Personally I think damage from any extremist is a concern...


BOSTON (AP) — When it comes to fears about a terrorist attack, people in the U.S. usually focus on Osama bin Laden and foreign-based radical groups. Yet researchers [INDENT]say domestic extremists who commit violence in the name of their cause — abortion or the environment, for example — account for most of the damage from such incidents in this country.

Read the entire article here (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jX_q2P_bRYU8rHN78LPIqFAnY8MQD8US8KVG1).

The 68 domestic terrorist incidents in the researcher's database (http://www.tkb.org/Category.jsp?catID=9345&contentType=0&sortBy=3&sortOrder=1&pageIndex=0) since 9/11 break down like this:


36 by Earth Liberation Front
5 by Animal Liberation Front
1 by Revolutionary Cells Animal Liberation Brigade
26 by Unknown or other group

Of the 26 "unknowns":


8 Blamed on or suspected by unknown eco-terrorists, ALF or ELF
9 Anthrax letters
3 Ricin incidents
2 Against the Cuban- American National Foundation headquarters
1 Unclear

Plus these 3:


Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, an Egyptian-born man, opened fired at the El Al Israeli Airlines ticket counter at the Los Angeles Airport (LAX), killing two people and wounding three others.

One woman was killed and five other injured when Naveed Afzal Haq, a Muslim-American man, opened fire on the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle building in downtown Seattle.

Two "unsophisticated" grenades exploded outside a building that houses the British consulate in New York City.

What was the point of this exercise, and especially this article? The first example the writer mentions is "abortion" terrorism, then mentions "white-supremacist" groups 3 times, "right-wing extremists" twice and "left-wing activists" once. Apparently white-supremacists are a big concern to the author and right-wing terrorists are "extremists" while left-wing terrorists are merely "activists." Sounds noble doesn't it?

It seems to me our biggest domestic terrorism concern is hands down from eco-terrorists/animal rights wackos. Oh, and not one incident of anti-abortion terrorism is listed for the past 6 1/2 years. I also didn't find anything attributed to "white-supremacists." Seems like "left-wing activists" almost have a monopoly on domestic terrorism in the US these days, so why the fear-mongering about "right-wing extremists" by this al-AP reporter?

Comments?

Perhaps we can file under, "One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist."

Or the extremists who continue to get access to machine guns and continue to slaugther dozens if not 100's of your innocent students whilst they sit in class at University. Why isn't somehting done about these extremists and their 'weapons of mass destruction'?

Or the extremists who continue to get access to machine guns and continue to slaugther dozens if not 100's of your innocent students whilst they sit in class at University. Why isnt somehting done about these extremists and thier 'weapons of mass destruction'?

Sad as that is it has nothing to do with my post, Skell. What I want to know is why is the Associated Press is portraying domestic terrorism to be the territory of "white-supremacists," "right-wing extremists" and abortion bombers when the evidence they cite shows not only none of the above, but that it can be primarily attributed to "left-wing extremists?" Laziness? Bias? Dishonesty? What?

Sad as that is it has nothing to do with my post, Skell. What I want to know is why is the Associated Press is portraying domestic terrorism to be the territory of "white-supremacists," "right-wing extremists" and abortion bombers when the evidence they cite shows not only none of the above, but that it can be primarily attributed to "left-wing extremists?" Laziness? Bias? Dishonesty? What?

Sorry ! I know!

I would suggest a little bit of each of the above, with also a splash of truth.

Sorry ! I know!

I would suggest a little bit of each of the above, with also a splash of truth.

Maybe some day they can try for more than a splash? ;)

I kind of agree with Skell in that there are bigger fish to fry so to speak:
CDC - Men's Health - Leading Causes of Death in Males (http://www.cdc.gov/men/lcod.htm)

Leading Causes of Death in Males
United States, 2004
1) Heart disease 27.2
2) Cancer 24.3
3) Unintentional injuries 6.1
4) Stroke 5.0
5) Chronic lower respiratory diseases 5.0
6) Diabetes 3.0
7) Influenza and pneumonia 2.3
8) Suicide 2.2
9) Kidney disease 1.7
10) Alzheimer's disease 1.6

I kind of agree with Skell in that there are bigger fish to fry so to speak:
CDC - Men's Health - Leading Causes of Death in Males (http://www.cdc.gov/men/lcod.htm)

NK, I can certainly agree there are bigger fish to fry in the US than domestic terrorism from "white-supremacists," "right-wing extremists" and abortion bombers. The evidence they cite says so.

One example, a left-wing extremist - the abortionist - is licensed and beyond the law. 'They' are in control of the media and write whatever they wish.

