DHS issues warning for violence and terrorist acts by Trump supporters.

[HomerJS]

Anyone surprised by this? The latest Census report will send them into a greater frenzy

Homeland Security: Supporters Demand Violence if Trump Not Reinstated - Rolling Stone

 

[BoomerD]

Good. Classify them as terrorist groups...let the law loose on them.

 

[hal2kilo]

Bu, but Antifa.

Republicans claim to fear left-wing authoritarianism — but there's no such thing | Salon.com

One of the egregious lies that has taken root throughout society, and remains persistent today, is the false notion that dictatorships and fascism are associated with the left.

Once again, this is the exact opposite of the truth. Dictatorships and fascism are right-wing, not left-wing.

This "Big Lie" grew out of the aftermath of World War II and the emergence of the Cold War in the extreme backlash against communism and the Soviet Union. This was the era of the "Red Scare" and lying Republican demagogue Joe McCarthy, a U.S. senator from Wisconsin, who falsely smeared innocent liberals as being dangerous communists, destroying their careers and lives. This period ranks among the most shameful in American history.

 

[blackangst1]

nvm

 

[mindless1]

Hmm, maybe we should just make it illegal for anyone and everyone to commit violence or terrorist acts.

DHS: Do your freakin' job and quit posturing. Warning nutjobs that there will be consequences, is seldom much of a deterrent. That's why YOU exist.

 

[HomerJS]

Hmm, maybe we should just make it illegal for anyone and everyone to commit violence or terrorist acts.

DHS: Do your freakin' job and quit posturing. Warning nutjobs that there will be consequences, is seldom much of a deterrent. That's why YOU exist.

Posturing? DHS has been issuing terrorist threat warnings since it's inception. Why do you all of a sudden object now??

 

[Stokely]

Most Americans are to fat (literally) and happy to be much good at "revolution". Things would have to get much worse than they are, and in their heart of hearts they know it isn't so. Just look at the Jan 6 Y'all Qaeda insurrection, mostly a bunch of deluded suburban morons. Bay of Pigs was more successful. There have always been random nutbags and there always will be that latch on to some goofy conspiracy or another. Obviously those are easier to find these days, just fire up youtube or facebook.

I'm ok if they want to water the tree of liberty with their guts or however that saying goes. Free fertilizer!

 

[mindless1]

Posturing? DHS has been issuing terrorist threat warnings since it's inception. Why do you all of a sudden object now??

The only thing all of a sudden is you saw a related post. I've objected to government waste and selective enforcement of law for a very, long, time.

 

[soulcougher73]

Posturing? DHS has been issuing terrorist threat warnings since it's inception. Why do you all of a sudden object now??

Because he sees himself in his mirror?

 

[sportage]

Remember, they said that Trump was to be reinstated on August 13th. That was last Friday. Part of that DHS warring warned of what might happen if Trump was not reinstated. Friday came and passed and guess what? No Trump. So I wondered how would the Q's out there respond to this failure? Well, now I know.... Believe it or not when I asked the Q's that I know why their prediction never came true they respond PREDICTION? WHAT PREDICTION? REINSTATEMENT? WHAT REINSTATEMENT? WE NEVER HEARD OF THAT BEFORE. So now they resort to doing what republicans do so well, to simply deny. Deny Deny Deny. They now actually deny that a Trump reinstatement for Friday August 13 was ever in the making. Was never the plan, they now so claim. SIMPLY AMAZING....

 

[HomerJS]

The only thing all of a sudden is you saw a related post. I've objected to government waste and selective enforcement of law for a very, long, time.

What's wasteful about warning the public about possible terrorist activity in this country? Isn't that what DHS is supposed to do?

How is issuing a warning a selective enforcement of law?

 

[mindless1]

^ Wasteful is we're funding them but they are ineffective, plus putting one moment into issuing statements is one+ more person who should have had boots on the ground instead of pretending that their Powerful Words matter to some wacko.

Selective enforcement of the law is singling out Trump Supporters for a warning that was not needed. Everyone should be held accountable, which they Are NOT Doing. Hint: Remember protests and cities burning not too long ago? That's perpetual violence, terrorism, arson and other criminal activity but they issue mere words now instead. What a joke.

DHS is far less effective in the TALKING about their job than they'd be in the necessity of the DOING of it.

Lastly, it's nonsense to consider Trump supporter activity terrorist, It's anti-goverment, not terrorist, which is also illegal, so again no selective enforcement should ignore this, but also no nonsense words instead of doing their job, which is to watch, and apprehend offenders.

 

[IronWing]

^ Wasteful is we're funding them but they are ineffective, plus putting one moment into issuing statements is one+ more person who should have had boots on the ground instead of pretending that their Powerful Words matter to some wacko.

