• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Explosion in central Oslo, Norwegian Primeminister's Office was hit.

Page 13 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
don't delude yourself that plenty of left-wing nutjobs aren't bombing institutions and people for the insane notion of "save the animals" or those who do beneficial research towards disease

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_10084756

--these fucks actually tried to murder a U Santa Cruz researcher b/c he uses mice in his cancer research.

and let's not forget that through the history of the US, at least in modern history, it is the extreme left that tends to have more cases of violent protest. Groups like the Weather Underground (and lets go all the way back to John Brown) have somewhat canonized these types of acts towards the left in our historical memory. The McCarthy era certainly didn't help--and remember that the modern FBI was essentially founded during these times, when rampant communism was the great fear.

It's hard to ignore that such a mentality would pervade, even today.

Except the overwhelming majority of those eco/animal-terrorist activities do not involve trying to harm people. It's almost always property destruction/sabotage.

I guess the weather underground was before my time, that was decades ago though.
 
Except the overwhelming majority of those eco/animal-terrorist activities do not involve trying to harm people. It's almost always property destruction/sabotage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_terrorism

You and ProJo are both bending over backwards to try to make it seem like only certain groups have terrorism. Many if not all movements have had their terrorists. Does this mean all groups are equally horrible? No. You have to look at how wide-spread and how common it is to compare them.
 
If anything, the neighborhood breakdown of all of our major cities is a perfect example of how cultures of people, anywhere, simply do not want to mix.
I think it is becoming more social-economic more than race.

People want to live near people with similar incomes and similar likes/dislikes and similar behaviors.

Middle class black families do not want to live around poor blacks who listen to loud rap music and sit around on the street corner all day. They would much rather live near other middle class families who have normal jobs, mow their lawns and have weekend BBQs etc.

For the most part segregation has become more about money and race.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_terrorism

You and ProJo are both bending over backwards to try to make it seem like only certain groups have terrorism. Many if not all movements have had their terrorists. Does this mean all groups are equally horrible? No. You have to look at how wide-spread and how common it is to compare them.

Modern left-wing terrorist groups in the United States developed from remnants of the Weather Underground, the Black Panthers and extremist elements of the Students for a Democratic Society. During the 1980s both the May 19th Communist Organization (M19CO) and the smaller United Freedom Front were active. After 1985, following the dismantling of both groups, there were no confirmed acts of left-wing terrorism by similar groups.[5]

:hmm:

Are you really scared of left-wing terrorist attacks killing people in the US? Not saying it COULDN'T happen, but lets be honest here.
 

Ummm... there's a world outside of the USA and history did not start in 1985.

But you know what? Forget it there's obviously no point having this discussion with you. Everyone on your side is perfect and everyone on the other side is literally demented. Again, you're just the flip-side of the people you're complaining about.
 
The FBI spends a disproportionate amount of time on leftwing activists who commit non-violent crimes and leftwing peace activists who don't even commit crimes. In fact, i remember a report where the classified leftwing terrorist groups (or activities) as being the dominant form of terrorism in their statistics. Remember, these are guys who do things like burn down development projects or deface a fleet of hummers. "Terrorism" has lost it's meaning. Don't you think most of those resources should be put to monitoring rightwing nutjobs who actually kill people? The government even spends a lot of resources infiltrating peaceful anti-war groups.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsme...ft-wing_activists_on_terrorism_watch_list.php
You have failed to provide an example of right wing nutjobs who are going around killing people.

Nor have you provided examples of violent right wing groups that the FBI is ignoring.
 
What constitutes national pride varies over generations. In the 1800s, a nation's pride would suffer if it didn't control a colonial empire. The annexation of several territories into The Great Powers bolstered their national pride greatly in their time and were considered very great achievements. The force required to keep those territories would be quite shameful if used today.

I ask myself, in a few generations will the Apollo Program one day be seen as shameful? After all, so much cash was poured into it while some Americans lived and died in poverty, all in the name of national pride or scientific achievement. (I mean this only as a thought exercise)

In reference to the recent wars, yes, they were a waste of time and resources.

All depends who you ask. The people who found them useful for any number of things from profit to political support didn't find them a waste.

Believe it or not, there are people who think wars are 'useful' for keeping a people occupied instead of paying attention to what's being done to them economically.

Who find wars useful for reducing political dissent, for uniting people politically against a 'common enemy'. Many wars are fought for pretty much that reason.

