Anti-Government Extremist Groups Are A Uniquely American Problem

a reply to: Riouz

Whatever ya say there mate.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I think for many that sentiment, "covers the meat and potatoes of your OP"

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Just wondering if you agree or don't

with the headline

Riouz

a reply to: TechniXcality

Calling me unamerican is an ad hominem and has nothing to do with what I was talking about in the OP. So for that "many" they'd be wrong.

a reply to: Riouz

It should be pretty obvious by now that I could care less about the headline. I'm not some vapid Facebook poster that reads a headline then shares it on his timeline. I see what the actual article has to say first. I know SHOCKING right?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Never been on facebook or any social media in my life

what has that got to do with the Headline ...

Riouz

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I've yet to call you unamerican, perhaps you should take a look at that.

As for the rest of your OP, Meh it's an attempt to pigeon hole a growing contempt that crosses racial,political, and religious lines. I'm not sure you are going to garner the reaction you are looking for.

Is it wrong to be "anti-government" when those elected to represent the people no longer fulfill their inherent role?

When does it become the "duty" of the citizenry of this nation to cross the line from mere cattle into "Patriot" again?

I will always remember the words (though I admit I forget who spoke them):

"Is life so dear of peace so sweet to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? I say forbid it Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me give me liberty or give me death"

When those with the power get to decide who is labeled how do you trust the label?

When the SPLC is so slanted how do you trust their label?

Hillary Clinton said her #1 enemy was the Republicans. Who will be labeled as "terrorists" when she is President next year?

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I've yet to call you unamerican, perhaps you should take a look at that.

I know that, but you heavily implied it with your first post.

As for the rest of your OP, Meh it's an attempt to pigeon hole a growing contempt that cross racial political and religious lines. I'm not sure you are going to garner the reaction you are looking for.

Well I actually expect more red herrings like my conversation with you instead of any actual intelligent conversations. Though I'd appreciate a real conversation, but I don't have my hopes up.

ok can you please explain to me then WHY

Anti-Government Extremist Groups Are A Uniquely American Problem
Is ONLY an Unique problem for America

Riouz

a reply to: 200Plus

I'd say that taking up arms against the government just because a political party you disagree with is in office is a ridiculous notion. And no, Hillary won't ever label Republicans as terrorists...

Like I pointed out on page 1, all the notorious freedom stealing laws (like the Patriot Act) came about under a Republican President. Where were all the "Patriot" groups taking up arms against the government then?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Who has the bundy family killed? Who are they terrorizing? They are protesting the BLM for their new policies which are stealing land from private farmers. They are occupying a public building and gaining support from around the country. Sorry you don't like it, but they are not "anti-gov" or terrorists. They are protestors.

a reply to: Woodcarver

What they are doing is illegally occupying federal land to protest two (admitted) arsonists from going to jail. They are NOT protesters. Calling them that is an insult to protesting everywhere.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Revisionist history, that often leads to book burning, starts with the redefining of laungage and is an insult to citizens everywhere.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Anti-Government Extremist Groups Are A Uniquely American Problem

That is because American political corruption is a uniquely American problem.

Why is it that when a Democrat is in office, extremists decide the government is coming to destroy their lives, but while a Republican is in office, this isn't a factor?

Your chart shows that it IS a factor when republicans are in office, just to a lesser degree. In answer to your question however, have you considered the possibility that the so-called extremists are right? I know that doesn't fit in to your way of thinking, but sometimes the facts stubbornly refuse to conform to our perspective.

Your reference cites examples such as Ruby Ridge and Waco. I watched Ruby Ridge unfold as it happened. And I happen to know about bit more than average about Waco.

a reply to: TechniXcality

Yeah. No.

Armed men, led by Bundy brothers, take over federal building in rural Oregon

Organizers of the rally say several hundred attended the procession through Burns, Ore. — a ranching town of less than 3,000 residents — in a show of support for Dwight Hammond, 73, and his son Steven Hammond, 46, who in the conclusion of a decades of clashes with the federal government were sentenced last October to serve five years in prison.

Prosecutors accused the Hammonds of committing arson on federal land in 2001 and 2006. The men and their attorneys argued that the fires had been set on their own property — once to prevent the spread of an invasive species of plant and once in attempt to prevent the spread of a wildfire — and had inadvertently burned onto public lands. But prosecutors said the fires were set in attempt to destroy evidence that the Hammonds had been illegally hunting deer on the federal lands.

The two men have previously served prison time for the crimes, but earlier this year a federal appeals court concluded that their initial sentences had been too short — arson on federal property carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years — and ordered the men back to prison.

Though I'm eager to hear what YOU think the "patriots" are there for.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Now I'm not necessarily trying to start a partisan mud slinging fest

you make me smile.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Now I'm not necessarily trying to start a partisan mud slinging fest

*Swims on by the bait without looking back.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I figured this thread should go here since we are talking about domestic terrorist cells within the country that operate under the premise that the government is tyrannical.

Anti-Government Extremist Groups Are A Uniquely American Problem

In the days since gunmen took over a federal wildlife refuge in Burns, Oregon, the anti-federalist militants have accomplished little more than exhausting the patience of locals.

