Grrrr ...Congress Expands FBI Spying Power

[aversion]

Originally posted by TallGuyLittleCar
actually most of america's terrorist, or at least america's most effective terrorist, are leftists or environmental groups. That is if you don't count cia folks.

so I guess that should be granola terrorists...

the guys that blew up that federal building in oklahoma city were environmentalists?

[yasunobu13]

Originally posted by aversion
the guys that blew up that federal building in oklahoma city were environmentalists?

No, but I know a group capable of it. Only if the buildings housed something as dangerous to the environment such as laboratories studying how to save a endangered species of plant from extinction, of course.

Earth Liberation Front

[aversion]

Originally posted by yasunobu13
No, but I know a group capable of it. Only if the buildings housed something as dangerous to the environment such as laboratories studying how to save a endangered species of plant from extinction, of course.

Earth Liberation Front

so they've blown up buildings before?

[yasunobu13]

Originally posted by aversion
so they've blown up buildings before?

I never said that they have blown up buildings; I said that they are capable.

They've burned down buildings, they've burned down a lot of buildings, in the name of a healthier environment.

<opinion>
Explosives would seem to be the next step if they feel that they are not being heard.
</opinion>

[aversion]

Originally posted by yasunobu13
I never said that they have blown up buildings; I said that they are capable.

They've burned down buildings, they've burned down a lot of buildings, in the name of a healthier environment.

<opinion>
Explosives would seem to be the next step if they feel that they are not being heard.
</opinion>

so they're more dangerous than the anti-government extremists who killed hundreds of people with a truck bomb?

i see, sorry I was confused.

[yasunobu13]

Originally posted by aversion
so they're more dangerous than the anti-government extremists who killed hundreds of people with a truck bomb?

i see, sorry I was confused.

You seemed upset that environmentalists were compared with the truck bomb that you just mentioned.

I never said that they are more dangerous, I'm saying that they are bad and also do damage in an attempt to give you an example of people who claim themselves to be environmentalists and cause harm to others.

The sarcasm (I assume is what that reply was) is not needed. I was simply giving an example of a group that could be considered terrorists.

I obviously chimed in at the wrong time in this thread.

[aversion]

not upset, just a bit confused, genuinely. That's what comes from only paying half a mind to what's happening, sorry.

[yasunobu13]

Originally posted by aversion
not upset, just a bit confused, genuinely. That's what comes from only paying half a mind to what's happening, sorry.

no worries.

[PAlexC]

I am afraid to visit the Earth Liberation Front website to see what jerks they are, because my IP will be logged and the men in black suits will show up at my door and flashy-thing me.

[aversion]

anyone who is extreme and fundamentalist in their views, no matter what they are, is dangerous.

[1337designs]

Originally posted by aversion
people get pissed off because the system is always abused, and removing such checks like authorising these actions internally is only going to increase that.

mr joe schmo driving down the freeway might not be effected by this, but mr joe abdul going about his business might, you don't think racial profiling will a part of the 'probably cause'?

I see no reason to remove the need to sanctions like these with 3rd parties. People regularly get judges out of bed for warrants and authorisations.

duelly noted..

Maybe two laws should be passed then. One regarding the new investigation allowances and one forbidding and enforcing the removal of racial profiling, with strict penalties and multiple occurances leading to termination.

People do regularly get judges out of bed for warrants, however, remember, the judge reserves the right to push the issue off into the morning s/he so see's fit.

[marknovak]

Wow I was just reading up on that Earth Liberation Front...

They spraypainted a bunch of SUVs at a dealership after setting half the place on fire.

...... what's ironic is.....

aerosol spraypaint cans hurt the environment!

AHAHAHHAAHAAHAHH

[TallGuyLittleCar]

Originally posted by aversion
so they're more dangerous than the anti-government extremists who killed hundreds of people with a truck bomb?

i see, sorry I was confused.

O.k. lets not argue the particular to the general. Most of us are a little more intelligent than that. When you add up the totals of death and destruction, the leftists and environmentalists outweigh the act of timothy mcvay. I guess if you rely on major media corps for your information you don't get the full story.

[aversion]

Originally posted by TallGuyLittleCar
O.k. lets not argue the particular to the general. Most of us are a little more intelligent than that. When you add up the totals of death and destruction, the leftists and environmentalists outweigh the act of timothy mcvay. I guess if you rely on major media corps for your information you don't get the full story.

you've no idea what news outlets I read but since you want to arsey about it go ahead.

the truth is I have not heard of environmental (and I was talking about environmentalists not leftists) kill as many people as mcveigh, and no matter how many non-'major media corps' I read I can't remember ever hearing about an environmentalist group killing anyone to be honest.