Selective enforcement of the law is singling out Trump Supporters for a warning that was not needed. Everyone should be held accountable, which they Are NOT Doing. Hint: Remember protests and cities burning not too long ago? That's perpetual violence, terrorism, arson and other criminal activity but they issue mere words now instead. What a joke.

Pretending you don't want to consider all the information, does not make it go away.

DHS is far more effective in the DOING of their job than the TALKING about it.

DHS should be ripped apart into its constituent agencies, some of which should be disbanded altogether. Creating DHS was the single worst response to 9-11.

 

[kage69]

The people who dismiss right wing terror now want to contribute to it if their fever dream isn't obeyed? Cool. I think a bunch of Qunts getting themselves prison terms and missing out on voting sounds great.

Tough talk from the crowd still crying about having to face the law for the Jan 6th insurrection. If they want to double down on treason, oh well...

 

[kage69]

DHS should be ripped apart into its constituent agencies, some of which should be disbanded altogether. Creating DHS was the single worst response to 9-11.

I'd argue it was Iraq 2.0, but I definitely agree on scrapping it. Secret Service never should have left Treasury.

 

[HomerJS]

^ Wasteful is we're funding them but they are ineffective, plus putting one moment into issuing statements is one+ more person who should have had boots on the ground instead of pretending that their Powerful Words matter to some wacko.

Selective enforcement of the law is singling out Trump Supporters for a warning that was not needed. Everyone should be held accountable, which they Are NOT Doing. Hint: Remember protests and cities burning not too long ago? That's perpetual violence, terrorism, arson and other criminal activity but they issue mere words now instead. What a joke.

DHS is far less effective in the TALKING about their job than they'd be in the necessity of the DOING of it.

Lastly, it's nonsense to consider Trump supporter activity terrorist, It's anti-goverment, not terrorist, which is also illegal, so again no selective enforcement should ignore this, but also no nonsense words instead of doing their job, which is to watch, and apprehend offenders.

Effecting political change through violence is one of the very definitions of terrorism. I assume we can find your objections to DHS terror level alerts when were were hunting down OBL and Al Qaeda? BLM and other groups at protests against police misconduct did NOT organize plan on violence in order to meet their objectives. In many instances there were random acts of violence that started from people out of town. Those acts were not different when violence breaks out after a sports championship. You can in no way compare that to the planned, coordinated insurrection of Jan 6 attempting to stop the vote certifications of the United States government.

I'm going out on a limb and assume you don't consider white people terrorists

 

[woolfe9998]

^ Wasteful is we're funding them but they are ineffective, plus putting one moment into issuing statements is one+ more person who should have had boots on the ground instead of pretending that their Powerful Words matter to some wacko.

Selective enforcement of the law is singling out Trump Supporters for a warning that was not needed. Everyone should be held accountable, which they Are NOT Doing. Hint: Remember protests and cities burning not too long ago? That's perpetual violence, terrorism, arson and other criminal activity but they issue mere words now instead. What a joke.

DHS is far less effective in the TALKING about their job than they'd be in the necessity of the DOING of it.

Lastly, it's nonsense to consider Trump supporter activity terrorist, It's anti-goverment, not terrorist, which is also illegal, so again no selective enforcement should ignore this, but also no nonsense words instead of doing their job, which is to watch, and apprehend offenders.

Uh, this was an internal advisory. From time to time, threats from particular groups increase in probability. So the agency issues advisories about current high threats to its staff. They've issued many, many such advisories in the past about the potential for Islamic terrorism. I'm sure you had no objection to those so I don't really see your point here other than that you just don't like that this particular group was the subject of the advisory.

 

[mindless1]

Effecting political change through violence is one of the very definitions of terrorism.

Only if you try to oversimplify it. Citizens in many countries try to overthrow their government for various good, or bad reasons. It is not terrorism unless the campaign is aimed against the citizens not the government.

I assume we can find your objections to DHS terror level alerts when were were hunting down OBL and Al Qaeda?

Instead of assuming things after a straw man argument, you should step back and recognize what terrorism is, that some groups do it and some don't, so it is ridiculous to try to lump them all together.

BLM and other groups at protests against police misconduct did NOT organize plan on violence in order to meet their objectives.

Sure they did, just trying to hide behind the veil of civil protest. If those too ignorant or willfully ignoring the potential at first, after seeing it happen, clearly understand the end result yet kept at it. In fact there were groups traveling from city to city to fuel this.

I am not suggesting everyone involved in BLM was a terrorist, nothing like that, only that certain segments specifically used these events for that purpose and everyone else there, aided them no matter how good their intentions were in attending, and ultimately everyone involved formed a mob that used intimidation to stop all the other citizens from functioning normally which is a form of terrorism, making citizens fear to merely walk down the street or defend their own property!

In many instances there were random acts of violence that started from people out of town. Those acts were not different when violence breaks out after a sports championship.