At the same time, they have brought renewed scrutiny to American right-wing, anti-government extremist groups -- a population whose numbers surged in the 1990s and are on the rise once again.

A tally released Monday by The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks extremist organizations, identified 276 anti-government militia groups in the U.S., a 37 percent jump from 2014. The militia groups are an armed subset of so-called patriot groups that "typically adhere to extreme antigovernment doctrines and subscribe to groundless conspiracy theories about the federal government," according to the law center.

Heidi Beirich, who directs the law center's Intelligence Project magazine, said the rise of the anti-government movement follows a predictable pattern of surging during a Democratic presidency and then falling under a Republican one. Extremists like the Posse Comitatus surged during Jimmy Carter's presidency in the 1970s, while Bill Clinton led the country during a time when the militia movement was involved in high-profile confrontations that included the Waco seige, Ruby Ridge and the Oklahoma City bombing.

Beirich isn't lying either. Check out this graph that goes along with the article.

It's especially bad with Obama. Now I'm not necessarily trying to start a partisan mud slinging fest, but that graph is rather disturbing. Why is it that when a Democrat is in office, extremists decide the government is coming to destroy their lives, but while a Republican is in office, this isn't a factor? I have my suspicions, but like I said I'm not trying to turn this into a partisan mud slinging contest.

Extreme anti-government suspicion is a characteristic that Beirich said is unique to the United States.

"This country was founded on overthrowing a tyranny," Beirich said. "This revolutionary fervor is kind of embedded in the U.S. -- this idea if you don’t like the government, you grab guns and overthrow it.”

This isn't exactly the best of ideas, and going by rhetoric used in the media that gets you labeled as a terrorist these days. Violent overthrow of government is a terrible decision unless the government is already firing on the people en masse. That isn't the case now or at any time within the last 200+ years this country has been a country and that includes Waco and even the Civil War (the South started that war).

"Anti-govermment extremism is all over the country, but what’s unique about the West is that it’s a place where the federal government owns a lot of land," Beirich noted. "And a lot of the anti-government extremists live in rural areas. The West lends itself to this."

Beirich said groups like the one in Oregon were galvanized after a 2014 confrontation at the Bundy family ranch in Nevada between armed militants and federal law enforcement.

People like this need to wake the hell up. They aren't Rambo or some movie star in an action film. This is real life. There are real consequences for your actions and things don't get tied up all nice and neat and the end of your story arc.

Brian Levin, an attorney and criminologist, said the overall risk posed by anti-government groups is growing. Levin, who directs the nonpartisan Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism at California State University, said it was a "material change" that the militants in Oregon have moved from "mere rhetoric to action, and from action to forceful action."

"This is a significant milestone because we’re seeing now a coalescence of a grassroots organization, which is responding to events and trying to influence them through show of force," Levin said. "We’re seeing aggressive and criminal conduct to make this point."

In other words, terrorism. Though I LOVE Levin's idea to handle these crazy assholes.

Levin, who described himself as third-generation law enforcement, said the "less is more" approach to handling the militants will avoid opportunity for martyrdom or further notoriety.

"When things go south, the first question is always, 'Why didn’t you wait?'" Levin said. "A court order is still valid, and can be executed at a time and place of the government’s convenience. And no one gets killed. And we haven’t given these extremists fodder for their own recruitment efforts."

While a threat exists as long as the militants remain armed, Levin noted federal officials can afford to give the occupants room, since they effectively "put themselves in their own jail" by holing up in a remote and empty building with few snacks.

"Do you want to eat frozen Spam over a half-lit fire in a desolate tundra? Knock yourself out," Levin said. "It’s not like they occupied a resort in Maui.”

And that pretty much looks like what we are seeing go down with the Bundy "patriots" round 2. It's pretty funny watching them rant and fume about the government about to come kick their door down guns blazing (they like to talk about Waco a lot); meanwhile it never happens and they end up sitting in the middle of nowhere in the cold for days on end while the government just plays a game of attrition with them. Idiots.

911 accounts for some or all of the lessening of discontent in the Bush years. Partly out of fear of real terrorist problems and partly out of fear of a government with carte blanche. I think the all clear sounded from the Bankster Bailout, which happened exactly as the parties switched over in 2008.

Which is one of the many benefits the gov got from 911.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TechniXcality

Though I'm eager to hear what YOU think the "patriots" are there for.

Just can't help yourself with the "patriot" jab. It's not a pretty sight to watch you patronize those who are patriots, with your obvious connection to the term terrorism, of which you make no apology.

I do not think it is time to take up arms, so therefor I believe the action that has been taken is beyond support, as of now, I support smooth transition of power, and unfortunately a failing legal system- that I know needs reform. however they are not terrorists, potentially they could become terrorists, but as of now squatting in a previously unoccupied federal building, is a form of protest albeit one I do not agree with, because of what I mentioned earlier. Also, I think the BLM is engaged in a act of land grabbing, and is using judicial weight to essentially extort people.

I think while misguided in their action, they are pressing a issue (specifically abuse of power) that once again crosses political, religious, and racial devides.