Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Republicans: account for yourselves

Republicans: account for yourselves
Thread Tools
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2015, 04:15 PM
 
Many of you Republicans years ago were demanding that moderate Muslims stand up and control the extremists by speaking out and doing... Something. At the time I made the point that that is really hard to do without a platform, but I think many of you weren't persuaded by that argument.

So, fast forward to today...

Why don't you speak out about some of the crazy things being said by Trump and company, and put your party back in order?

Hint: the proper response here is "you were right, wise besson3c".
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2015, 04:22 PM
 
The problem is what Trump actually says is less incendiary than the way it gets reported. He responds to the question of "should there be a Muslim registry", with "I won't rule it out". This gets reported as "Trump wants to register Muslims".
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2015, 04:46 PM
 
That said, the ban on Muslim immigration is pretty batshit. Can't really defend that.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2015, 05:09 PM
 
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2015, 05:17 PM
 
How about you guys? I have an idea who was demanding that moderate Muslims take charge.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2015, 05:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
How about you guys? I have an idea who was demanding that moderate Muslims take charge.
Is there "moderate Islam"?
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2015, 05:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The problem is what Trump actually says is less incendiary than the way it gets reported. He responds to the question of "should there be a Muslim registry", with "I won't rule it out". This gets reported as "Trump wants to register Muslims".
Yep, it's impossible to take the media seriously anymore. They don't report news, they fabricate it. No spin, no clever alteration, they just make shit up.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2015, 05:56 PM
 
You guys... Sigh.

Trump said in his coming out speech that Mexicans are rapists, and did not clarify or dial back on this. It is easy to find this recording, and there are other incidents out there. Instead of smoothing this out, I would like you to either account for your party and the support he has gotten, or else admit that you cannot control massive populations of people and their beliefs, including the millions and millions of Muslims that exist.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2015, 06:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Trump said in his coming out speech that Mexicans are rapists, and did not clarify or dial back on this.
I know from personal experience that at least three Mexicans are NOT rapists.

Trump is so teh wrong!!!1!11oneone

-t
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2015, 06:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
You guys... Sigh.

Trump said in his coming out speech that Mexicans are rapists, and did not clarify or dial back on this. It is easy to find this recording, and there are other incidents out there. Instead of smoothing this out, I would like you to either account for your party and the support he has gotten, or else admit that you cannot control massive populations of people and their beliefs, including the millions and millions of Muslims that exist.
The rapist line is another one which was more nuanced than reported (or as you're repeating here).

That said, when it comes to this:

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."

Which is directly from his website (i.e. no spin), we're talking something which is severely misguided at best, and at worst, totally batshit.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2015, 06:57 PM
 
FDR was Trump on steroids.
Proc2525
PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION
ALIENS

No. 2525

Alien Enemies--Japanese

AUTHORITY

WHEREAS it is provided by Section 21 of Title 50 of the United States Code [11 F. C. A., tit. 50, § 21] as follows: "Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies. The President is authorized in any such event, by his proclamation thereof, or other public act, to direct the conduct to be observed, on the part of the United States, toward the aliens who become so liable; the manner and degree of the restraint to which they shall be subject and in what cases, and upon what security their residence shall be permitted, and to provide for the removal of those who, not being permitted to reside within the United States, refuse or neglect to depart therefrom; and to establish any other regulations which are found necessary in the premises and for the public safety."
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2015, 06:58 PM
 
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2015, 07:34 PM
 
Not really. The operative phrase is "Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government ...". That's not the case with Trump's idea to van immigration by all Muslims. The most populous Muslim nation on earth is Indonesia which the last time I checked was not a "hostile nation" to the US. Should Indonesian Muslims be banned from immigrating to the US simply because of their religion?

OAW
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2015, 09:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Not really. The operative phrase is "Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government ...". That's not the case with Trump's idea to van immigration by all Muslims. The most populous Muslim nation on earth is Indonesia which the last time I checked was not a "hostile nation" to the US. Should Indonesian Muslims be banned from immigrating to the US simply because of their religion?