One example, a left-wing extremist - the abortionist - is licensed and beyond the law. 'They' are in control of the media and write whatever they wish.The right-wing administration has much more power and much more blood on its hands. :) The media quip is quite funny - make sure that tinfoil hat is on tight. :D

Maybe some day they can try for more than a splash? ;)

BUt then things would get too boring Steve. :D

The right-wing administration has much more power and much more blood on its hands. :) The media quip is quite funny - make sure that tinfoil hat is on tight. :D
I thought the right -wing administration passed and signed into law the prohibition of partial-birth abortion? I thought G.W. Bush appointed judges who were more likely to rule in favor of life than death. Bloody hands? Some time ago, the figures were 40 MILLION babies aborted in this country. The right wing didn't do that. The really idiotic part of all this is that those who support this holocaust are worried about Social Security being there for them when they get old. The morons killed over 40 million TAXPAYERS who will not be there to support them in their "golden years".

Speech..

Hypcrisy, propaganda from the "mainstream" media?. Oh my, never...


Good point Galv.

3000 lives killed every day, and the media thinks the right wing is nuts.

I thought the right -wing administration passed and signed into law the prohibition of partial-birth abortion? I thought G.W. Bush appointed judges who were more likely to rule in favor of life than death. Bloody hands? Some time ago, the figures were 40 MILLION babies aborted in this country. The right wing didn't do that. The really idiotic part of all this is that those who support this holocaust are worried about Social Security being there for them when they get old. The morons killed over 40 million TAXPAYERS who will not be there to support them in their "golden years".So those who 'killed' these taxpayers, what should happen to them? Is it murder? Should they be tried for capital punishment?

NK ;not quite. Yesterday Bill Clinton was all over the news defending his fine record of reducing abortions to only 1.2 million a year. Abortion appears to be the new "final solution" .

Ok, so answer the question: we know who these killers are (the mothers), what should be their punishment in your opinion?

So long as the Government sanctions it ,it is not the mothers but the government responsible for the genocide.

Are you actively seeking the capital murder charges from the government then?
So why isn't the government responsible for killings during a war?

So if women sought abortions from a private clinic then it's OK right?

No it is not right. But it is legal. I did not say I was seeking capital punishment just a change in the law and a Supreme Court that will not make laws themselves.

Why are you giving women a free pass in all this? They are the ones making the primary decision to MURDER! Everyone else is just an accessory to the crime. Should the women not be taken into custody?

Zeitgeist - The Movie, 2007 (http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/)

Why are you giving women a free pass in all this? They are the ones making the primary decision to MURDER! Everyone else is just an accessory to the crime. Should the women not be taken into custody?

I guess that's a matter of perspective NK, the doctor is the one actually taking the life of the child - I guess you could say "murder for hire."

This is one area where I can actually feel comfortable playing the victim card. When abortion advocates have not only encouraged abortion - virtually made it their raison d'être - spent years desensitizing the public, sanitizing it as "choice," "health care," "reproductive freedom," denying the humanity of the child, what do you expect? Women have been deceived into believing abortion is nothing more than a legal, minor surgical procedure. Why punish the mother?

If the SCOTUS would just declare that the babe in utro is a citizen and has civil rights this slaughter would come to a screeching halt. I know, then the women will go to some back alley. But then, there would be the possibility of prosecution for everyone involved. The number of abortions would become statistically insignificant.

I guess that's a matter of perspective NK, the doctor is the one actually taking the life of the child - I guess you could say "murder for hire."

This is one area where I can actually feel comfortable playing the victim card. When abortion advocates have not only encouraged abortion - virtually made it their raison d'être - spent years desensitizing the public, sanitizing it as "choice," "health care," "reproductive freedom," denying the humanity of the child, what do you expect? Women have been deceived into believing abortion is nothing more than a legal, minor surgical procedure. Why punish the mother?


This is such a sad an painful issue and I would never voice my opinion on this issue. The reason for that is I just can't imagine the pain one must carry knowing what took place.
I would never point at someone's wound. Sorry, it's not making sense. I guess what I am saying is, it is too painful the whole thing and I just hurt for everyone and just can not even imagine what they must carry with them and would never stand in judgement. I hurt the way the must hurt. Anyway...

In high school, we saw a film about abortion. And unlike the Catholic school at that time, the ending was graphic and real. It showed what happens to the babies after the procedure. Where they all end up. Just would scar you for life to see.

I pray and feel for anyone who has ever had to contend with this issue.

Yes, and there are still billions of chickens that remember Col. Sanders as the worst terrorist to ever live. Terrorism comes in many forms. There are evil doors everywhere. We must work to crush terrorism at every turn.

