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

[mindless1]

So you want to say they were traitors and insurrectionists instead of terrorists? Go right ahead.

Yes, depending on the side of view they were either traitors or liberators, but insurrectionists either way.

It does not improve their image nor does it lessen the risk that they will plan and execute violent attacks in the future.

I never stated they had a good image nor that it would lessen a risk of attack.

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.)

Semantics is all there is, when all an agency is seemingly doing is throwing words around, in what is clearly, words twisted to deceive the public from their anti-agenda, to try to play politics instead of doing their job, fulfilling the reason they exist.

I have no care in the world what they are worried about, only that they stop playing games and instead do their job, whether it be against terrorists or insurrectionists, makes no difference. That's not semantics except on their part, rather what I want is a very real, NON-semantic change, like STFU and get it done already it's your job.

 

[mindless1]

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

What exactly makes you think DHS does "enough" to exist?

 

[Paratus]

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.



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.



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!



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?



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.



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.

Wow. An out and out white supremacist.

By your own reasoning brown people flying a plane into the pentagon - terrorism. White guy blowing up a federal building not terrorism. Just someone trying to overthrow their government for bad or maybe even good reasons.

So what draws you to this failed ideology? I’m curious.

 

[mindless1]

Wow. An out and out white supremacist.

Wow, a stereotyping troll. If you had reading comprehension, you'd have already read that it doesn't matter what race, only whether someone breaks the law.

By your own reasoning brown people flying a plane into the pentagon - terrorism.

Huh? Yes, absolutely brown people, white people, purple people, or even Martians, flying a plane into the pentagon is terrorism. What are you smoking?

White guy blowing up a federal building not terrorism.

Please quote where I stated that, or are you only making up fiction because you can't follow a conversation. Yes, a white guy blowing up a federal building is in some cases, and was in at least one, an act of terrorism.

Just someone trying to overthrow their government for bad or maybe even good reasons.

lol, wanting DHS to either do their job or cease to exist, is a far cry from trying to overthrow the government. Hint: If I were in favor of that, my argument would be something more like "the end justifies the means", not what I did write which was "enforcement of the law" and "no selective enforcement" which means I want E V E R Y O N E held accountable.

So what draws you to this failed ideology? I’m curious.

What kept you from learning reading for comprehension? What situation were you ever in where fictitious trolling solved that? I'm curious.

When you have to stoop to trying to pretend I meant something I didn't write, it is a sure sign you have no argument.

 

[IronWing]

You just can't help yourself, can you? Somehow, DHS warning that an increase in violence from a group known for violent (and treasonous) conduct may be coming translates to DHS not doing their job simply because you mostly agree with the aims and ideology of said violent, treasonous filth.

 

[sandorski]

In all the Cities, on all the Days/Nights, and in all the rare incidents of destruction not once did a BLM Protest threaten to kill Politicians or bring down the Government.

That is why one incident is clearly an act of Terrorism and many other incidents are not.

 

[mindless1]

You just can't help yourself, can you? Somehow, DHS warning that an increase in violence from a group known for violent (and treasonous) conduct may be coming translates to DHS not doing their job simply because you mostly agree with the aims and ideology of said violent, treasonous filth.

Read this slowly because it seems I'm not making myself clear:

I am fully in favor of DHS apprehending everyone who breaks the law, which includes Trump supporters, Anandtech supporters, and Booboo the Clown supporters.

Unfortunately, instead we see words from DHS, ineffective ones. Unimpressive, waste of resources.

It is hilarious that if someone doesn't appreciate their inaction, it makes them a Trump supporter. Quite the opposite, by not critically looking at what little they are doing, their job isn't getting done so criminals are getting away with it, or even better would be to stop crimes before they happen, but no, let's put out a politically correct statement instead of actually doing the work.

How hard is this concept to grasp? Clearly "some" Trump supporters broke more than a couple laws, and since they would be covered by my statements of "everyone" and "no selective enforcement", it would be impossible for me to have the same aims and ideology of those "some" people who I feel should be in prison for what they did.

That is called individual responsibility, something some in this forum don't seem to understand, instead liking to blanket stereotype which is one of the worst human traits.

 

[IronWing]

Let's hear your argument for a white guy blowing up a federal building, in some cases, not being an act of terrorism.

 

[mindless1]

^ Can you list those that concern you besides OKC? It would have to be taken on a case by case basis as to the motives.

For example lots of people just strike out at their employer as a reason to plant a bomb, or trying to extract a ransom, whether its a Federal Building or not, and whether it's a bomb or some other method.

The FBI defines terrorism as The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

This definition has two components, not just the use of force or violence, but also the objective.

Edit: It seems that the FBI definition has been updated, is now:

Domestic terrorism: 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.

Even so, it would be a stretch to consider all bombers as having ideological goals. Some just want to kill for hate or revenge, or threaten for ransom, or they're just sick in the head like firestarters who do it to feel less inadequate.