Not at all true, they went there specifically to cause disruption and make people take notice, and to vent self-induced rage that comes from a mob like mentality. Show me the sports championship violence that burns down hundreds of businesses and clogs areas for days and days where they keep coming back?

You can in no way compare that to the planned, coordinated insurrection of Jan 6 attempting to stop the vote certifications of the United States government.

Yes, I can and did. Both planned events. BLM was about terrorism, attacking individuals and their businesses. Jan 6 was about an attack on the government, not terrorism.

I'm going out on a limb and assume you don't consider white people terrorists

Has nothing to do with race, only the actions taken. Yes there are white terrorists. In the US they are usually lone gunmen shooting up crowds, trying to teach society a lesson.

 

[mindless1]

Uh, this was an internal advisory. From time to time, threats from particular groups increase in probability. So the agency issues advisories about current high threats to its staff. They've issued many, many such advisories in the past about the potential for Islamic terrorism. I'm sure you had no objection to those so I don't really see your point here other than that you just don't like that this particular group was the subject of the advisory.

Umm no, nobody there of relevance needed this advisory, it was very much a PR piece with a political agenda.

I do have objection to all such PR pieces no matter which group is mentioned that should obviously, already be actively monitored. It is their methods, not which group that is the problem. This is merely a continuation of the trend of not enforcing the law, selective enforcement, words instead. They're trying to look busy instead of being busy.

I insist on enforcement of the law. Doesn't matter if it's a Trump supporter, a BLM supporter, a postal worker shooting up a building, or martians landing in my back yard. Any agency that can't stop playing word games and be effective, needs a massive overhaul or to cease to exist.

 

[woolfe9998]

When was "terrorism" re-defined to exclude all government targets? Suppose some people were on the job, say in the military, and on government property, and are then murdered by someone for political reasons? That's not an act of terrorism because the targets were employees of the state and it was done on state property? Like this guy:

2009 Fort Hood shooting - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

News to me that he wasn't a terrorist.

FBI's definition:

Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.

Oops, no mention that the targets must be civilian.

 

[woolfe9998]

Umm no, nobody there of relevance needed this advisory, it was very much a public PR piece with a political agenda.

I do have objection to all such public PR pieces no matter which group is mentioned that should obviously, already be actively monitored. It is their methods, not which group which is the problem. This is merely a continuation of the trend of not enforcing the law, selective enforcement, words instead. They're trying to look busy instead of being busy.

Or it's just a continuation of a policy to issue advisories regarding the groups which the agency thinks are currently the biggest threats. After 9/11 which resulted in DHS being created, most advisories were about Islamic terrorists. Had they been around in 1970's, the advisories might have pertained to far left terrorists. Today, it's right wing terrorists, because at this moment the agency thinks they are the biggest threat. They seem to have their reasons.

This analysis makes several arguments. First, far-right terrorism has significantly outpaced terrorism from other types of perpetrators, including from far-left networks and individuals inspired by the Islamic State and al-Qaeda. Right-wing attacks and plots account for the majority of all terrorist incidents in the United States since 1994, and the total number of right-wing attacks and plots has grown significantly during the past six years. Right-wing extremists perpetrated two thirds of the attacks and plots in the United States in 2019 and over 90 percent between January 1 and May 8, 2020. Second, terrorism in the United States will likely increase over the next year in response to several factors. One of the most concerning is the 2020 U.S. presidential election, before and after which extremists may resort to violence, depending on the outcome of the election. Far-right and far-left networks have used violence against each other at protests, raising the possibility of escalating violence during the election period.

https://www.csis.org/analysis/escalating-terrorism-problem-united-states

You're going to have to provide evidence to back your claim that they are "not enforcing the law" or "selective enforcement" (those are two completely different things BTW). I'm not buying that assertion without evidence to back it up.

 

[mindless1]

When was "terrorism" re-defined to exclude all government targets?

Recognize the difference between government as an institution and government employees as victims of opportunity, where there are different goals.

Were all the soldiers in the US civil war, terrorists?

 

[woolfe9998]

Recognize the difference between government as an institution and government employees as victims of opportunity, where there are different goals.

Were all the soldiers in the US civil war, terrorists?

So you want to say they were traitors and insurrectionists instead of terrorists? Go right ahead. It does not improve their image nor does it lessen the risk that they will plan and execute violent attacks in the future. Your argument is pure semantics and ignores that DHS is less worried over how certain words are defined and more worried by possible acts of planned and pre-meditated violence (since those are the kind which can be prevented.)

 

[mindless1]

Or it's just a continuation of a policy to issue advisories regarding the groups which the agency thinks are currently the biggest threats.

Yes, an ineffective system of doing very little but make statements.

 

[woolfe9998]

Yes, an ineffective system of doing very little but make statements.

What exactly makes you think DHS does "very little?"