3 Militia members arrested in plot to bomb mosque and apartments

[DrDoug]

...

A terrorist organization does not meet the definition of a militia.

Why are you so invested in making sure that these right wing nuts in their own self-described Christian militia have nothing to do with what you view as real militia members? Are you in a militia (other than the one that you've defined all Americans as being in)? Are you trying to dissociate what you think of as real militia from these terrorists?

Otherwise your touchiness on this subject makes no sense.

 

[Commodus]

Is iran hanging gays irrational? This is not an offshoot or some sect, iran is a whole nation.

Is Saudi Arabia stoning women irrational? You know Saudi Arabia has laws allowing the execution of gays?

The quran teaches to wage war on the non-believers until everyone follows islam.

How is examples of nations and the teachings of the quran irrational?

I'm not denying those problems. However, you're also conveniently assuming that everyone in those countries is in lock step with their government's attitude, or that those countries encompass all of Islam. There are about 77 million people in Iran, and 29 million in Saudi Arabia... guess what? That's less than 7 percent of the entire Muslim population, and that's if you operate under the assumption that all of them are hardliners (which is demonstrably false). The largest concentrations of Muslims? They're in south and southeast Asia: Indonesia, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan. Not that they're completely free of extremists or hardliners, but these are more moderate countries. Harsh interpretations of Islam are therefore rare in a broader context.

Besides, if we're going to talk about root causes... I'm sorry, but the American anti-Islam terrorists were not acting out of a cool-headed, rational observation of Muslims. You do not say you'll gladly kill babies if you're considering rational factors. This was in direct response to anti-Islam fearmongering by people like Trump, and you know it.

 

[alien42]

What is it people such as yourself do not understand, they do not meet the definition of militia members.

If something does not meet the definition, how can you call it something?

Does gasoline meet the definition of water? Nope.

Does milk meet the definition of kerosene? Nope.

A terrorist organization does not meet the definition of a militia.

i can't believe i actually have to point this out to you, but here it goes. according to you these guys were in a militia but the moment they break the law, they are no longer a militia.

gasoline does not become water and milk does not become kerosene.

would you like to try that again?

 

[Jhhnn]

Is iran hanging gays irrational? This is not an offshoot or some sect, iran is a whole nation.

Is Saudi Arabia stoning women irrational? You know Saudi Arabia has laws allowing the execution of gays?

The quran teaches to wage war on the non-believers until everyone follows islam.

How is examples of nations and the teachings of the quran irrational?




What don't you understand, militias help maintain order.

A militia that breaks the law is no longer a militia.

The media and yourself are using the term "militia" as a buzzword. Militias, are not, and can not, be terrorist. If they break the law they no longer meet the definition of a militia.

Tell it to the self styled militias who yearn to overthrow the govt of the people.

 

[Texashiker]

Meanwhile, we have islamophobic racist right wing nut bars .

Please stop using islamophobic as if it were a real word. As discussed earlier a phobia is an irrational fear.

Islam has given the world plenty of reasons to fear it.

 

[alien42]

Please stop using islamophobic as if it were a real word. As discussed earlier a phobia is an irrational fear.

Islam has given the world plenty of reasons to fear it.

i don't fear Islam.

i am afraid of spiders which present more of a threat to my life, and that's called arachnophobia.

i have never in my life been harmed by any muslims, but i have been put in the emergency room by a spider.

sounds like you are the irrational one.

 

[Texashiker]

i can't believe i actually have to point this out to you, but here it goes. according to you these guys were in a militia but the moment they break the law, they are no longer a militia.

That is correct.

Tell it to the self styled militias who yearn to overthrow the govt of the people.

Those do not meet the definition of a militia, so therefor they are not a militia.

The militia is the option of last resort for law enforcement. Just as George Washington called up the militia to suppress the whiskey rebellion, and Andrew Jackson used the militia to defend New Orleans, the militia is to restore order.

 

[alien42]

That is correct.

ok, you can't just ignore your own words that i called you out on...

"Does gasoline meet the definition of water? Nope.

Does milk meet the definition of kerosene? Nope."

would you like to try that again or just admit how stupid and wrong those comparisons are. they don't even make sense.

i'm done with your ignorance, hate and derailment of this thread.

you are part of the problem that supports these terrorists.

 

[Brainonska511]

I see this thread has been successfully derailed by a troll arguing about the meaning of the word militia. (And for the record, Mr. TH is wrong, since there is no requirement that a militia has to support or be affiliated with a government). Anything to deflect from the fact that a couple domestic terrorists were on a mission to kill their fellow man.

 

[skyking]

That is correct.

bullshit. They never had any intent of supporting local government. Not a militia.

Those do not meet the definition of a militia, so therefor they are not a militia.

The militia is the option of last resort for law enforcement. Just as George Washington called up the militia to suppress the whiskey rebellion, and Andrew Jackson used the militia to defend New Orleans, the militia is to restore order.

 

[Capt Caveman]

A militia helps local and state governments restore and maintain order.

A militia does not break the law. When that group decided to break the law, they were no longer a militia.

Every able bodied male over 18 can be called up by the sheriff or governor. Every man is a member of the militia.