 

[sportage]

I THINK I seen Trump on Fox/Hannity tonight whining about investigations and the Biden AG going after "little things".
Obviously not so "little" or Donald would have not been so irate about it.
I think it was Trump live, or could have been a rerun.
Same whiny Donald Trump, so it's hard to tell if this was something really live or a Hannity rerun? But still, it's amazing that anyone would follow the leadership of this whiny little bitch. Why some 70 million would even pay any attention to this whiny little Trump at all, let alone regard him as their messiah. Some people are very weird.

 

[HomerJS]

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.

If you took a plane and flew it into the White House no person I know wouldn't consider that an act of terrorism and that isn't an act against citizens. If you mail Anthrax to the capital security agencies will consider that a terrorist act.


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!



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?

They also went there to stop the count of the electoral process, kidnap and kill people. How do you explain all the weapons? You need pipe bombs just to chant and make people notice?



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.

Wrong. I went to multiple BLM events in Philadelphia. People in the crowd went out of their way to keep it peaceful. When you herd that many people in a small area violence can break out. There were no weapons, threats and chants to kill people. There were no supplies meant to kidnap people. Nobody attacked the police.


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.

 

[HomerJS]

^ Can you list those that concern you besides OKC? It would have to be taken on a case by case basis as to the motives.

For example lots of people just strike out at their employer as a reason to plant a bomb, or trying to extract a ransom, whether its a Federal Building or not, and whether it's a bomb or some other method.

The FBI defines terrorism as The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

This definition has two components, not just the use of force or violence, but also the objective.

Edit: It seems that the FBI definition has been updated, is now:

Domestic terrorism: 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.

Even so, it would be a stretch to consider all bombers as having ideological goals. Some just want to kill for hate or revenge, or threaten for ransom, or they're just sick in the head like firestarters who do it to feel less inadequate.

The objective was to stop the vote certification

 

[paperfist]

Die Hard Trump Supporters Increasingly Demand Violence If He Isn't Reinstated, Homeland Security Warns

Homeland Security warned that believers in the false conspiracy theory that Trump will be reinstated have increased calls for violence.

www.rollingstone.com

"The DHS added that although they do not have specifics of an imminent threat, their “reporting indicates that the timing for these activities may occur during August 2021, although we lack information on specific plots or planned actions.”

National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin - August 13, 2021 | Homeland Security

www.dhs.gov

Summary of Terrorism Threat to the U.S. Homeland


The Secretary of Homeland Security has issued a new National Terrorism Advisory System (NTAS) Bulletin regarding the current heightened threat environment across the United States. The Homeland continues to face a diverse and challenging threat environment leading up to and following the 20th Anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks as well religious holidays we assess could serve as a catalyst for acts of targeted violence. These threats include those posed by domestic terrorists, individuals and groups engaged in grievance-based violence, and those inspired or motivated by foreign terrorists and other malign foreign influences. These actors are increasingly exploiting online forums to influence and spread violent extremist narratives and promote violent activity. Such threats are also exacerbated by impacts of the ongoing global pandemic, including grievances over public health safety measures and perceived government restrictions.

 

[mindless1]

The objective was to stop the vote certification

I can appreciate how you would interpret that as terrorism based on the definition, except that they had no reasonable expectation that they could do anything more than slightly delay it.

Plus the only people legitimately terrorized where individuals inside the building, while everyone else was more shocked that they did not have an effective defense in place, which some agency should have foreseen as a target and this never should have been allowed to happen.

As for your prior post, I'll wait for you to fix the quote formatting to reply to it.

 

[sandorski]

I can appreciate how you would interpret that as terrorism based on the definition, except that they had no reasonable expectation that they could do anything more than slightly delay it.

As for your prior post, I'll wait for you to fix the quote formatting to reply to it.

BS

 

[mindless1]

BS

BS what? Did you think their effort was going to do anything more than delay it? I certainly didn't. Were you terrified? I wasn't, was more surprised that they weren't shot.

It all comes back to what I've stated already, ineffective words instead of action to handle threats.

 

[sandorski]

BS what? Did you think their effort was going to do anything more than delay it? I certainly didn't. Were you terrified? I wasn't, was more surprised that they weren't shot.

It all comes back to what I've stated already, ineffective words instead of action to handle threats.

Jan 6 was a threat, regardless what you think of it. It was an intentional Attempt to stop the normal functioning of Government in order to nullify the Election.

 

[Juiblex]

Odd I've never heard anybody in my neck of the woods who are trump supporters ever mention insurrection or stirring up trouble.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Odd I've never heard anybody in my neck of the woods who are trump supporters ever mention insurrection or stirring up trouble.

you should let the DHS know

 

[ch33zw1z]

BS what? Did you think their effort was going to do anything more than delay it? I certainly didn't. Were you terrified? I wasn't, was more surprised that they weren't shot.

It all comes back to what I've stated already, ineffective words instead of action to handle threats.

what a weird stance.

