TERRORISTS!

[Beetwasher]

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/feds_release_details_in_hutaree_arrests.php?ref=fpa

[lamp_shade]

1. DELIVERANCE comes to mind.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ian David]

3. Is that the real shapes of their heads and eyes, or did you doctor that? n/t

[Beetwasher]

4. No Doctoring

n/t

[Ian David]

5. I was afraid of that. Maybe phrenology could have some things right. n/t

[arbusto_baboso]

6. If brains were kindling, then collectively these morans couldn't....

make a big enough fire to light a cigarette.

Threatened? Pfft. Not by the "Keystone Terrorists".

[AnArmyVeteran]

32. That statement is profound! So very true!!!

[StopTheNeoCons]

7. GREAT THREAD TITLE!!! Keep it up!...nt

[arcane1]

8. Not to mention "traitors"

[JackRiddler]

9. My advice, don't play into the terror rhetoric.

The biggest terrorists are the ones who can shoot missiles and drop bombs from the air.

These guys are terrorist, yes, in that they intended to use terrorist means, but they're also mere political gangsters.

Don't play into the "war on terror" rhetoric, even if you think you're reversing it into a liberal setting. We're in advanced stages of destroying the planetary basis for life on earth and, in the United States, in an economic catastrophe and a disastrous global war. The "terror all the time" rhetoric is designed to make retail "terrorism" seem like the most important problem and distract from all else.

[JackRiddler]

10. PS...

fucking sick cult, they are! (Reading more about'em.)

[Beetwasher]

11. Terror Is As Terror Does

They are terrorists and if we are going to use that term to label OTHER religious fanatics bent on violent means to express their beliefs, then we should use it for all of them.

[JackRiddler]

12. Yes, well I agree with the latter part...

So don't use it for OTHER "religious fanatics bent on violent means to express their beliefs." You've described them far better in those words. The "terrorist" label obscures.

[Beetwasher]

13. I Disagree, "Terrorist" Is Perfectly Appropriate

n/t

[JackRiddler]

14. Careful what you crow about, and how. It can boomerang.

[Beetwasher]

18. LOL! You Overestimate My Reach And Influence

n/t

[JackRiddler]

28. Not you, obviously, but the term is used promiscuously, and never applied to governments...

"eco-terrorists," animal rights "terrorists." Terrorist helpers could be anyone who knew one. Everyone shot in Afghanistan turns out to be one too. All "we" are ever fighting is terrorists, all around the world. You will see it applied to antiwar people too.

Meanwhile, Stanley McChrystal, late from the torture complex, now commander in Afghanistan where the drones roam, said the other day with nonchalance that, "We have shot an amazing number of people, but to my knowledge, none has ever proven to be a threat."

What is that?

[Beetwasher]

31. "What is that?"

Are you asking me that or is it rhetorical? I can't speak for McChrystal. Maybe he's just a dick.

[JackRiddler]

33. Terrorism.

[Beetwasher]

40. Well, If You Already Know, Why Ask Me?

:shrug:

[devilgrrl]

45. What about killing cops then blazing them at a funeral that shouldn't be considered TERRORISM?

They sound like a bunch of suicide bombers.

[scarletwoman]

51. Fwiw, I get your point and completely agree with you.

It's definitely hard to resist using the word "terrorist" here -- thereby, as you say, "reversing it into a liberal setting".

The biggest terrorists are the ones who can shoot missiles and drop bombs from the air.

Yes, and if the word "terrorism" is going to really mean something, then it MUST be applied to state-sponsored terrorism.

Thank you for your post.

sw

[Barack_America]

15. Yes, they are terrorists.

Their plan to attack the motorcade of a law enforcement's funeral would have targeted both law enforcement officials and public citizens.

They were arrested now due to an imminent threat to an "unsuspecting member of the public".

From the indictments against them, they had planned for and intended to carry out these attacks in the very near future.

So yes, they are terrorists by every conceivable measure.

[upi402]

16. Violent religious zealots, this time Christian. Good thing Obama is in charge

I think BushCo would've LIHOPed this gaggle of... whatever they are. Then BushCo would've used it as an excuse to strip liberties and for covering up some of their Bushit.

[slackmaster]

17. That is NOT a militia and those are NOT militia members

It's a criminal gang, and those individuals are gang members.

[Barack_America]

21. No. They are terrorists and that is a terrorist cell.

They are not a "gang". Gangs operate for acquisition of turf and money. These people were looking to start a chain reaction to bring down the U.S. government by targeting innocent American civilians.

They are terrorists.

