bad as saying that all crime in the world is due to women or black people. It is simply ignorant and actually plain stupid.
The only way to solve problems is to understand them - simply saying 'your values and ideals are wrong, and you are all terrorists' isn't going to help - instead it will simply alienate people further.
I am starting to see that there are an awful lot of people on this site who seem to lack any sort of common sense, sense of morals, or ability to actually try and understand issues without reacting in a 'grab the pitchforks' manner... - localzuk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I don't know where you get the idea that they support their extremists. I am pretty sure that every terrorist attack committed by supposed Muslim's in the UK is denounced by our Muslim councils and their leaders. I'm pretty sure that various islamic countries came out and denounced the 9/11 attacks. Your wide and sweeping statement is simply wrong and is labelling 1.4 billion people as supporters of terrorism, which is a form of prejudice based on the bevahiour of the actions of a minority.
- schnuck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5how many people have been killed in Iraq before bush invaded and how many died since bush's liberation? how much more was a "normal" life possible before bush invoked a civil war? how many more do need to die just so bush's political agenda pays off?
you call self defense terrorism? how do you call causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands Iraqis by bush? democracy & freedom?
go, ***** yourself dude. -
Show 51 - 100 of 178 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is