Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Y'all Qaeda

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Apollo
    replied
    SkywalkerAC wrote: View Post
    For American citizens, domestic terrorism is actually the bigger danger.
    I would say they're equally threatening unless you don't believe in the official 911 story or the previous failed attempts on the WTC.

    This news dropped yesterday:
    "Military age men" at San Diego's southern border
    "Credible threat" posed by unknown Afghans and Pakistanis

    Among the several dozen Pakistani and Afghan men who have entered the U.S. illegally, coming into San Diego from Tijuana, two were found to have ties to terrorist groups, according to a letter sent by U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter to the Department of Homeland Security.

    Muhammad Azeem and Muktar Ahmad, both in their 20s, surrendered to U.S. Border Patrol agents in September, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. One was listed on the Terrorist Screening Database for “associations with a known or suspected terrorist. The other was a positive match for derogatory information in an alternative database,” according to Hunter’s letter.

    Azeem and Ahmad are among dozens of men — described by Border Patrol agents as “military age and carrying U.S. cash” who began entering the U.S. through a Tijuana-based human-smuggling pipeline in September.

    Pakistanis and Afghans crossing the border illegally in the San Diego sector are pretty unusual, according to Border Patrol statistics. In 2013, U.S. Customs and Border Protection detained fewer than 400 Pakistanis throughout the entire United States — at the ports of entry, airports, and along the border between ports.

    Between October 1, 2014, and Sept. 30, 2015, the San Diego sector of the Border Patrol detained 18 Pakistanis and 1 Afghan, according to Border Patrol statistics. Between October 1 and mid-November of last year, 2 Afghans and 22 Pakistanis reportedly surrendered to Border Patrol agents.

    “We have detained more Pakistanis and Afghans in the first month of this fiscal year than we did all last year,” assistant chief Richard Smith confirmed in November.

    In the month and a half since mid-November, 3 more Afghans and 6 more Pakistanis were detained by the Border Patrol (not including those detained at the ports of entry).
    http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2...thern-border/#

    Leave a comment:


  • slaw
    replied
    Bendit wrote: View Post
    First bold: I get that a lot (only from the usual few here). But crickets after that. Explain please and how much it smells.

    Second bold: Again, explain how. Are you trying to equate the plight of the black people in America borne out of slavery with any other group of immigrants who may have suffered their own group subjugation by the already settled population?

    Third bold: And you do? Explain again...or I'll take it as more crickets not chirping.

    As far as Charles Cobb....I fail to see the relevance. You are again conflating and equating the struggles of the profound injustices suffered by black people in 20th century America (I'll make it easy for you) with these yahoos in Oregon? Cobb as I see it understands the need for armed protection against vile Klan types and local state govts who sent out their goons to intimidate any who protested their basic CIVIL RIGHTS. Taking over a designated National Park (wildlife preserve) is NOT a civil right nor was one taken away. Go to a court.

    And if you have "the right to bear arms" on your mind, the 2nd Amendment was some 200 years ago. Most things progress but conservatives give new meaning to living in the past when muskets was the weapon of the century and loading it wasnt considered a problem. You are aware that most states have their so called "state militias" and the Feds now have drones to piss on any cowboys who believe they can commit a serious insurrection. These guys goals (do they have any) are laughable alongwith you defending the indefensible.

    ps...I think you have another Bendit confused with your last couple of sentences. And we both seem to disagree with you.
    Obama has said four times the Australian model of gun control is great. That model was confiscation. That's what he really thinks. It's what he would do if he could but he can't. That's why all you guys want to amend the constitution. It isn't so that you can pass more background check legislation. Let's be honest about it at least.

    The second amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. Those are all civil rights. Not sure what is confusing about that. Seems pretty simple. And I was talking about the civil right to bear arms in the second amendment (not sure why you put it in quotes. it's right there in the bill of rights). All Americans have it. Even ones you don't like.

    What am I defending? If a bunch of guys want to occupy an abandoned bird sanctuary what do I care? I remember when OccupyWallStreet embodied the notion that dissent was the highest form of patriotism? So, these guys are like super patriots, right? And when Obama's former attorney general participated in the armed seizure and occupation of an ROTC building on campus he was just being patriotic. What do I care?