YouTube - UNDER DOG (TRAILER) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9YubRuSfzw)


OK, I got to go puke now. Scuse Me.

This is such a sad an painful issue and I would never voice my opinion on this issue. The reason for that is I just can't imagine the pain one must carry knowing what took place.

If an issue is that sad and painful to you, that's the time to voice an opinion. It just might help someone else avoid facing that pain.

Yes, and there are still billions of chickens that remember Col. Sanders as the worst terrorist to ever live. Terrorism comes in many forms. There are evil doors everywhere. We must work to crush terrorism at every turn.

LOL, how does a fried chicken remember the Colonel?

Yes, and there are still billions of chickens that remember Col. Sanders as the worst terrorist to ever live. Terrorism comes in many forms. There are evil doors everywhere. We must work to crush terrorism at every turn.

YouTube - UNDER DOG (TRAILER) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9YubRuSfzw)


OK, I gotta go puke now. Scuse Me.


Oh my gosh, if it wasn't for speak, I wouldn't of caught on to this. I was so enthrawed in the topic.

Mag - you are a specil one my dear :).

I can tell J has been awful busy... as someone, not mentioning annnnny names, has not been taken his meds. :eek:

If an issue is that sad and painful to you, that's the time to voice an opinion. It just might help someone else avoid facing that pain.


Speech I hear you. I actually did March on Washington while in high school.

If I were asked, prior to it happening, I would in no uncertain terms share my belief.

My biggest fear, is the pain that I would cause, vocing my belief and someone seeing it or hearing it, after they had already acted on their decision. What good would that kind of pain cause. And that is my uge struggle for keeping it to myself.

I'm a head case I know. But an admitted one. Just feel bad for the Mr. :o

My biggest fear, is the pain that I would cause, vocing my beleif and someone seeing it or hearing it, after they had already acted on their decision. What good would that kind of pain cause. And that is my uge struggle for keeping it to myself.

I'm a head case I know. But an admitted one. Just feel bad for the Mr. :o

Alheart, if ever there were an appropriate screen name I think yours is the one ;)

Alheart, if ever there were an appropriate screen name I think yours is the one ;)


Speech - thank you so much. It's not intentional - I promise you that.

I picked it because it concerned me that I always thought with my heart and not my head.
When it comes to "thought" questions, you will see how much I struggle. It doesn't mean I am a good person, it's that I only use one tool :(. Not meaning to put myself down, just explaining :). And fessing up :).

It's when I use my head that all goes plllllllllllp. Not very well.

But thank you very much.

I picked it because it concerned me that I always thought with my heart and not my head. When it comes to "thought" questions, you will see how much I struggle. It doesn't mean I am a good person, it's that I only use one tool :(. Not meaning to put myself down, just explaining :). and fessing up :).

It's when I use my head that all goes plllllllllllp. Not very well.

But thank you very much.

Methinks you may be a little too hard on yourself at times. :)

What was the point of this exercise, and especially this article? The first example the writer mentions is "abortion" terrorism, then mentions "white-supremacist" groups 3 times, "right-wing extremists" twice and "left-wing activists" once. Apparently white-supremacists are a big concern to the author and right-wing terrorists are "extremists" while left-wing terrorists are merely "activists." Sounds noble doesn't it?

While you might be right and there might be some secret ulterior motive from the writer to evoke thoughts of right-wingers being "extremists" while left-wingers are merely "activists", it is my opinion that's a bit of a reach. :) From the standpoint of a writer, it is cumbersome to use the same term multiple times in a sentence or in a short paragraph; I suspect that is why you see the difference in terms used. It's a pretty short article, only 580 words.

The word "extremist" appears ten times in the article; including the headline. Five times it's used in conjunction with the word "domestic", twice as a descriptive word, twice with "right-wing" before it and once referencing environmentalists (left wingers). The first reference to "activists" is used with "environmental", which is common language, so to me, it's not an indication of bias from the author's standpoint. The second time it's used it is coupled with "left-wing", but it's used 14 words after the word "extremists", which, in my opinion is better because it would be awkward to use the same word twice in the same sentence. Of the three times in the article the author mentions "environmentalists" with a party affiliation, twice it's used with "activist" (which, as I already said is common language) and once it's used with "extremist".

Oh, and the three references to "white supremacists" were to illustrate the three types of extremist groups; political, religious and youth. It makes the most sense to use the same type of organization to illustrate this point because then the reader can see groups protesting the same thing can have different motivations.