I don't live in your country and maybe where you are there is a particularly dangerous sect of environmental terrorists who kill lots of people and it doesn't get into international news media? If so i'd love to read something about it, maybe there's a link to your local paper with all these environmental terror groups killing people?

If you do include 'leftists' - by which I assume he originally meant pseudo marxist terror groups in places like spain and italy, then yeah, they are an obvious threat, but I wasn't talking about them, which is pretty obvious if you read my posts. The guys that blew up the oklahoma fed building were obviously not leftists.

If an enviromental group wants to use terror tactics then I'm against them, or anyone else that thinks their views are above the law, like anti-abortion groups.

as I mentioned in my post to yasunobu, I wasn't trying to be sarcastic about what he said, but I wasn't really paying attention and missed that he was talking about leftists, hence every post of mine only refers to environmentalists. But you took up the slack there, thanks.

[japangreg]

Originally posted by TallGuyLittleCar
O.k. lets not argue the particular to the general. Most of us are a little more intelligent than that. When you add up the totals of death and destruction, the leftists and environmentalists outweigh the act of timothy mcvay. I guess if you rely on major media corps for your information you don't get the full story.

It'd bet the total from the 'leftists and environmentalist' over the years would outweigh that of the 9/11 attacks, too.

Let's also not pretend that there aren't any conservative (or 'right') terrorists; I'd describe the KKK as a conservative terrorist organization, not to mention the right-to-lifers who blow up abortion clinics and gun down doctors.

Aversion has it right: anyone, regardless of where they fall in the liberal/conservative spectrum, that has extreme and fundimentalist views is dangerous.

Just to contribute to moving this thread forward on the original subject, I'd define racial profiling as state-approved racism. It's making a value judgement about someone's innocence based on their appearence (not just their ethnicity, as someone pointed out earlier about the Shieks).

[yasunobu13]

Originally posted by aversion
as I mentioned in my post to yasunobu, I wasn't trying to be sarcastic about what he said, but I wasn't really paying attention and missed that he was talking about leftists, hence every post of mine only refers to environmentalists. But you took up the slack there, thanks.

I was talking about environmentalists, well, people who think that they are helping the environment since things like the spray painting and burning humvees actually released hundreds of tons of pollutents into the air.

My point was that terrorism need not be defined by how many people died. There are other forms of terrorism in the world.

People like ELF, or ALF (Animal Liberation Front) pride themselves on not killing people or animals. The say that, because no one died, they are not terrorists, but instead should be considered vandals.

I would consider them terrorists.

[aversion]

Originally posted by yasunobu13
My point was that terrorism need not be defined by how many people died. There are other forms of terrorism in the world.

absolutely, there are extreme animal groups in england who have been firebombing, though no one to my knowledge has died it's still a terror threat imho.

I would, as i said, include religious extremists, such as the anti-abortion groups, anyone that takes the law into their own hands to kill or destroy in democratic countries with a relatively fair legislative system.

[gerbick]

ELF, ALF... I really don't consider those guys terrorists, per se. Neither Greenpeace or PETA; all of which are known to disrupt businesses, make "some" threats, and basically are general nuisances; however with the limited information I've culled from the media about the aforementioned, I don't think they really compare to Al Queda and Hezbollah when it comes down to "terrorist activities"... those last two groups actually train with guns, weapons, and targets.

I may be wrong, but the others don't sound like terrorist to me.

But that's just my opinion. If I'm wrong, I really don't mind finding out otherwise.

[japangreg]

Here's an interesting question I don't think has really been brought up before:

How would you define terrorism?

We all seem to have this 'I know it when I see it' perspective but I think this discussion is crossing into territory where it might be good to define some terms so we all know where exactly we all stand when discussing things like car bombings vs. burning Humvees.

As defined by the FBI, "the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives". This definition includes three elements: (1) Terrorist activities are illegal and involve the use of force. (2) The actions are intended to intimidate or coerce. (3) The actions are committed in support of political or social objectives.

(from the all-powerful Google)

Anyone have a significantly different interpretation than this? It's pretty close to my own definition (threat of death or grevious injury used to accomplish political goals)

*edit* Just realized that Mafio-so style intimidation of gov. employees now qualifies as terrorism under the FBI definition...

[aversion]

PETA and greenpeace definitely aren't terrorists in my opinion. There are some groups that do carry out firebombing of labs and trucks, animal rights groups mostly, but I don't consider them much of a threat compared to political/religious extremists.