    Leave a comment:


  • SkywalkerAC
    replied
    Apollo wrote: View Post
    The main difference here is that the Bundys aren't raping and stoning women, tossing homosexuals off buildings, blowing up buildings, murdering people in mass volumes for not being Islamic, yada, yada, yada.

    There's a huge distance between the Bundy's right now and radical Islam right now. Is what they're doing right? No. Is it crazy? Yes. Are they as dangerous as radical Islam? No, it would appear to be media sensationalism.
    For American citizens, domestic terrorism is actually the bigger danger.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/us...or-threat.html

    Leave a comment:


  • raptors999
    replied
    Apollo wrote: View Post
    I would have to put my money down on the Feds. These Bundy's probably feel unstoppable now after their last government confrontation where they won. I don't think it goes that way this time.
    Complacency is always a factor after a win. Think the third matchup decides the series.

    Leave a comment:


  • Apollo
    replied
    raptors999 wrote: View Post
    Anybody have the over/under on this. Have Feds -3.0 vs Crazy Off-grid Gun Nuts. Hope it isn't PPV
    I would have to put my money down on the Feds. These Bundy's probably feel unstoppable now after their last government confrontation where they won. I don't think it goes that way this time.

    Leave a comment:


  • raptors999
    replied
    Apollo wrote: View Post
    Crazy, extreme people will find something to support their lunacy regardless. My fear is that this ends in a Waco style onslaught. If the Feds want to take them it will be swift. The hold up here is clearly they don't want anyone to die and they also probably don't want this guy to become a martyr to some extreme cause.
    Anybody have the over/under on this. Have Feds -3.0 vs Crazy Off-grid Gun Nuts. Hope it isn't PPV

    Leave a comment:


  • Apollo
    replied
    Nilanka wrote: View Post
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0cad15e62836f

    Bundy would probably be willing to fire his gun if the government attempted to oust him. He may not be killing in the name of God, but he most definitely is doing, what he believes to be, God's work.
    Crazy, extreme people will find something to support their lunacy regardless. My fear is that this ends in a Waco style onslaught. If the Feds want to take them it will be swift. The hold up here is clearly they don't want anyone to die and they also probably don't want this guy to become a martyr to some extreme cause.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nilanka
    replied
    Ammon Bundy said he prayed about the matter and "clearly understood that the Lord was not pleased with what was happening to the Hammonds."

    The Hammonds said they lit the fires to reduce the growth of invasive plants and protect their property from wildfires.

    "I did exactly what the Lord asked me to do," Bundy said in a YouTube video posted last week in which he appeals to people to join him in Oregon to protest the treatment of the Hammonds.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0cad15e62836f

    Bundy would probably be willing to fire his gun if the government attempted to oust him. He may not be killing in the name of God, but he most definitely is doing, what he believes to be, God's work.

    Leave a comment:


  • Apollo
    replied
    My understanding of the issue and the general background:

    Further, we're talking about hardline constitutionalists. They don't want to give what they perceive to be an inch more because they feel their constitution (their "guaranteed" freedoms) is being slowing erroded. They feel that the US federal government is ignoring the constitution and is slowly chipping away at it by doing small things counter to it over a long time span. In their constitution it states the right to bare arms and to responsibilities of American citizens in regards to militias. To a general public outside the US this contrasts what we're accustomed to and so it's entirely shocking. To a general American public full of people ignorant to what America was and was meant to be it is also shocking; especially if you watch American news networks which all are clearly serving political circles and not the pure facts.

    If this was happening in 1916 the general American population might view it differently but it's the year 2016 and things have changed. The America they're trying to cling to by force is gone. One could argue if general Americans can't be bothered to pay attention, can't be bothered to think critically or ask questions and can't be bothered to contact their representatives when they feel something is wrong then they don't deserve the document to begin with. One could also argue that this document was drafted in a different time which faced different challenges and so it's out of touch with how the world is today in some regards.

    Nilanka wrote: View Post
    Oh, I agree that they're not even close in terms of danger. The meme was a joke more than anything.

    But having said that, even a minuscule overlap with radical Islam isn't anything to be proud of.
    One could also argue that there is more overlap with the revolutionaries who won their independence from the British. They're in line with those guys, they're fighting under the terms those guys documented in their constitution. The problem is that things have changed and clearly Americans (overall) don't agree with that or see value in that anymore or else this wouldn't be a huge deal to everyone.