So my opinion? Your panties and in a wad for 'nuthin! :D

Methinks you may be a little too hard on yourself at times. :)

Me thinks you are very kind. :)

Note to self: easy does it :)

Me thinks you are very kind. :)

Awww, thank you. But careful with the kind words - it might ruin my reputation among some as a bigoted, fascist, right-wing neocon evangelical :D

Sorry... :o

You're a kind bigoted, fascist, right-wing neocon evangelical.. :p

Whew that was a keyboard full (your all those things :confused: Your one busy guy :)

Sorry....:o

Your a kind bigoted, fascist, right-wing neocon evangelical ..:p

whew that was a keyboard full (your all those things :confused: Your one busy guy :)

Well, some people just give me more credit than I deserve ;)

Well, some people just give me more credit than I deserve ;)


Humility is a wonderful trait... add it to your resume my friend ;)

LOL, how does a fried chicken remember the Colonel?

There were some survivors. Chickens can't write (Chicken Scratch) so they pass down the stories generation to generation.

There were some survivors. Chickens can't write (Chicken Scratch) so they pass down the stories generation to generation.

So some saved their nuggets in a "Chicken Run?"

While you might be right and there might be some secret ulterior motive from the writer to evoke thoughts of right-wingers being "extremists" while left-wingers are merely "activists", it is my opinion that's a bit of a reach. :) From the standpoint of a writer, it is cumbersome to use the same term multiple times in a sentence or in a short paragraph; I suspect that is why you see the difference in terms used. It's a pretty short article, only 580 words.

Sorry, I don't buy it. You can parse the use of the word "extremist" all you want and it will not change the fact that this writer suggested "white supremacists," "right-wing extremists" and abortion terrorists were more a concern than al-Qaeda or environmental wackos - in spite of any evidence. The evidence again using their own report on domestic terrorism incidents since 9/11:


The 68 domestic terrorist incidents in the researcher's database since 9/11 break down like this:

36 by Earth Liberation Front
5 by Animal Liberation Front
1 by Revolutionary Cells Animal Liberation Brigade
26 by Unknown or other group

Of the 26 "unknowns":

8 Blamed on or suspected by unknown eco-terrorists, ALF or ELF
9 Anthrax letters
3 Ricin incidents
2 Against the Cuban- American National Foundation headquarters
1 Unclear

Plus these 3:

Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, an Egyptian-born man, opened fired at the El Al Israeli Airlines ticket counter at the Los Angeles Airport (LAX), killing two people and wounding three others.

One woman was killed and five other injured when Naveed Afzal Haq, a Muslim-American man, opened fire on the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle building in downtown Seattle.

Two "unsophisticated" grenades exploded outside a building that houses the British consulate in New York City.

Not one abortion clinic bombing, not one confirmed "right-wing extremist" or "white supremacist" incident. If the writer wasn't simply biased he was damn lazy and didn't do his homework, but this article is offensive and dishonest. I submitted it to Newsbusters the day of this post and apparently they agree with me (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/dave-pierre/2008/02/20/ap-hints-pro-lifers-bigger-terrorists-foreign-radicals).

The impression I got from the article was that all domestic extremist/activist/terrorist groups are cause for concern. I guess I don't see the use of the word "activist" as more noble than the word "extremist"; to me, they are pretty much one in the same.

Difference of opinion, I suppose... you see conflict and an attack on the right wing, I see a piece talking about domestic terrorism.

And come on, you think that because Newsbusters agreed with you that means you're right? Their motto is: "Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias". If that's not a group set out to find conflict, I don't know what one is!

Can we please only use Crooks and Liars (http://www.crooksandliars.com/) as a source for our news? Thank you.

The impression I got from the article was that all domestic extremist/activist/terrorist groups are cause for concern. I guess I don't see the use of the word "activist" as more noble than the word "extremist"; to me, they are pretty much one in the same.

Jillian, I realize I probably won't sway you but nonetheless, the difference between "activist" and "extremist" is not subtle and this 'journalist' knows it. "Extremist" is meant to generate a negative opinion, and besides that - there is no evidence to support their claim. The point is if there are no domestic terrorist incidents attributed to these groups in recent history - 6 1/2 years at least - there is no reason to make it an issue. Don't suggest anti-abortion terrorism is a problem if you have nothing to back it up. Don't suggest right-wing is extremism is a problem if you have nothing to back it up. 42 confirmed acts of domestic terrorism by left-wing extremists plus 8 suspected is a problem. This writer apparently never thought anyone would look up the facts, and the facts matter.


And come on, you think that because Newsbusters agreed with you that means you're right? Their motto is: "Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias". If that's not a group set out to find conflict, I don't know what one is!

It's no conflict, if the media behaved responsibly I wouldn't be posting this and neither would they. My position is the same as theirs, "to bring balance and responsibility to the news media." No more, no less.