OAW
or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government
It's called hijrah
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2015, 09:50 PM
 
"Foreign nation or government". Of which Daesh is neither. No comment on my point about Indonesia?

OAW
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2015, 10:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
"Foreign nation or government". Of which Daesh is neither. No comment on my point about Indonesia?

OAW
Jihadist can be from any country, and as we've seen, even the US or the UK. Are you OK with the Obama administration favoring Muslims over Christians in the refugees?
No room in America for Christian refugees | TheHill

Jefferson declared war on the Barbary pirates even though they were not a "foreign nation or government". The Islamic State is better armed and better financed and has declared war on the west.

Pope Francis Calls Paris Terrorist Attacks Part of ‘Piecemeal World War III’ | Daily News | NCRegister.com
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2015, 11:02 PM
 
I think you've cited an op-ed that referenced a blog that apparently takes issue with 97% of Syrian refugees being Muslim in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. Druse and Christians make up approximately 10-12% of the Syrian population. And the overwhelming majority of them support the Assad regime and live in government controlled territory so they aren't under pressure to flee.

I suppose if there was some consistency in these things that would be one thing. But even though most terrorist attacks on US soil are committed by white male Christians yet we never hear any calls for profiling of that demographic it's quite clear what's really driving it.

OAW
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2015, 11:34 PM
 
What are classifying as a terrorist attack? Are you including those perpetrated by those who were suicidal because they went off their meds?
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2015, 12:10 AM
 
Republicans: please start accounting for yourself, or else admit that demanding that moderate Muslims do the same was kind of silly.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2015, 02:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
You guys... Sigh.

Trump said in his coming out speech that Mexicans are rapists, and did not clarify or dial back on this. It is easy to find this recording, and there are other incidents out there. Instead of smoothing this out, I would like you to either account for your party and the support he has gotten, or else admit that you cannot control massive populations of people and their beliefs, including the millions and millions of Muslims that exist.
That's the problem with absolutists, like yourself. I'm a Dem in most but national elections, and then I vote by person, who I think will do the better job and represent the interests of my locality. I don't give a shit about Trump because I won't vote for him, in fact if it came down to either him or Hillary, I'd vote 3rd party.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2015, 02:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Republicans: please start accounting for yourself, or else admit that demanding that moderate Muslims do the same was kind of silly.
If you're going to ignore my direct response, take an exaggerated jerk-off gesture as a reply to your demand.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2015, 11:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If you're going to ignore my direct response, take an exaggerated jerk-off gesture as a reply to your demand.
You weren't one of the people demanding that moderate Muslims control stuff, so this thread wasn't intended for you, but I apologize if I ignored something that you wanted me to respond to.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2015, 11:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
That's the problem with absolutists, like yourself. I'm a Dem in most but national elections, and then I vote by person, who I think will do the better job and represent the interests of my locality. I don't give a wager about Trump because I won't vote for him, in fact if it came down to either him or Hillary, I'd vote 3rd party.
Do you think that moderate Muslims should be able to control extreme Muslims by speaking out or doing something else?
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2015, 11:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Many of you Republicans years ago were demanding that moderate Muslims stand up and control the extremists by speaking out and doing... Something. At the time I made the point that that is really hard to do without a platform, but I think many of you weren't persuaded by that argument.

So, fast forward to today...

Why don't you speak out about some of the crazy things being said by Trump and company, and put your party back in order?

Hint: the proper response here is "you were right, wise besson3c".
Last I checked Trump isn't engaged in combat, total suppression of women's rights, executing gays, perpetrating terrorist attacks worldwide, or using suicide bombers to further his cause.

Despite your premise being an egregious logical fallacy, false equivalence, this forum already has a thread on Trump, where many of us has spoken up about how much we don't want Trump as the GOP nom. Your thread is not only based on a false premise (the equivalence of Trump to extremist Islam), but the question you ask has already been answered both by the GOP at large and the specific members of this board who lean Republican.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2015, 11:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Do you think that moderate Muslims should be able to control extreme Muslims by speaking out or doing something else?
At the very least, a strong response from Moderate muslims worldwide would mitigate ISIS's ability to recruit, gain funding, and operate covertly. This has not happened to any appreciable effect because the Muslim world has not loudly denounced the so-called bastardization of their faith.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2015, 11:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Last I checked Trump isn't engaged in combat, total suppression of women's rights, executing gays, perpetrating terrorist attacks worldwide, or using suicide bombers to further his cause.
Neither are moderate muslims.

