Domestic Terrorists

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Trajan


Texas V White in 1869 ruled otherwise.


Yeah...and how, exactly, would you have expected a court to rule less than four years after the war ended?!?! Claiming that ruling has anything to due with Constitutional law is ridiculous!
 
Most of those who give their lives to commit an act of terror are Darwin Award candidates.
You don't have to be really bright to sacrifice yourself in the pursuit of some cause.
You just have to be a disfunctional loser, like the two guys who blew up the federal building in Oke City.
The bright folks with the agenda are the ones pulling the strings.
They aren't showing themselves publicly and they aren't dying for the cause.
Others can do that for them.
 
Originally Posted By: Bandito440
I've run into a few sovereign knuckleheads. It's just another group that wants all the privileges of living in a wealthy democracy, but none of the responsibilities.


But they are easily outnumbered by those who think it's ok to take more from those who work to support those who don't.

The responsibilities include taking care of yourself and your family.

I'm not nearly as worried about 200k who want sovereignty as I am about the 47 percent who don't pay income tax.

If you want to discuss a group who wants the benefits of livimg in a constitutional republic without the responsibilities, let's address the biggest dodgers first.
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Most of those who give their lives to commit an act of terror are Darwin Award candidates.
You don't have to be really bright to sacrifice yourself in the pursuit of some cause.
You just have to be a disfunctional loser, like the two guys who blew up the federal building in Oke City.
The bright folks with the agenda are the ones pulling the strings.
They aren't showing themselves publicly and they aren't dying for the cause.
Others can do that for them.


To sacrifice yourself for a cause is courageous,so your entire comment is slanted and based on personal belief and a personal point of view.
To put a cause ahead of your own life,to further the agenda is an act of extreme courage. I for one haven't seen a single cause worth dying for in my lifetime with exception of my 2 kids.

These false flag and oil wars don't do it for me. The opium aggression the British led would have been interesting though.
 
Originally Posted By: Clevy
To sacrifice yourself for a cause is courageous,....... To put a cause ahead of your own life,to further the agenda is an act of extreme courage...


This can be debated many ways. Is it courageous to sacrifice yourself if brainwashed? To the person sacrificing it may be, but not to others. Courage to me is facing your enemy and doing your best to defeat him and hopefully come out alive. Cowardice is strapping a bomb suit on and using that "extreme courage" to kill innocent people in a mall...
 
Courage is doing what you know must be done despite the risk or your fear.

Twisting reality so that an individual perceives innocents as legitimate targets turns that courage into psychopathy.
 
Originally Posted By: 02SE
Based on the thread title, I was expecting this to be about Nidal Hasan..
How in the world would he be called "domestic" with a name like Hasan?
 
Originally Posted By: Vikas
Originally Posted By: 02SE
Based on the thread title, I was expecting this to be about Nidal Hasan..
How in the world would he be called "domestic" with a name like Hasan?


Well...since his act of shooting unarmed soldiers took place in Texas...and since he was born in the US, and was a US citizen, who was in the US Army at the time...seems pretty domestic to me...
 
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: Vikas
Originally Posted By: 02SE
Based on the thread title, I was expecting this to be about Nidal Hasan..
How in the world would he be called "domestic" with a name like Hasan?


Well...since his act of shooting unarmed soldiers took place in Texas...and since he was born in the US, and was a US citizen, who was in the US Army at the time...seems pretty domestic to me...
But then you have non-average IQ and are not the part of the group who believes that the President is muslim :-)
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: Vikas
Originally Posted By: 02SE
Based on the thread title, I was expecting this to be about Nidal Hasan..
How in the world would he be called "domestic" with a name like Hasan?


Well...since his act of shooting unarmed soldiers took place in Texas...and since he was born in the US, and was a US citizen, who was in the US Army at the time...seems pretty domestic to me...


Exactly.

Vikas, please explain how his murderous act was anything but domestic terrorism.
 
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: Trajan


Texas V White in 1869 ruled otherwise.


Yeah...and how, exactly, would you have expected a court to rule less than four years after the war ended?!?! Claiming that ruling has anything to due with Constitutional law is ridiculous!


To determine the outcome of the case, they first had to decide if leaving the Union was legal and constitutional.

They did that. Long past the time to deal with it.
 
The Southern Poverty Law Center has little credibility because they got too politicized.

When the SPLC designated that "pick up artist" as a hater/terrorist awhile back, I realized that they were not worth much. Saying that a guy who fails to call a woman on the phone next week after he picked her up in a bar is equal to a Somali pirate or suicide bomber is over the top. It is jumping the shark big-time.

They once had a lot of potential to be a non-aligned pillar of society, but they blew it, sad to say.
 
Originally Posted By: Cristobal
When the SPLC designated that "pick up artist" as a hater/terrorist awhile back, I realized that they were not worth much. Saying that a guy who fails to call a woman on the phone next week after he picked her up in a bar is equal to a Somali pirate or suicide bomber is over the top. It is jumping the shark big-time.


Has THIS^^^ been documented, because it sounds like a Faux News (or Brietbart/Drudge Report) propaganda story.

IF it IS actually true, then YES, they have MORE THAN 'jumped the shark'.
frown.gif
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Boomer
Back in the day when the "militias" were big on the news, they interviewed this guy from the "Michigan Militia". He said, "There has never in the history of the United States been an armed insurrection against the government!". What? What about the Civil War?

These guys are, for the most part, ignorant of reality.



Not to split hairs, but if the south had been allowed to secede peacefully with their ratifications done at their conventions by seemingly due process, then there would not have been armed anything. Seems it was the US that caused the armed part.

Not advocating secession, and perhaps my memory is poor, but it doesn't strike me that the south was the aggressor.


That's odd, because I recall something about them shelling Ft. Sumter...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

wwillson
GM Super Cruise - 15,000 mile review
2 3 4
Replies
72
Views
9K
MCompact
slo town
Our trip to the 108th running of the Indy 500
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
Carmudgeon
OVERKILL
  • Locked
'Inevitable' Canada will face ISIS-style terror
2 3 4
Replies
74
Views
35K
OVERKILL
A
  • Locked
This could get interesting
Replies
18
Views
6K
Apollo14
dave1251
  • Locked
Exxon Mobil
Replies
19
Views
16K
MolaKule
Back
Top Bottom