Can we please only use Crooks and Liars (http://www.crooksandliars.com/) as a source for our news? Thank you.

No, we need a dose of Scrappleface (http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2894) from time to time. :D

Jillian, I realize I probably won't sway you but nonetheless, the difference between "activist" and "extremist" is not subtle and this 'journalist' knows it. "Extremist" is meant to generate a negative opinion, and besides that - there is no evidence to support their claim.

As I said, in my opinion, there is little difference between the two. You can't be an activist if you aren't an extremist, and while you can be an extremist and not be an activist, the two don't really fit together. It's my experience people who are highly emotional involving one thing or another, enough that they consider themselves an "extremist" will, in certain situations, at least, be an activist as well.


The point is if there are no domestic terrorist incidents attributed to these groups in recent history - 6 1/2 years at least - there is no reason to make it an issue. Don't suggest anti-abortion terrorism is a problem if you have nothing to back it up. Don't suggest right-wing is extremism is a problem if you have nothing to back it up. 42 confirmed acts of domestic terrorism by left-wing extremists plus 8 suspected is a problem. This writer apparently never thought anyone would look up the facts, and the facts matter.

So since there have been no anti-abortion terrorist acts in 6 1/2 years it means those groups aren't active? Can't be a threat? Al-Qaeda hasn't attacked us in that long either, does that mean they are no longer a threat? The fact is any sort of extremism, from the right or the left is a problem, and I think that's the point the author was trying to make. Any group who will stoop to violent means to be heard is cause for concern. It doesn't matter if they have been dormant for six years, ten years or thirty years - if they still exist, they are of a concern for safety. Maybe they've been stock piling ammunition. :)

[QUOTE]It's no conflict, if the media behaved responsibly I wouldn't be posting this and neither would they. My position is the same as theirs, "to bring balance and responsibility to the news media." No more, no less.

But to you (and to them) balance is the right-wing perspective. I'm not saying the media isn't biased at times, but I think a lot of the bias that is picked out and professed by the right-wingers is embellished. It's more of the "us versus them" thing; instead of either side working toward compromise or a somewhat common position it's "The left likes this? We hate it!" and vice-versa. It's seems like neither side is interested in what is best for society as a whole, just their side.

As I said, I read that article and saw a piece about domestic terrorism as a whole not as a left-wing/right-wing one-is-better-one-is-worse, one-is-noble-one-is-evil issue.

**comment removed**

As I said, in my opinion, there is little difference between the two. You can't be an activist if you aren't an extremist, and while you can be an extremist and not be an activist, the two don't really fit together. It's my experience people who are highly emotional involving one thing or another, enough that they consider themselves an "extremist" will, in certain situations, at least, be an activist as well.

What kind of reasoning is that, "you can't be an activist if you aren't an extremist?"

I attended a Steven Curtis Chapman concert last night, he's a prominent "activist" for adoption. We laughed, we cried, we prayed, we rocked out - and raised over $5000 to help a local family cover the expense of an adoption. He signed up dozens and dozens of other "activists" to take a small bucket and gather change to change the lives of orphans and around the world. That makes him an all those 8 and 9 year old kids walking off with their buckets "extremists?"


So since there have been no anti-abortion terrorist acts in 6 1/2 years it means those groups aren't active? Can't be a threat? Al-Qaeda hasn't attacked us in that long either, does that mean they are no longer a threat? The fact is any sort of extremism, from the right or the left is a problem, and I think that's the point the author was trying to make. Any group who will stoop to violent means to be heard is cause for concern. It doesn't matter if they have been dormant for six years, ten years or thirty years - if they still exist, they are of a concern for safety. Maybe they've been stock piling ammunition. :)

The first thing I said in this post was "Personally I think damage from any extremist is a concern." Regardless of your opinion, this writer was intentionally biased (my opinion) or lazy - neither are excuses. When opening with "when it comes to fears about a terrorist attack, people in the U.S. usually focus on Osama bin Laden," mentioning the anti-abortion cause first and then "on a smaller scale are environmental activists," in spite of the evidence. Do you fear a terrorist attack from an anti-abortion group?

A further look at the evidence reveals the last abortion clinic bombing occurred June 11, 2001 (http://www.tkb.org/Incident.jsp?incID=9666). A further look at the evidence they cite, another 68 incidents dating to January 1993:

36 attacks by environmental and animal rights wackos:


20 by ELF
7 by ALF
4 by Coalition to Save the Preserves
4 Claimed by or blamed on ALF, ELF
1 Blamed on unknown environmentalist

17 by or against Middle eastern/Muslim targets/suspects


A Palestinian opened fire on the observation deck of the Empire State Building

A Jewish man (Harry Shapiro) of Jacksonville, Florida placed a pipe bomb at a synagogue to disrupt the speech of former Israeli PM (Peres). The bomb did not explode; instead, it was found by 3 children and passed over to the police on 22 February. The charged man affiliated himself with the American fringe of Islamic Jihad.