Q: Did I think their effort was going to do anything more than delay it?

A: Had know idea, and hindsight is 20/20. Since it wasn't a routine we go thru often (or at all), and many in government were complicit with the coup, there was no real way to gauge that. Even now, we're still learning about it.

Q: Were you terrified?

A: https://www.thefreedictionary.com/terrified

No, I was not. I was very concerned what it would mean for America, terrified as defined in a dictionary would likely come later when the red hats coup was successful and started murdering their political "enemies".

Your red herrings aside, it's this:

Jan 6 was a threat, regardless what you think of it. It was an intentional Attempt to stop the normal functioning of Government in order to nullify the Election.

 

[zinfamous]

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.

Republicans are the most dangerous terrorists in the world today.

Why do you reject plain facts?

 

[shortylickens]

Let's hear your argument for a white guy blowing up a federal building, in some cases, not being an act of terrorism.

if it was just him, and merely violent rage without a threat, I dont think its terrorism.
Terrorism is using fear to push a political agenda, sometimes with blackmail or extortion before the violence in the hope some government will do what you want to appease you.
Random violent nuts arent always trying to achieve something practical. Sometimes its merely an outburst with no goal. Most mass shootings fall into that category as well. Yes they are planned, but not thoroughly and with no end game.

 

[Paratus]

Wow, a stereotyping troll. If you had reading comprehension, you'd have already read that it doesn't matter what race, only whether someone breaks the law.



Huh? Yes, absolutely brown people, white people, purple people, or even Martians, flying a plane into the pentagon is terrorism. What are you smoking?



Please quote where I stated that, or are you only making up fiction because you can't follow a conversation. Yes, a white guy blowing up a federal building is in some cases, and was in at least one, an act of terrorism.



lol, wanting DHS to either do their job or cease to exist, is a far cry from trying to overthrow the government. Hint: If I were in favor of that, my argument would be something more like "the end justifies the means", not what I did write which was "enforcement of the law" and "no selective enforcement" which means I want E V E R Y O N E held accountable.



What kept you from learning reading for comprehension? What situation were you ever in where fictitious trolling solved that? I'm curious.

When you have to stoop to trying to pretend I meant something I didn't write, it is a sure sign you have no argument.

We’ll let’s take a look at what you’ve said in this very thread shall we?

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.

Here you are complaining that white right wing conservatives are victims, targeted for being caught in the capitol trying to illegally overturn the will of the people through violence while at the same time that blacks protesting to be treated as the law says they should be treated as “perpetual violence, terrorists” but suggest they were not being targeted by the government.

It is not terrorism unless the campaign is aimed against the citizens not the government.

Applying your own damn definition. Timothy Mcveigh bombed the OKC Federal building because:

McVeigh sought revenge against the federal government for the 1993 Waco siege that ended in the deaths of 86 people, many of whom were children, as well as the 1992 Ruby Ridge incident and American foreign policy. He hoped to inspire a revolution against the federal government, and defended the bombing as a legitimate tactic against what he saw as a tyrannical government.

therefore according to you - not a terrorist.

you should step back and recognize what terrorism is, that some groups do it and some don't,

Right. In your own words. Trump supporters trying to overthrow the will of the people is a group that doesn’t do terrorism while BLM protesting is terrorism.

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 one phrase you suggest (weakly) not all BLM protesters were terrorists but in the next all either were and those that weren’t aided those that were (which is you effectively saying they all were)

I think your final sentence gets to the heart of your issue. You view yourself as a “citizen” but not those protesting and would have been terrified of a BLM protest if you had been anywhere near one.

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.

Black group protesting with some individuals breaking the law - terrorists
Radical white conservatives attacking cops threatening politicians and trying to thwart the will of the people while all were breaking the law and egged on by their politicians of choice - not terrorists

Yes there are white terrorists. In the US they are usually lone gunmen shooting up crowds, trying to teach society a lesson.

Where above you ascribe terrorism to an entire group that are minorities (BLM) here whites can only be individual terrorists.

So you go on to say out of one side of your mouth you want to hold everyone individually responsible but out the other that minorities and whites are to be treated differently (group responsible vs individual responsible; protesting for equal treatment under the law is terrorism, protesting and violence for extralegal powers not terrorism)

You’ve obviously “mindlessly” swallowed a lot of propaganda in your life and instead of thinking critically about it used your intelligence to justify it (poorly) to yourself.

 

[HomerJS]

BS what? Did you think their effort was going to do anything more than delay it? I certainly didn't. Were you terrified? I wasn't, was more surprised that they weren't shot.

It all comes back to what I've stated already, ineffective words instead of action to handle threats.

Who knew the odds of success constitutes if a crime was committed. Thanks for educating me. I'm going to work on plans for breaking into Ft. Knox and stealing all the gold.

 

[Brainonska511]

I'm surprised no one has come out and claimed that those white people aren't terrorists, they're just "economically anxious".