• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Individual liberty = terrorist

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member

Hilander

Free Spirit
Staff member
V.I.P.
Their definition of terrorist is so broad they could label us all as one. Just think Bush started this mess and once something starts try to stop it. Everyone thought all this was so great at the time they signed the patriot act without even reading it.

Who would get the backing of congress to stop it. Some are more interested in causing the president trouble than doing something good for this nation. Not that doing something has been mentioned.
 

PretzelCorps

Registered Member
Honestly, SS, we've been here so many times before, you have got to realize by now that Infowars is pretty much a Conservative-soaked sister site to The Onion insofar as journalistic integrity is concerned.

As always, Infowars provides links to the sources they're interpreting, and as always, nobody ever bothers to actually go ahead and read them. Find it here.

Infowars says:
A new study funded by the Department of Homeland Security characterizes Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority,” and “reverent of individual liberty” as “extreme right-wing” terrorists.
It is a [red]lie[/red].

The actual passage is right here:
The definition of terrorism used by the GTD is: the threatened or actual use of illegal force by non-state actors, in order to attain a political, economic, religious or social goal, through fear, coercion or intimidation.

[...]

Terrorist acts are also categorized by the ideological motivation of the act and coded as “extreme right-wing”; extreme left-wing; religious; ethnonationalist/separatist; or single issue.

[...]

Extreme Right-Wing: groups that believe that one’s personal and/or national “way of life” is under attack and is either already lost or that the threat is imminent (for some the threat is from a specific ethnic, racial, or religious group), and believe in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism. Groups may also be fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation), anti-global, suspicious of centralized federal authority, reverent of individual liberty, and believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty.
"May." As in Extreme Right-Wing terrorist groups "may" be suspicious of centralized federal authority, and "may" be reverent of individual liberty. At no point does this document ever identify any of those listed attributes as indicative of terrorism. Only that they "may" be attributable to groups who are already identifiable as Extreme Right-Wing terrorists.

Infowars says:
While largely omitting Islamic terrorism - the report fails completely to mention the 1993 World Trade Center bombing – the study focuses on Americans who hold beliefs shared by the vast majority of conservatives and libertarians and puts them in the context of radical extremism.
That is a [red]lie[/red].

Alongside the above passage on Extreme Right-Wing terrorism, are also these sections and many others that Infowars completely fails to 'notice':
Extreme Left-Wing: groups that want to bring about change through violent revolution rather than through established political processes. This category also includes secular left-wing groups that rely heavily on terrorism to overthrow the capitalist system and either establish “a dictatorship of the proletariat” (Marxist-Leninists) or, much more rarely, a decentralized, non-hierarchical political system (anarchists).

Religious: groups that seek to smite the purported enemies of God and other evildoers, impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists), forcibly insert religion into the political sphere (e.g., those who seek to politicize religion, such as Christian Reconstructionists and Islamists), and/or bring about Armageddon (apocalyptic millenarian cults; 2010: 17). For example, Jewish Direct Action, Mormon extremist, Jamaat-al-Fuqra, and Covenant, Sword and the Arm of the Lord (CSA) are included in this category.
More than giving considerable mention to a whole slew of different rationalizations for terrorist acts, the study directly names Islamic terrorist groups, and even goes so far as to have a section defining Left-Wing terrorism. Egad! They don't even say "may" on the Marxist-Leninists plug! :shocked:

Infowars says:
The report also lists people opposed to abortion and “groups that seek to smite the purported enemies of God and other evildoers” as terrorists.
Yet again, they [red]lie[/red].

Yet again, the quoted passage is taken from the various definitions of terrorist rationalizations:
Single Issue: groups or individuals that obsessively focus on very specific or narrowly-defined causes (e.g., anti-abortion, anti-Catholic, anti-nuclear, anti-Castro). This category includes groups from all sides of the political spectrum.
These are the folks who shot an abortion doctor in church to "send a message." Remember that one? Go figure it would be classified as a terrorist act.


So here's the biggest [red]lie[/red] of all:
The report takes its definitions from a 2011 study entitled Profiles of Perpetrators of Terrorism, produced by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, in which the following characteristics are used to identify terrorists.
- Americans who believe their “way of life” is under attack;
- Americans who are “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”;
- People who consider themselves “anti-global” (presumably those who are wary of the loss of American sovereignty);
- Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”;
- Americans who are “reverent of individual liberty”;
- People who “believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty.”
The definitions used in this report do not at any point indicate any of these traits can be used for the identification of terrorists. What the report indicates is that these traits, amongst a sickening myriad of others that are completely unrelated and even opposed to Right-Wing points of view, have been utilized as justifications for radical violence in the past, and can be utilized to characterize terrorist acts by rationalization, not identify new "potential" terrorists.

It's right there in the PDF on their own site. Please, read it - read all of it - and find me the quote that says any of the traits they listed indicate a terrorist.


It boggles my mind that a supposedly "journalistic" website can not only skew the truth so blatantly, but [red]lie[/red] so directly to their readers. I don't care if you want to have a Conservative bias, that's your right, but these guys [red]lie[/red] and the only rationalization I can find behind it in the case of this article is to dissipate the notion that there has ever been Right-Wing Extremist violence in the US, which, to me, is right up there on par with Holocaust Denial on the sinister scale.
 
Last edited:

wooly

I am the woolrus
Honestly, SS, we've been here so many times before, you have got to realize by now that Infowars is pretty much a Conservative-soaked sister site to The Onion insofar as journalistic integrity is concerned.
Perfectly put. That whole post pretty much hit the nail on the head.

There is absolutely no point in getting your info from infowars. Don't get me wrong, i absolutely love Alex Jones, but only because he's one of the funniest people on the internet! But like Pretzel said, as far as journalism goes, for the most part it is completely worthless.

There's no point posting stuff from that website and presenting it as fact, because the vast majority of the time if you actually look into it even the tiniest bit like pretz did, you'll come up stinking of Alex Jones' bullshit. Trusting infowars is pretty much as advisable as getting all your medical advice from the Daily Mail.
------
0bamatrons cheer Baa Baa Baaarack!
This whole "sheep" notion you've got about anyone who supports Obama is VERY applicable to a lot of people who listen to Alex Jones, e.g. mindlessly accepting his bullshit without checking facts.
 
Last edited:

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
While I agree Alex Jones is a sensationalist and exaggerates and adds emphasis to what otherwise might seem mundane, there is a point to be made.

There can be no doubt that our "homeland security" apparatus is being turned upon the citizens. People's rights are being trampled upon under the guise of security.

I have little doubt that this type of thing will be used against people because of their political views.

As far as "0bamatrons" that doesn't apply to anyone who supports 0bama, just the sheeple that mindlessly accept his rhetoric as truth and believe he is always right.
 

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
As far as "0bamatrons" that doesn't apply to anyone who supports 0bama, just the sheeple that mindlessly accept his rhetoric as truth and believe he is always right.
Where do you find these people or do you just accept these various blogs and websites' claims that there are millions of them out there? I mean, I'm from Massachusetts and I couldn't count on my two hands how many I know who love Obama to that extent. I mean, fucking Massachusetts here. Yeah we got Republicans but I mean come on, here? It's just amusing to me because the more I think about it, I've never in my life met someone like this fantastical 'Obamatron' you keep describing.

That being said, I think Pretz said all there really is needed to be said. The thread title is totally wrong and the content is even more stretched. Americans need to understand that not all terrorism wears middle eastern garb or is from al-qaeda.
 
Top