Four letter bombs, addressed to the Saudi Arabian newspaper Al Hayat,

Four letter bombs, addressed to the Saudi Arabian newspaper Al Hayat

Four letter bombs, addressed to the Saudi Arabian newspaper Al Hayat

Four letter bombs, addressed to the Saudi Arabian newspaper Al Hayat

A letter bomb addressed to Leavenworth Prison similar to those sent to the Al-Hayat

Four letter bombs were found at the Washington, DC offices of Al-Hayat,

Four letter bombs were found at the Washington, DC offices of Al-Hayat

Two letter bombs, also sent inside musical Christmas cards, were sent to the Federal Prison at Leavenworth, Kansas. They were addressed to "Parole Officer" and postmarked from Egypt.

Two letter bombs, also sent inside musical Christmas cards, were sent to the Federal Prison at Leavenworth. Kansas. They were addressed to "Parole Officer" and postmarked from Egypt.

Four letter bombs were found at the Washington, DC offices of Al-Hayat

Letter bomb addressed to Al-Hayat in Washington

Four letter bombs were found at the Washington, DC offices of Al-Hayat

A Lebanese immigrant, Rashid Baz, opened fire on a van crossing the Brooklyn Bridge, wounding four Hasidic Lubavitch rabbinical students (one of whom died four days later).

The first World Trade Center bombing

A gunman approached cars at the entrance of the CIA Virginia headquarters shortly before 8AM and randomly fired into several cars with an AK-47 rifle. The suspect in the shooting is 28-year-old Pakistani national.

6 against abortion targets


Unknown Group attacked Abortion Related target (June 11, 2001)
Unknown Group attacked Abortion Related target (Apr. 6, 1998)
Unknown Group attacked Abortion Related target (Apr. 1, 1998)
Other Group attacked Abortion Related target (Jan. 29, 1998)
Army of God attacked Abortion Related target (Jan. 29, 1998)
Other Group attacked Abortion Related target (Jan. 16, 1997)

2 Right-wing extremist Eric Rudolph

2 By lone white-supremacist

1 Murrah Federal Building bombing

1 Against GAP clothing store in Seattle

1 The headquarters of the Nicaraguan Sandinista Liberation Front in Miami was set on fire.

1 Gunmen attacked three prominent Haitian exiles in the Little Haiti area of Miami.

1 Three hand grenades found at British-owned property in San Diego. Responsibility was claimed by the 'Southern California IRA'.

63.3 percent by ALF/ELF or other environmental/animal rights wackos

14 percent by or against Middle Eastern or Muslim suspects/targets

4.5 percent against abortion targets

18.4 percent by other assorted wackos

If I can do the research so can this writer. It's clear from the evidence that as far as "domestic terrorism" goes, ALF and ELF more than dominate the field with Middle Eastern/Muslim suspects/targets in second - especially considering 9/11 and it being the most deadly and devastating. 6 abortion targets attacked in 15 years - the last being almost 7 years ago - is hardly reason for concern, yet this writer chose to list them first. It was no accident.


But to you (and to them) balance is the right-wing perspective.

LOL, this is why I might as well beat my head against the wall rather than discuss this. In the face of overwhelming evidence you not only deny the bias, you make absurd assumptions about me with NO evidence. I stand by my previous comment, "my position is the same as theirs (MRC), "to bring balance and responsibility to the news media." No more, no less." I have no problem with a newspaper, magazine or network having a particular slant, it's even to be expected, but when it comes to news just give me the news - don't give me opinion disguised as news and know your facts.


I'm not saying the media isn't biased at times, but I think a lot of the bias that is picked out and professed by the right-wingers is embellished. It's more of the "us versus them" thing; instead of either side working toward compromise or a somewhat common position it's "The left likes this? We hate it!" and vice-versa. It's seems like neither side is interested in what is best for society as a whole, just their side.

Again I have to laugh. If you want cherry-picking and embellishment, try this (http://mediamatters.org/). These idiots even pick on the NY Times (http://mediamatters.org/items/200802210007?f=h_latest) for "conservative misinformation."


As I said, I read that article and saw a piece about domestic terrorism as a whole not as a left-wing/right-wing one-is-better-one-is-worse, one-is-noble-one-is-evil issue.