Despite your egregious false equivalence, this forum already has a thread on Trump, where many of us has spoken up about how much we don't want Trump as the GOP nom. Your thread is not only based on a false premise (the equivalence of Trump to extremist Islam), but the question you ask has already been answered both by the GOP at large and the specific members of this board who lean Republican.
There is no equivalence to the actions of the US right or extreme Muslims, please stop trying to create distractions here.

I think I've made this thread abundantly clear: can the moderates control the crazies by speaking out or doing something, like some people were demanding that moderate Muslims do? It's a pretty clear question, no?
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2015, 11:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
At the very least, a strong response from Moderate muslims worldwide would mitigate ISIS's ability to recruit, gain funding, and operate covertly. This has not happened to any appreciable effect because the Muslim world has not loudly denounced the so-called bastardization of their faith.
This is at the heart of this thread.

Why hasn't the US right loudly denounced the most offensive policies of Trump?

The answer to this question and to your question is because there is no platform for people with the message "can we be reasonable here?" It isn't loud and attention-getting enough. There are no doubt lots of attempts to "control" the message and image of both the US right and Muslims that never see the light of day without a platform.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2015, 12:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
This is at the heart of this thread.

Why hasn't the US right loudly denounced the most offensive policies of Trump?
Because he has no power, isn't executing his objectionable policies, and is still afforded his freedom of speech. That said, I think the US HAS done exactly that. All the comedians, news sites, internet memes are abuzz with Trump jokes. We don't send in suicide bombers to quiet those we disagree with, so if you're waiting for that don't hold your breath.

The answer to this question and to your question is because there is no platform for people with the message "can we be reasonable here?" It isn't loud and attention-getting enough. There are no doubt lots of attempts to "control" the message and image of both the US right and Muslims that never see the light of day without a platform.
Muslims make up over a quarter of the world's population, collectively 5 times more than the US. They can't build a platform?

ISIS has done a great job of building a platform - they're recruiting is effective, they're getting funding, they're dug in - all despite 10s of thousands of US bombs falling on them. If those ****s can build an effective platform under direct attack from the US, you think its the USA's fault the other 1.5 billion muslims can't?
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2015, 12:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Because he has no power, isn't executing his objectionable policies, and is still afforded his freedom of speech. That said, I think the US HAS done exactly that. All the comedians, news sites, internet memes are abuzz with Trump jokes. We don't send in suicide bombers to quiet those we disagree with, so if you're waiting for that don't hold your breath.
The comedians, news sites, and internets who you like to point out are left wing. Where is the right wing base making noise denouncing the things Trump is saying?

The severity of what is at stake is not my point, my point is that fundamentally the request for moderate Muslims to control the crazies is the same request that can be made of the US right wing base.

Muslims make up over a quarter of the world's population, collectively 5 times more than the US. They can't build a platform?

ISIS has done a great job of building a platform - they're recruiting is effective, they're getting funding, they're dug in - all despite 10s of thousands of US bombs falling on them. If those ****s can build an effective platform under direct attack from the US, you think its the USA's fault the other 1.5 billion muslims can't?
You can make the argument that it is even harder to build a platform that organizes mass numbers of people - the herding cats argument. The collective will might be there, but organizing something coherent is not easy, especially since we would be talking about an organization that would span multiple countries. You might say that Occupy Wall St. and the Tea Party had the same or similar problems with organizing and corralling like-minded people, and there were clearly large numbers of like-minded people that sympathized with both organizations.

You could also make the argument that the moderate populations have no obligation to try to coral the crazy population just to make it harder for people to generalize. I would have no right to say that your political ideology is all FUBAR just because of the messed up things that Trump (or anybody else) has been saying. However, I suppose this is a whole other line of debate.