They often end up creating political divides and opposition eventually, but usually are 'useful' early on for political purposes.
 
You have failed to provide an example of right wing nutjobs who are going around killing people.

Nor have you provided examples of violent right wing groups that the FBI is ignoring.

To your first point, are you kidding? I gave you an example last night:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knoxville_Unitarian_Universalist_church_shooting

Adkisson, a former private in the United States Army from 1974 to 1977, says that he was motivated by hatred of Democrats, liberals, African Americans and homosexuals.[2][9][10] According to a sworn affidavit by one of the officers who interviewed Adkisson on July 27, 2008:[3]

“ During the interview Adkisson stated that he had targeted the church because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of major media outlets. Adkisson made statements that because he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement that he would then target those that had voted them into office. Adkisson stated that he had held these beliefs for about the last ten years. ”
Additionally, one of Adkisson's former wives had been a member (in the 1990s) of the church where the attack occurred.[11]

Adkisson's manifesto[12] also cited the inability to find a job, and that his food stamps were being cut. His manifesto stated that he intended to keep shooting until police arrived and expected to be killed by police. Adkisson had a waist satchel with more ammunition, totaling 76 shells of #4 shot.

In his manifesto, Adkisson also included the Democratic members of the House and Senate,[12] and the 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America [12] of Bernard Goldberg in his list of wished-for targets.

Then you have the OKC bombers, Timothy McVeigh/Terry Nichols

And then the Atlanta bomber, Eric Rudolph

Then the 2009 pittsburgh shooter who was afraid of a gun ban from Obama.

Also George Tiller, the abortionist murderer

Also the holocaust museum shooter

I mean, are you kidding me?!?

The FBI DOESN'T put enough resources into preventing rightwing wackos from killing people and way too much into leftwing terrorists who typically don't go around killing people.
 
wait, wasn't the Fort Hood gunman linked to some crazy Imam and it was shown that they were exchanging resources and plans? I thought that his actions fit squarely under your definition of terrorism.
:hmm:
The Ft Hood is a border line incident. As this may turn out to be.

Read up on the Fort Hood incident. The shooter was not linked to any terrorist group, like this guy. Most psychiatrist seem to think that the attack was related more to mental issues than terrorism issues.

Meanwhile all the 'terrorism' experts call it a terrorist attack.
 
A left-wing Scandinavian defender of Islam also posted that he didn't see who else it could be besides an Islamic group early in the thread. So you're singling out conservatives. A lot of people besides your hated conservatives were thinking the same thing.

Anyway, you obviously don't think it's ironic that your generalizing/hatred about conservatives is similar to what you criticize them for doing.

Yes, show the commonality in "opposing" view points- Left to Right, Islamic to Christianic
Kind of a bi-polarity isn't it?

It has more in common with Timothy McVeigh(name??) then other types of violent psycho-pathology
Now the real issue is to investigate and see if there is any other "fellows", who follow have similar mental problems- before more people die to these "anti-marxist" psychopaths. They all have one thing in common- a disconnection from reality.
WHY???
Education is the true key to stopping these types of mental viruses taking seed in peoples minds in the first place, which grow as a juxtapose alternative of an expanding mind with outlets for creativity.
 
The Ft Hood is a border line incident. As this may turn out to be.

Read up on the Fort Hood incident. The shooter was not linked to any terrorist group, like this guy. Most psychiatrist seem to think that the attack was related more to mental issues than terrorism issues.

Meanwhile all the 'terrorism' experts call it a terrorist attack.

Terrorism is the result of a mental disease- a response to environmental impacts.
And we are going the wrong way about stopping it, we treat symptoms not causes.
Token efforts, so we can get back to our hedonism.
 
The Ft Hood is a border line incident. As this may turn out to be.

Read up on the Fort Hood incident. The shooter was not linked to any terrorist group, like this guy. Most psychiatrist seem to think that the attack was related more to mental issues than terrorism issues.

Meanwhile all the 'terrorism' experts call it a terrorist attack.

Terrorism is the result of a mental disease- a response to environmental impacts.
And we are going the wrong way about stopping it, we treat symptoms not causes.
Token efforts, so we can get back to our hedonism.
 
Ah so if you're a "liberal" suggesting that people take a measured stance and don't jump to conclusions is exploiting a tragedy but if you're a conservative blaming it on the "evil Muslims" is perfectly reasonable.