Maybe you're just old and jaded! :D

I love it when people insult me in the course of discussion, that's always good for that "us versus them" thing."

speech, you asked for opinions. I gave mine. It's not the same as yours. Next time, if you only want people to comment who agree with you, perhaps you should include a disclaimer.

speech, you asked for opinions. I gave mine. It's not the same as yours. Next time, if you only want people to comment who agree with you, perhaps you should include a disclaimer.

Yep, I asked for comments, not insults like "Your panties and in a wad for 'nuthin!" or "Maybe you're just old and jaded!"

And by the way, if you look at top of the page, this is a "forum" where we have "Member Discussions." I realize the left's idea of "discussion" is "you need to shut up and listen to me," but where I come from comments are generally returned in discussions.

It seems there are times where you are perfectly capable of taking a bit of a ribbing, and times you aren't. Apparently, in this thread, you aren't. I will go back and edit my posts to remove the offensive comments.

I never said you should shut up and listen to me; if anything, you are saying that to me. I gave my opinion, I commented, I tried to discuss. You proceed to call my reasoning "convoluted" (rather than asking me to explain it further) and say "Regardless of your opinion..." which essentially translates to "Your opinion is wrong, mine is right".

I don't know how to further discuss this with you other than to say I disagree. I've said, multiple times now, that I think the article intended to focus on all domestic terrorism, not left or right-wing terrorism. What more can I say? You don't have to agree with me, but that's my opinion. I see no significance in the use of the words "extremist" or "activist" when coupled with one group or another. I see no significance in the order in which the groups appear. You see that - I don't. We disagree. It's not important to me that you agree with me, why is it so important to you that I agree with you?

And I'm not a lefty.

Can't remove my "panty" comment - the edit button isn't there anymore. Let this post serve as me retracting that remark.

It seems there are times where you are perfectly capable of taking a bit of a ribbing, and times you aren't. Apparently, in this thread, you aren't. I will go back and edit my posts to remove the offensive comments.

Jillean, I get a little passionate over both media bias and abortion issues, combine the two and look out :D

There was no need to remove anything. The ribbing I can take, what I don't abide well is misrepresentation. This was the only thing that really bothered me: "But to you (and to them) balance is the right-wing perspective." That's not me.

And please, don't confuse my describing a tactic of "the left" with you personally. Trust me, if I had meant "you" I would have said "you." Nevertheless, my apologies if you were offended. But still, 63.3 percent of domestic terrorist attacks in th past 15 years were by ALF/ELF or other environmental/animal rights wackos! ;)

Can't remove my "panty" comment - the edit button isn't there anymore. Let this post serve as me retracting that remark.

Don't sweat it, I'm really not that rigid, lol. :)

But still, 63.3 percent of domestic terrorist attacks in th past 15 years were by ALF/ELF or other environmental/animal rights wackos! ;)

That's true, and I agree with you there. The article would have been better if the author had done more research and inserted such figures, as then there would be no room for interpretation on what he wrote and what he meant.

You might be right - the whole article could be a veiled attempt at slamming the right-wing by a left-wing media unit; or it could be a journalist who didn't think his words out carefully enough to avoid conflict and offence. Does that make it excusable? No, but it doesn't make it malicious either.

Does this mean we're friends again; I don't have to add you to my ignore list? :p

That's true, and I agree with you there. The article would have been better if the author had done more research and inserted such figures, as then there would be no room for interpretation on what he wrote and what he meant.

You might be right - the whole article could be a veiled attempt at slamming the right-wing by a left-wing media unit; or it could be a journalist who didn't think his words out carefully enough to avoid conflict and offence. Does that make it excusable? No, but it doesn't make it malicious either.

Does this mean we're friends again; I don't have to add you to my ignore list? :p


Psssst Jill pssssst - don't let this get out... he tries to not let it out... but he really is a sweetie (just like you)... but you have to promise not to tell :D

psssst Jill pssssst - don't let this get out...he tries to not let it out...but he really is a sweetie (just like you)...but you have to promise not to tell :D

I know, Allheart, I know! He's also passionate and opinionated and stubborn... oh wait, I think I'm describing myself! :)

I know, Allheart, I know! He's also passionate and opinionated and stubborn.... oh wait, I think I'm describing myself! :)


Not at all...

Let's see

Passionate + Opinionated + Stubborn + Leaves the toilet seat up = aaaaaah MEN :D

That's true, and I agree with you there. The article would have been better if the author had done more research and inserted such figures, as then there would be no room for interpretation on what he wrote and what he meant.

You might be right - the whole article could be a veiled attempt at slamming the right-wing by a left-wing media unit; or it could be a journalist who didn't think his words out carefully enough to avoid conflict and offence. Does that make it excusable? No , but it doesn't make it malicious either.