I'm hoping that somebody here will have the confidence to admit that people cannot be "controlled" just by getting together and urging some reasonableness somehow. Even with the biggest platform imaginable, why would somebody unreasonable listen to somebody reasonable? That would be a reasonable thing to do.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2015, 12:47 PM
 
Heck, it is difficult enough to denounce the things that reasonable people say. We here at MacNN are all reasonable in relative comparison to ISIS or Donald Trump's biggest supporters (Merry Christmas MacNN, I love you), but how often have we changed each other's minds about anything, even with this platform and our constant communication with each other?

This is why I detest tethering to a political party or candidate, and much prefer independent thought and treating the expression of thought as being independent.

Derailing my own thread here though...
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2015, 01:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
This is at the heart of this thread.

Why hasn't the US right loudly denounced the most offensive policies of Trump?

The answer to this question and to your question is because there is no platform for people with the message "can we be reasonable here?" It isn't loud and attention-getting enough. There are no doubt lots of attempts to "control" the message and image of both the US right and Muslims that never see the light of day without a platform.
This is the most laughable pile of BS I've read this year. WHO is the "US" ? Would that be a form of abuse of the 1st Amendment? "REASONABLE" is not a measurable term, but just an opinion. I'm not falling on a sword or contributing to this nonsense.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2015, 02:49 PM
 
^^^ you hit the nail on the head

This thread is pure besson rambling, with a nice dose of strawmen sprinkled in between.

There's no point in debating it.

-t
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2015, 06:01 PM
 
I'm not sure you are right this time Bess.

Moderate muslims do need to stand up more against their radical counterparts. More importantly they need to start moving for reform against the more conservative elements of their religion in order to start getting away from the far more widespread beliefs that muslims share but that aren't considered radical because they pose little impact on non-muslims. Things like honour killings and their various other medieval attitudes to women and human rights.


Its possible that they are doing just this but they aren't being given the media platform to make enough difference among their own people, or where westerners can see them trying to make a difference. Sadly keeping them quiet fuels the conservative western agenda every bit as much as it favours the conservative muslim agenda.

I have definitely seen Republicans come out against Trump more than any other GOP candidate in recent times and perhaps they will surprise everyone by switching party allegiance to make their point. It does feel like most of them are trying to pick the best of an awful bunch rather than go to the extreme of voting Democrat.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2015, 06:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Because he has no power, isn't executing his objectionable policies, and is still afforded his freedom of speech.

In most developed countries he would have been laughed out of contention for election long ago. Trump has considerably more serious political support than he should.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2015, 06:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I'm not sure you are right this time Bess.

Moderate muslims do need to stand up more against their radical counterparts. More importantly they need to start moving for reform against the more conservative elements of their religion in order to start getting away from the far more widespread beliefs that muslims share but that aren't considered radical because they pose little impact on non-muslims. Things like honour killings and their various other medieval attitudes to women and human rights.

Its possible that they are doing just this but they aren't being given the media platform to make enough difference among their own people, or where westerners can see them trying to make a difference. Sadly keeping them quiet fuels the conservative western agenda every bit as much as it favours the conservative muslim agenda.

How do they do this? It's not as if these occurrences are public events, or are they?

Perhaps the highest concentration of moderate Muslims live in more moderate countries where these sorts of things don't happen at all.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2015, 06:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
What are classifying as a terrorist attack? Are you including those perpetrated by those who were suicidal because they went off their meds?
I'm going by how the FBI defines it ...

Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code

18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorism”:

"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
  • Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
  • Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
  • Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
  • Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
  • Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
  • Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:
  • Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
  • Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).

* FISA defines "international terrorism" in a nearly identical way, replacing "primarily" outside the U.S. with "totally" outside the U.S. 50 U.S.C. § 1801(c).
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investi...ism-definition

There are various FBI terrorism reports located here.

And this is essentially making the same point I'm making here ...