Fair enough. Is there a handbook that explains these double standards so I can get up to speed?

See, this is exactly my point, some of you have a very short memory. Liberals weren't "suggesting that people take a measured stance and don't jump to conclusions" when Gabby Giffords was shot. You do remember that don't you?

Take a look at people like Phokus, Marlin, senseamp, etc.., that's who I'm talking about. IIRC you're pretty moderate, you can't tell me that you're not a little disgusted by the way they're behaving.

Congrats liberals, after years and years of radical Muslims committing terrorist attacks, you finally got your radical right wing terrorist.
 
Except the overwhelming majority of those eco/animal-terrorist activities do not involve trying to harm people. It's almost always property destruction/sabotage.

I guess the weather underground was before my time, that was decades ago though.

There have been times of left-wing violence. It's generally in the face of right-wing violence.

The Weather Underground was violent; it was in a time of things from Vietnam to the FBI assassinating a black figure (and attacking Martin Luther King's life for good measure).

When El Salvador had death squads ruling by terror, assassinating the arch-bishop when he spoke out against them, isn't it understandable for their to be violent resistance?

Wasn't John Brown violence in the face of the violence of enslaving millions of blacks? Can you blame a violent slave revolt?

Unfortunately, morality isn't always enough to end immoral behavior. Some Americans said 'slavery is wrong'; plenty of others supported it to where it wasn't leaving the South anytime soon, left on their own to decide. They had hundreds of years to 'do the right thing' they didn't.

The left generally tries to fix these things peacefully with the law, and democracy.

It's a reason why the left is so strongly opposed when leaders misuse their power and undermine democracy to do wrong, like in El Salvador, and the Contras, for example.

Or only recently it was learned that Ford and Kissinger had secretly approved Indonesia using US-supplied weapons to invade East Timor and kill 250,000. Democracy had worked - Congress had placed a restriction on the use of the weapons to be used only for defense - and democracy was then undermined by Ford and Kissinger to bloody all Americans' hands.

Repercussions? None.

The Black Panthers weren't especially violent but they were an armed movement - in response to a lot of repression.

The more we prevent violent oppression, the more we prevent violent opposition.

JFK once said a couple things, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” And, '"If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich." Martin Luther King said, “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.” Martin Luther King, Jr.

These say a bit about the typical nature of 'left wing violence'.

Once it starts, it often takes on a life of its own, though. Vietnam had leaders fighting for freedom for Vietnam; yet they killed each other in the power struggle. Cuba began as opposition to repression - and then became repressive. The French Revolution started as rebellion to oppression, and then became an orgy of violence.

Unfortunately, the stable, peaceful society always faces risk from those who think their pursuing more for themselves at others' expense is a good idea.
 
To your first point, are you kidding? I gave you an example last night:
Then you have the OKC bombers, Timothy McVeigh/Terry Nichols

And then the Atlanta bomber, Eric Rudolph

Then the 2009 pittsburgh shooter who was afraid of a gun ban from Obama.

Also George Tiller, the abortionist murderer

Also the holocaust museum shooter

I mean, are you kidding me?!?

The FBI DOESN'T put enough resources into preventing rightwing wackos from killing people and way too much into leftwing terrorists who typically don't go around killing people.
How do you prevent attacks like those?

How do you prevent an attack like yesterday?

The guy had no criminal record and NO ties to any radical groups. There is NOTHING to suggest that he was about to snap and kill 92 people.

McVeigh acted alone, Rudolph acted alone. The Tiller killer and holocaust shooter both had histories of mental illness and relations with radical groups, but nothing suggested that they were about to snap or commit murder. The Pittsburgh shooter belonged to a radical group and posted on radical web sites, but there was no evidence he was planning to commit violence.

All the FBI can do is monitor these groups and keep an eye out for signs of violence or take steps to catch people after the fact, but it is impossible to prevent many of these attacks before hand because there are no signs that these people are about to go crazy and start killing people.
 
Right wing extremists are pretty violent in modern times. The FBI needs to be investigating extremist right wing people organizations. Nowadays it seems that extremist left wing people organizations are relatively peaceful as compared to the 1970s or so. But you really just need to look at this forum and see some of the white supremacists like InfoHawk/Baasha and realize that the FBI needs to pay more attention to organizations that promote his type of ideology.
 