    These militia groups essentially believe the following:
    "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson

    That's the extent of my understanding of what's happening there. I wanted to make it clear that no one is killing anyone there in the name of God. This standoff if about one groups understanding of a document which they feel gives them authority and another group voted by the people which they feel gives them authority.


    Update
    Here is a new twist:
    The leader of an American Indian tribe that regards an Oregon nature preserve as sacred issued a rebuke Wednesday to the armed men who are occupying the property, saying they are not welcome at the bird sanctuary and must leave.

    The Burns Paiute tribe was the latest group to speak out against the self-styled militia, which has taken several buildings at the preserve to protest policies governing the use of federal land in the West.

    "The protesters have no right to this land. It belongs to the native people who live here," tribal leader Charlotte Rodrique said.

    She spoke at a news conference at the tribe's cultural centre, about a half-hour drive from Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, which is being occupied by some 20 men led by Ammon Bundy, whose father Cliven was at the centre of a standoff in Nevada with federal officials in 2014 over use of public lands. Both has different value and understanding of the constitution.

    Ammon Bundy is demanding that the refuge be handed over to locals.

    Rodrique said she "had to laugh" at the demand, because she knew Bundy was not talking about giving the land to the tribe.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/oregon-...ribe-1.3392677

    Leave a comment:


  • Nilanka
    replied
    Apollo wrote: View Post
    The main difference here is that the Bundys aren't raping and stoning women, tossing homosexuals off buildings, blowing up buildings, murdering people in mass volumes for not being Islamic, yada, yada, yada.

    There's a huge distance between the Bundy's right now and radical Islam right now. Is what they're doing right? No. Is it crazy? Yes. Are they as dangerous as radical Islam? No, it would appear to be media sensationalism.
    Oh, I agree that they're not even close in terms of danger. The meme was a joke more than anything.

    But having said that, even a minuscule overlap with radical Islam isn't anything to be proud of.

    Leave a comment:


  • Apollo
    replied
    Nilanka wrote: View Post
    The main difference here is that the Bundys aren't raping and stoning women, tossing homosexuals off buildings, blowing up buildings, murdering people in mass volumes for not being Islamic, yada, yada, yada.

    There's a huge distance between the Bundy's right now and radical Islam right now. Is what they're doing right? No. Is it crazy? Yes. Are they as dangerous as radical Islam? No, it would appear to be media sensationalism.

    Leave a comment:


  • Axel
    replied
    Joey wrote: View Post
    To bring it back on point, have these guys been taken care of yet?
    FBI and local police seem content to simply wait them out at this point. The plan was to shut off electricity, phone lines and road access, but haven't seen a confirmed report that it has happened yet, but I suspect it has.

    There was a similar incident in Texas in 1993 and the FBI tried to use force to get the militia out and 100 people died. Makes sense that they'd just wait them out this time.

    The militia has said there will be a time when enough is enough, but that it will be when the Hammonds are released from prison. A more detailed report I saw said that the Hammonds were convicted of setting 130 acres of federal park land on fire to cover up illegal deer poaching.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bendit
    replied
    A good summation of the Oregon Qaeda insurrection and advice going forward.

    This is an editorial in the NY Times.


    It is a familiar claim by many Second Amendment defenders — and, during the Obama administration, an increasingly popular one — that unfettered gun rights are necessary to protect American citizens against the threat of a tyrannical government.

    In addition to being a misreading of history, the claim is amusing hyperbole to those who have suffered under real-life tyrants. But this week’s armed standoff at a federal wildlife sanctuary in eastern Oregon is showing how far a small, determined band of anti government zealots with lots of big guns will go to make their potentially deadly point.

    Styling themselves as a militia, the group hijacked a peaceful protest over five-year prison sentences a federal court had imposed on two local ranchers for setting fires on federal land. Led by a man named Ammon Bundy — whose father, Cliven, instigated his own armed confrontation with federal authorities over cattle ranching in Nevada in 2014 — this hyper weaponized posse rolled into town and seized administrative buildings at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge on Saturday. Mr. Bundy said they are willing to stay for “as long as necessary,” and that “if force is used against us, we would defend ourselves.”