[slackmaster]

25. I disagree. They're just criminals.

gang plot http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/south_king/aub/news/89218467.html <-- Obviously political
gang plot http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=15&art_id=vn20100329124526803C585028
gang plot http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/10/2841314.htm?section=entertainment
gang plot http://www.bangaloremirror.com/article/73/2010031720100317233437383defce4/Plot-to-kill-four-foiledunderworld-gang-held.html
gang plot http://www.thespec.com/News/BreakingNews/article/740760
militia plot? http://www.southbendtribune.com/article/20100329/News03/100329435/1130

[Barack_America]

34. Criminals with a plan to kill civilians and prompt a violent takedown of the govt.?

Alrighty then.

You know, intent really does matter.

As for your links:

1). Plan to kill members of a rival gain---no resemblance whatsoever to this case

3). Plan to kill a cartoonist who drew Mohammed--are you really going to claim there is a link to this?

4). Plan to kill businessmen and extort money--no connection whatsoever

5). Rival gang violence similar to link #1

6). The case at hand, where terrorists were looking to kill members of the public to encourage brutal reactions to the government nationwide. Completely different than any of the above links.

You'll notice that I left out link #2, which detailed a plot to kill police officers who were interfering with gang business. This is the only link that is even remotely (though ONLY remotely) linked to the case at hand. You'll note that the motive here was still business and not sedition per se.

[slackmaster]

38. How about MS-13?

http://www.investigativevoice.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=417:gang-warfare&catid=25:the-project&Itemid=443)

Plan to kill a cartoonist who drew Mohammed--are you really going to claim there is a link to this?

Yes, they want to destroy our entire civilization. Allegedly.

[Barack_America]

39. Threatening someone who is looking into your illegal activities is not the same...

...as randomly targeting someone in an attempt to start further anti-govt. violence.

Surely you understand this?

Did you read the indictments? They have officially been charged with sedition.

[slackmaster]

41. Maybe they'll even be charged with treason

But they're still just a criminal gang.

Who is and is not a member of the militias of the USA and the various states is defined in the law. A group of armed criminals is not a militia, it's a gang.

[Beetwasher]

42. They're Terrorists Who Called Themselves A Militia

They are not just a "gang" of ordinary criminals. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

[slackmaster]

46. We seem to be in partial agreement here

They're not a militia.

[Beetwasher]

49. They r terrorists by any definition

except yrs.

[slackmaster]

50. The terms "terrorist group" and "gang" have some overlap

Search Google news for islamist gang plot.

[Beetwasher]

52. So What? They r terrorists by any definition. Yr denial of that is yr own deficiency

[ProgressOnTheMove]

26. Yep exactly, militias would support the government than oppose it. These are criminal gangsters...

Reason I would phrase it that way is they've said already the are proud to take the "t" word label. So I choose not to give it them. They are gangsters, hoodlums these labels thy don't want to be, but that's where they're at, whether they like it o not.

[1776Forever]

19. Beck's graduating class - Don't you know?

:hide: :crazy: :hide:

[BeHereNow]

23. And Palin Facebook fans, no doubt.

I sincerely hope Facebook removes her call to arms posting.
No telling how many domestic terrorist types have interpreted it
as a secret code for them to commit domestic acts violence.
She is extremely dangerous, as far as advocating violence, in my opinion.

BHN

[NNN0LHI]

20. How do you tell the Muslim terrorists from the Christian terrorists?

The Muslim terrorists wear orange jumpsuits and the Christian ones wear green ones.

Don

[fascisthunter]

44. lol

[James48]

22. Details of the indictment

are here in this press release from the Dept of Justice:

http://www.justice.gov/usao/mie/press/2010/2010_3-29_dstone.pdf

P.S.- local news is saying the ninth person may be in a house currently surrounded. We'll see.

[Robb]

24. Justice thanked the Joint Terrorism Task Force in that release.

Thanks for posting.

[DevonRex]

37. Heh. So teabagger/militia types are officially terrorists.

Hoo boy. My teabagger sisters aren't gonna like that. :rofl:

[BeHereNow]

27. YAY FBI and Michigan State Police!

Thanks for posting this, a GREAT read!
Gives me some hope that something still works in this country.

Welcome to DU!

BHN

[CanonRay]

29. That stupid kid sttl has zits

He should get out in time to get his Social Security and join a Tea Party.

[greencharlie]

30. lolz....

sickos, even the other militias shunned this crowd.

[Sanity Claws]

35. Only two of them look within the normal range

The other six look like they lost in the gene pool.

[conspirator]

48. My thoughts exactly nt

[NJmaverick]

36. Christian terrorists

[caitxrawks]

43. >:(

Doucheholes.

[dgibby]

47. Looks like the parents were closely related BEFORE they married. n/t

[BadGimp]

53. Seriously, Why Is It That...

WHY IS IT THAT?

- It's ALWAYS the dumbest looking?

- It's always the low class citizens - by low class I mean low income, undereducated, non socially mobile?

- It's always white people?

- They all have that same vacant stare?

At least they all look good in green?

[Beetwasher]

54. "At least they all look good in green?"

Nahh, the only thing that they will make them look any better is bars.