You're a fucking idiot.

 

[DrDoug]

You're a fucking idiot.

I also think he's a militia member and the two often go hand-in-hand.

 

[SSSnail]

I have an idea, drop these terrorists off in Syria.

 

[Atreus21]

Here's the answer as I see it: neither party is correctly handling relations with Muslim nations, but I would pick the Democrats over the Republicans any day.

Yes, Saudi Arabian links are a real problem. However, would you actually expect the Republicans to drop them? Remember who was buddy-buddy with Saudi Arabia for 1989-1993 and 2000-2008? Yeah. So long as major US political parties think there's an economic or geopolitical incentive to stay cozy with the Saudis, you're unlikely to see them sever ties.

And more importantly, the Dems at least grasp basic concepts like religious freedom... and nuance... and complexity. They understand that banning an entire religion from emigrating to your country doesn't improve your relations with that religion, and that it violates the very principles on which the US was based. They acknowledge that the vast majority of Muslims aren't violent extremists, and that any solution to fighting extremists will likely be complex and slow.

One thing Democrats rarely do is admit what is obvious: that Islam more than any other major religion has a problem with terrorism.

 

[jackstar7]

One thing Democrats rarely do is admit what is obvious: that Islam more than any other major religion has a problem with terrorism.

And what do you propose should be done about that?

Some sort of spiritual cleansing? Or just general bigotry?

Which fear response will yield the best results for you?

 

[Zaap]

And what do you propose should be done about that?

Pretend Christians are exactly the same?

 

[Commodus]

One thing Democrats rarely do is admit what is obvious: that Islam more than any other major religion has a problem with terrorism.

Yes, there's a disproportionately large amount of terrorism claimed in the name of Islam. The question is, what's prompting it?

The danger is in assuming that the very nature of Islam is at fault. Besides the logical problems (it presumes that Islam commands perfect obedience from most followers, for one), it sidesteps a lot of the additional factors that play into extremism, like economic hardship, a lack of political self-determination or sectarian violence.

The concern in the case of this thread isn't that American terrorism is suddenly as much of a threat, but that it would be largely (if not entirely) avoidable if we didn't have demagogues like Trump fanning the flames. The world is bad enough with the terrorism we have -- we don't need rogue Americans murdering Muslims because they were told boogeyman stories.

 

[mikeymikec]

Yes, there's a disproportionately large amount of terrorism claimed in the name of Islam. The question is, what's prompting it?

The danger is in assuming that the very nature of Islam is at fault.

Furthermore, "disproportionately large amount of terrorism currently claimed in the name of Islam": Islam has been around for how many thousand years? How does it make any sense to say that something that has been existence for that long must be at fault for what's gone on in the last fifteen years (being the time that the typical Islamophobe got their knickers in a twist), by the tiniest percentage of its followers.

Claims to the contrary make about as much sense as saying that Trump supporters are representative of white people everywhere, or that the troubles in Ireland are caused by Christianity.

It's amazing the lengths that some people will go to to justify their irrational hate for millions of people, and the complete lack of critical thinking they employ to not realise that the irrational hate of extremists that they hope to eradicate is the same as their own, the only difference is the circumstances that allow that hate to fester.

 

[skyking]

If you have not seen it, take a look at the recent 60 minutes interview with the king of Jordan. I found his comments interesting.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-king-abudallah-jordan-amid-crisis/

 

[Atreus21]

And what do you propose should be done about that?

Some sort of spiritual cleansing? Or just general bigotry?

Perhaps just stop treating every instance of Christian terrorism as proof that Christian and Islamic terrorism are equally large problems, because they're not.

Which fear response will yield the best results for you?

Whichever indicates some accordance with reality.

 

[theeedude]

Christians, see something, say something!

 

[Jaskalas]

Christians, see something, say something!

They were caught before the bombings... which indicates exactly that.

 

[Texashiker]

You're a fucking idiot.

As already posted in the thread,

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

(a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1)
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

If you are between the ages of 17 and 45 you are in the unorganized militia.

Remember the flooding in baton rouge a few months ago and all those people came to help. They were acting as a militia. Those volunteers were helping restore order.

What is so difficult to understand?

 

[sdifox]

As already posted in the thread,

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311


If you are between the ages of 17 and 45 you are in the unorganized militia.

Remember the flooding in baton rouge a few months ago and all those people came to help. They were acting as a militia. Those volunteers were helping restore order.

What is so difficult to understand?

Well, for starters, the text you quoted is referring to the US militia. Which this group clearly isn't. But that doesn't mean no one else is allowed to use the word militia, which this group did.

 

[Brainonska511]

As already posted in the thread,

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311


If you are between the ages of 17 and 45 you are in the unorganized militia.

Remember the flooding in baton rouge a few months ago and all those people came to help. They were acting as a militia. Those volunteers were helping restore order.

What is so difficult to understand?

It's a news article and we're talking about colloquial usage - the group in question is a self-described militia. They don't need government affiliation, sanction, meet specific legal guidelines, etc to be calling themselves a militia. In fact, the legal definition is wholly irrelevant to this discussion and is just a diversionary tactic you're using to throw the thread off the rails.