Since September 11, the threat of internationally based Islamic extremist networks has dominated concerns of Homeland Security officials. And while authorities say the threats posed by homegrown Islamic extremism is growing, the FBI has reported that roughly two-thirds of terrorism in the United States was conducted by non-Islamic American extremists from 1980-2001; and from 2002-2005, it went up to 95 percent.
A Spectrum of Militancy

The worst case of domestic extremist violence was the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City that killed 168 people. In the twenty-five years prior, the United States experienced an average of forty-eight such attacks per year. Since 1995, the average attacks per year declined to nineteen. However, the percentage of attacks perpetrated by individuals acting alone, characterized by law enforcement as "lone wolf" offenders, has increased roughly five-fold (see chart below). Defending against these types of attacks is a daunting task for the FBI and police.

The FBI divides domestic extremists into four broad categories, including left-wing, right-wing, single issue groups, and homegrown Islamic. (Read this CFR Backgrounder on the threat of homegrown Islamist extremists.) The lone offender phenomenon spans all categories, and the classifications have other overlapping characteristics as well.

LONE OFFENDERS: Violence by lone offenders (WSJ) may pose the most immediate threat in the United States. According to an FBI report on terrorism, the lone wolf label refers to individuals "who commit acts of violence outside of the auspices of structured terrorist organizations or without the prior approval or knowledge of these groups' leaders." A Department of Homeland Security study found that attacks by individuals constituted one-third of all extremist acts of violence since 1995, up from just 6.5 percent in the twenty-five years prior. Recent high-profile cases of these attacks include those by Jared Lee Loughner (NYT), James von Brunn (WSJ), and Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad. Because of their isolation from organized extremist groups, lone wolves are particularly hard to track for intelligence agencies. However, their independence often makes them less effective than members who are well connected to large networks.

LEFT-WING GROUPS: The FBI states leftist extremist groups "generally profess a revolutionary socialist doctrine and view themselves as protectors of the people against the "dehumanizing effects" of capitalism and imperialism." From 1960 to the mid-1980s, most acts of extremist violence were committed by leftist factions like the Weather Underground. A wellspring of disaffected, radical youth with ideological roots in the civil rights, women's liberation, and anti-war movements provided these groups with much of their militant fervor. However, broad left-wing violence has been in a marked decline since the fall of the Soviet Union and a successful FBI infiltration campaign in the mid-1980s.

SINGLE-ISSUE GROUPS: Single-issue extremists attack targets that embody distinct political issues like environmental degradation, abortion, genetic engineering, or animal abuse. These groups are usually composed of small, autonomous cells that are hard to infiltrate because of rigid secrecy. According to the FBI, so-called eco-terrorists and animal rights groups like the Earth Liberation Front have committed over two thousand crimes and caused losses of over $110 million since 1979. Ecological extremism (BaltimoreSun) gained particular notoriety in the 1990s, and in 2004 the FBI declared these groups the No. 1 domestic terrorism threat. Anti-abortion extremists are responsible for seven murders, forty-one bombings, and 173 acts of arson in the U.S. and Canada since 1977, according to the National Abortion Federation, an abortion rights group. While much of this violence peaked in the 1990s (PDF), the 2009 murder of Dr. George Tiller (NYT) served as a reminder of the threat still posed by these factions.

RIGHT-WING GROUPS: The most recent swell of extremist violence began to emerge from right-wing militants in the late-1980s and 1990s. According to a 2005 FBI report on terrorism, these groups, which are "primarily in the form of domestic militias and conservative special interest causes, began to overtake left-wing extremism as the most dangerous, if not the most prolific, domestic terrorist threat to the country." Right-wing extremists champion a wide variety of causes, including racial supremacy, hatred and suspicion of the federal government, and fundamentalist Christianity. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks the activities of hate groups, suggests militia groups declined every year since 1996 but have seen a dramatic resurgence since 2008.
Militant Extremists in the United States - Council on Foreign Relations

OAW
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2015, 08:19 PM
 
By that definition, the crazy bitch that intentionally ran over several people on the Strip, killing one, committed an act of "domestic terrorism".
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2015, 08:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Do you think that moderate Muslims should be able to control extreme Muslims by speaking out or doing something else?
Yep, they should denounce extremists.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2015, 08:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Yep, they should denounce extremists.

How, and should moderate Republicans denounce some of the things that Trump has been saying?

