Ask Me Help Desk - Damage From you.S. Extremists a Concern

Damage From U.S. Extremists a Concern

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

Quote:

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.

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.

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'?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skell

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skell

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

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

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by George_1950

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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

BUt then things would get too boring Steve. :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galveston1

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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)

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allheart

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by magprob

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by magprob

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)

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:

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allheart

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 ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allheart

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. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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

Me thinks you are very kind. :)

Note to self: easy does it :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allheart

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 :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allheart

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 ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by magprob

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?"