How do you prevent attacks like those?

All the FBI can do is monitor these groups and keep an eye out for signs of violence or take steps to catch people after the fact, but it is impossible to prevent many of these attacks before hand because there are no signs that these people are about to go crazy and start killing people.

Profile people with far right beliefs, especially those with far right racial beliefs.
 
How do you prevent attacks like those?

How do you prevent an attack like yesterday?

The guy had no criminal record and NO ties to any radical groups. There is NOTHING to suggest that he was about to snap and kill 92 people.

McVeigh acted alone, Rudolph acted alone. The Tiller killer and holocaust shooter both had histories of mental illness and relations with radical groups, but nothing suggested that they were about to snap or commit murder. The Pittsburgh shooter belonged to a radical group and posted on radical web sites, but there was no evidence he was planning to commit violence.

All the FBI can do is monitor these groups and keep an eye out for signs of violence or take steps to catch people after the fact, but it is impossible to prevent many of these attacks before hand because there are no signs that these people are about to go crazy and start killing people.

I like how you decide that he 'snapped'. As if this kind of massacre weren't carefully planned and pre-meditated.

Anyone who 'snaps' and commits a crime is not going to end up murdering so many people.

It's just sad that most of these type of lone wolf rampages are committed by people who espouse conservative ideals.
 
Then you open the door to profiling in general. Is that really a road you want to start down?

I don't buy into the slippery slope.

The FBI should be investigating people who are part of far right extremist groups and ideologies. Hell, they already investigate people with particular behavior patterns. Just concentrate more on the behavior of far right extremists. You can even set up some behavioral models from some of the white supremacists on this forum.
 
I don't buy into the slippery slope.

The FBI should be investigating people who are part of far right extremist groups and ideologies. Hell, they already investigate people with particular behavior patterns. Just concentrate more on the behavior of far right extremists. You can even set up some behavioral models from some of the white supremacists on this forum.

You've missed the point. If you are willing to profile far right extremists, then you are equally willing to profile far left. If you are willing to profile far right and far left, one logically expects you are willing to profile individuals from countries with known ties to terrorist organizations. If you are not, then you do not believe in equality, you have established yourself as a hypocrite, and you have ignored statistical data in favor of pushing your own ideology.

As for white supremacists on this forum being used for behavioral models, that's a ridiculous idea on multiple fronts, but I'd expect you understand that and are simply trolling, so I won't waste my time going further.
 
I don't buy into the slippery slope.

The FBI should be investigating people who are part of far right extremist groups and ideologies. Hell, they already investigate people with particular behavior patterns. Just concentrate more on the behavior of far right extremists. You can even set up some behavioral models from some of the white supremacists on this forum.
And you still won't catch them.

Two of the people on the earlier list had histories of violence and mental illness and still weren't stopped.

How many stories have we seen where people warned that person X was going to go nuts and they still missed the signs?

You could probably pile up everything this guy said or done on the internet up to yesterday and still not have enough evidence to suggest that he was about to kill 92 people.

The science on this stuff just isn't good enough yet and may never be. Notice that nearly all criminal profiling is done AFTER the crime? They can take the evidence of multiple crime scenes and put it together to form conclusions and catch people who are serial criminals, but they have never been able to catch someone before they commit their first crime.


Also, all profiling does is sets up an expectations of who is more likely to commit certain crimes. Profiling airline passengers makes sense because every terrorist has been of a certain age and race and thus we have a pattern that suggests that the next airline terrorist will be a Muslim male between 25-55 etc.

What would the profile be for right wing killer? Male between 22 and 67 who holds radical views? Do we now monitor every one who has ever posted to a radical racist web site? Stormfront has as many as 50,000 members. Should we monitor everyone of them?
 
Nice troll post...

What I actually said. And keep in mind I said this AFTER the Muslim group tried to claim credit. If you notice I didn't make any comments in this thread until AFTER a Muslim group claimed responsibility and before we learned of the island shootings.

BTW since when did fighting terrorism become MY ideology?

I'm sorry you don't see how wishing for more tragedies makes you a horrible person.

I'm not trolling. I'm pointing out what you said and stating that I think an apology at the least would be in order.

And if you don't know, or understand, how your ideas about fighting terrorism are ideological... I'd say I'm surprised, but at this point, I'm just not.

Stay done with the thread. You were better off for it.
 
Back
Top