My answers are they can't really without a platform, and no. As has been pointed out, Trump has the right to exercise his 1st amendment rights, and we should get out of the pattern of associating what one person thinks with a giant population.

However, if we are to insist that moderate Muslims do the same, then it seems entirely fair to demand that moderate conservatives do the same with Trump and other extreme right-wing viewpoints.

Since I don't think it is right to insist that moderate Muslims do what is not really possible, I'm not demanding this of moderate conservatives, but my point is that there is a definite double-standard here among those that believe this, as some MacNNers have expressed in the past.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2015, 09:08 PM
 
Should moderate democrats denounce the things Sanders and Clinton have been saying?
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2015, 09:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Should moderate democrats denounce the things Sanders and Clinton have been saying?
I just answered that question.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2015, 10:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
By that definition, the crazy bitch that intentionally ran over several people on the Strip, killing one, committed an act of "domestic terrorism".
Not really ....

Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
OAW
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2015, 11:20 PM
 
Then the "Black Lives Matter" movement is domestic terrorism since they intend to influence government policies by intimidation and coercion.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2015, 11:28 PM
 
^^^^
Then you would have to say the same thing about anti-abortion protesters who non-violently blockade clinics are as well. But something tells me you won't.

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Dec 30, 2015 at 09:28 AM. )
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2015, 02:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
How, and should moderate Republicans denounce some of the things that Trump has been saying?
They have been, it's almost been deafening. What you on about?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2015, 09:00 AM
 
Regarding the OP I have to agree with Waragainstsleep with just one quibble. Moderate Muslims ROUTINELY denounce extremist violence committed in the name of Islam. But it just doesn't get coverage especially in right-wing media because that runs counter to that platform's anti-Islamic ideology. Immediately after the San Bernadino attacks the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) condemned it but that certainly didn't stop the Fox News crowd from their typical refrain of "Moderate Muslims need to condemn ..." blah blah blah. Similarly Republicans in high profile leadership positions have denounced Donald Trump and his shenanigans. Now me personally I find it to be somewhat disingenuous because they have long "dog-whistled" the same sentiments that Trump is saying outright. But in all honesty it's simply not accurate to say that such denunciations aren't happening. People on both sides of this have to be willing to take "Yes" for an answer. At least at face value.

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Dec 30, 2015 at 09:24 AM. )
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2015, 12:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
How, and should moderate Republicans denounce some of the things that Trump has been saying?

My answers are they can't really without a platform, and no. As has been pointed out, Trump has the right to exercise his 1st amendment rights, and we should get out of the pattern of associating what one person thinks with a giant population.

However, if we are to insist that moderate Muslims do the same, then it seems entirely fair to demand that moderate conservatives do the same with Trump and other extreme right-wing viewpoints.

Since I don't think it is right to insist that moderate Muslims do what is not really possible, I'm not demanding this of moderate conservatives, but my point is that there is a definite double-standard here among those that believe this, as some MacNNers have expressed in the past.
Why would you say it is not possible? The west has undergone reforms and revolutions as new rights and freedoms were established through the ages. Monarchies overthrown, churches disempowered, votes for women etc. Its a dangerous business for sure, lives were always lost but thats how change has been accomplished before. It requires substantial risk.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2015, 01:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Then the "Black Lives Matter" movement is domestic terrorism since they intend to influence government policies by intimidation and coercion.
Fox News has been saying that for months.
     
design219
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2015, 03:40 PM
 
I don't understand how Trump's remarks about John McCain went away so easily.

“He’s not a war hero,” said Trump. “He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”

Being captured is not something someone intends. Substitute the word "wounded" for "captured" (both things that sometimes happen in war) and it's easier to see how reprehensible that statement really is.

I really thought that would do Trump in.
__________________________________________________

My stupid iPhone game: Nesen Probe, it's rather old, annoying and pointless, but it's free.
Was free. Now it's gone. Never to be seen again.
Off to join its brother and sister apps that could not
keep up with the ever updating iOS. RIP Nesen Probe.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2015, 03:43 PM
 
So did Mitt.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:26 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,