    The occupation is the latest outgrowth of a long-running movement by some ranchers and farmers who believe the federal government controls far too much land in Oregon, Nevada and other Western states. Mr. Bundy and his gun-toting comrades argue that a century of federal policies has driven many ranchers into poverty and destroyed the rural economy.

    This is mostly nonsense. As part of its congressional mandate to balance commercial and environmental concerns, including conservation, the federal government imposes reasonable rules on how public land can be used for mining, logging and ranching. On the whole Washington has been a benevolent, even generous landlord.

    There may be a good argument that the two ranchers in this case, Dwight Hammond and his son, Steven, were punished unreasonably harshly for their crimes. But the way to have this argument is through peaceful means, such as the original protesters were doing, or as the Hammonds themselves chose to do — by reporting to prison and asking President Obama for clemency. Every day, citizens around the country sue or otherwise challenge the government over alleged violations of the law or the Constitution, and they do it without a rifle in their hand.

    A democracy cannot function any other way. It thrives on principled disagreement, but it withers in the face of a loaded gun.

    Such dangerous behavior also puts law enforcement in an impossible position: respond with force and people may well die; walk away — as Bureau of Land Management officials did with Cliven Bundy — and the extremists are only emboldened. (On Monday, according to The Guardian, federal authorities said they planned to shut off power to the buildings.)

    Mr. Bundy and his band of militants have made few friends. Local law enforcement has told them to leave immediately. Many residents, even those who agree that the federal government owns and mismanages too much land, have strongly rejected Mr. Bundy’s gun-happy tactics. The Hammonds’ own lawyer disassociated his clients from the group. And while years of overheated antigovernment statements from right-wing politicians and media figures have helped to fuel exactly this sort of outburst, it is encouraging that many on the right have called for the militants to stand down. When Ted Cruz says you’ve gone too far, it’s worth listening.

    The simple message Mr. Bundy and his band must hear is this: If everyone with a gripe against the government responded by threatening federal officials with weapons, America would no longer be a nation governed by the rule of law. Their grievances, like everyone else’s, can be addressed. But not before they put down the guns.
    Amazing...Ted Cruz being the voice of reason!

    Leave a comment:


  • Bendit
    replied
    slaw wrote: View Post
    First sentence is bullcrap.

    It is a civil right. You don't like it? Amend the constitution.

    You clearly have no idea about the civil rights movement. Rosa Parks? Good grief. And, actually, as with Joey, I suggest you look up a book called This NonViolent Stuff'll Get You Killed, by Charles Cobb, which is all about how important armed self defense was to the civil rights movement. Rosa Parks? Come on....

    Yes, the kind of people Bendit likes have the right to occupy parks, government buildings, downtown cores, universities, etc., but the kind of people not on Bendit's team are armed insurrectionists or terrorists or whatnot.
    First bold: I get that a lot (only from the usual few here). But crickets after that. Explain please and how much it smells.

    Second bold: Again, explain how. Are you trying to equate the plight of the black people in America borne out of slavery with any other group of immigrants who may have suffered their own group subjugation by the already settled population?

    Third bold: And you do? Explain again...or I'll take it as more crickets not chirping.

    As far as Charles Cobb....I fail to see the relevance. You are again conflating and equating the struggles of the profound injustices suffered by black people in 20th century America (I'll make it easy for you) with these yahoos in Oregon? Cobb as I see it understands the need for armed protection against vile Klan types and local state govts who sent out their goons to intimidate any who protested their basic CIVIL RIGHTS. Taking over a designated National Park (wildlife preserve) is NOT a civil right nor was one taken away. Go to a court.

    And if you have "the right to bear arms" on your mind, the 2nd Amendment was some 200 years ago. Most things progress but conservatives give new meaning to living in the past when muskets was the weapon of the century and loading it wasnt considered a problem. You are aware that most states have their so called "state militias" and the Feds now have drones to piss on any cowboys who believe they can commit a serious insurrection. These guys goals (do they have any) are laughable alongwith you defending the indefensible.

    ps...I think you have another Bendit confused with your last couple of sentences. And we both seem to disagree with you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Joey
    replied
    Axel wrote: View Post
    Yup
    To bring it back on point, have these guys been taken care of yet?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X