Aha, now that is a thing of beauty :)


Does this mean we're friends again; I don't have to add you to my ignore list? :p

http://republika.pl/blog_hb_3947946/5210594/tr/snoopy_hug.jpg

Not at all...

Let's see

Passionate + Opinionated + Stubborn + Leaves the toilet seat up = aaaaaah MEN :D

OK, now we are WAY off track. I'll grant you this much, when we get a new single young girl at work and the subject of men comes up I tell them to remember "all men are scum" and they'll be fine. :D

HOWEVER, on the subject of toilet seats... why should men have to put the seat down? My wife says she sometimes goes in their in the dark and doesn't want to fall in because I left the seat up. Granted, that's nasty but I ask you which is better, looking before you sit or realizing the hard way that we forgot to lift the seat a few minutes earlier because we forgot that we had put it down?

I have my hubby trained to put the seat AND lid down; does this make him less of a man? Should I start a new thread so we can address this properly? :D

I have my hubby trained to put the seat AND lid down; does this make him less of a man? Should I start a new thread so we can address this properly? :D

LOL, I guess I'm trained, too... I let my wife think I'm being considerate but it was more to keep the dogs from drinking out of the toilet :D

Earth Liberation Front suspected in arson (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.fires04mar04,0,1915530.story)...


Three seven-figure dream homes went up in flames early yesterday in a Seattle suburb, apparently set by eco-terrorists who left a sign mocking the builders' claims that the 4,000-plus-square-foot houses were environmentally friendly.

The sign - a sheet marked with spray paint - bore the initials ELF, for Earth Liberation Front, a loose collection of radical environmentalists that has claimed responsibility for dozens of attacks since the 1990s.

The sheriff's office estimated that yesterday's pre-dawn fires did $7 million damage to the "Street of Dreams," a row of unoccupied, furnished luxury model homes where tens of thousands of visitors last summer eyed the latest in high-end housing, interior design and landscaping. Three homes were destroyed and two suffered smoke damage.

Crews removed incendiary devices found in the homes, said Snohomish County Fire Chief Rick Eastman. But Kelvin Crenshaw, special agent in charge for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in Seattle, said later that there was no evidence that such devices had been used.

The FBI was investigating the fires as a potential act of domestic terrorism, said FBI spokesman Rich Kolko in Washington, D.C.

No injuries were reported in the fires, which began before dawn in the wooded subdivision and were still smoldering at midmorning.

The sign left behind said in red scraggly letters, "Built Green? Nope black!" and "McMansions in RCDs r not green," a reference to rural cluster developments.

Looks like the environmental wackos are extending their lead in domestic terrorism cases.

Saw that story yesterday. I'm still not clear on how burning fully-furnished buildings is good for the environment... you know, since now more trees have to die to re-build them, more toxic paint and varnish... Not to mention the smoke that poured into the air from the fire and all the water used to put it out...

No one ever said extremists were smart!

Let's put them and the Westboro Baptists on an island together.

Saw that story yesterday. I'm still not clear on how burning fully-furnished buildings is good for the environment... you know, since now more trees have to die to re-build them, more toxic paint and varnish.... Not to mention the smoke that poured into the air from the fire and all the water used to put it out...

No one ever said extremists were smart!

LOL, you got that right Jillean.

Let's put them and the Westboro Baptists on an island together.

Wow, this is like what, 5 times we've agreed on something now :D

This one looks about right:

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/aug/watching-birth-and-death-of-an-island/island1_lg.jpg

I'm not a big fan of fanatics of any kind.

I'm still not clear on how burning fully-furnished buildings is good for the environment... you know, since now more trees have to die to re-build them, more toxic paint and varnish... Not to mention the smoke that poured into the air from the fire and all the water used to put it out...


ELF has come around to the view that man made, CO2 induced climate change is a myth??

I'm still not clear on how burning fully-furnished buildings is good for the environment... No one ever said extremists were smart!Hello jillian:

I don't think they were making an environmental argument. It was political.

Certainly, the guy who stood in front of the tank in Tiananmen Square wasn't trying to say that his body was stronger than the tank.

excon

Of course they were trying to make a political statement; it was just full of fail. Shouldn't your political statement be in line with your point? Forming a human barrier around a tree to prevent it from being cut down makes a political statement and does no further harm to the environment. Setting fire to said tree so it doesn't get cut down and turned into lumber prevents it from being cut down, but still eliminates the tree. Protests make political statements without harming the environment, setting fires doesn't.

From what I read the homes built had won several "green" awards, guess they were "light green" awards instead of "dark green"... Apparently this same group also destroyed a research lab because they thought the scientists were genetically engineering trees... they weren't.