Category Archives: terrorism

On the Colorado shooting

Yes, it’s a tragedy.

No, it’s not terrorism.

I keep seeing people bring up the admittedly cogent point that if Jason Holmes was Mohammad Rezadeh the media would be crying terrorism faster than you can say “double standard”, but the problem isn’t that this is terrorism not being called such because it’s a white dude, but that it would have been called terrorism incorrectly.

What we have is a lunatic going on a killing spree. No political motivation, no grand vision for which instilling fear in the populace was necessary. Just a man with a broken mind who wanted to hurt a lot of people. Not terrorism.

Advertisements

Planned Parenthood firebombed in Wisconsin

I’m at a loss for words.

When people like me talk about the dangers of the religious right, this is what I mean. The worst you can say about “militant atheists” is that they act like douchebags and put up obnoxious billboards.

And once again (because it bears repeating) this is violence enacted with political aims intended to cause fear: terrorism.

Atheist kills soldier for believing in God

Er, wait. I meant the other way around.

But one shocking detail in that story seemed to be overlooked in the AP’s lead: A criminal complaint against the group, obtained by Raw Story on Thursday, shows that Green’s sister believes he killed Ramirez “because Ramirez did not believe in God.”

All the details still aren’t in, but that’s close enough to at least get me concerned that it could be the case.

Dem campaign aide's cat killed, "LIBERAL" drawn on its body

I just have no words. No fucking words.

Aden, a veteran of the war in Iraq, said in a statement, “To kill a child’s pet is just unconscionable. As a former combat soldier, I’ve seen the best of humanity and the worst of humanity. Whoever did this is definitely part of the worst of humanity.”

Aden made clear that he did not believe Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.) or anyone involved with his campaign were involved in the incident, and Beau Walker, Womack’s campaign manager, strongly condemned it.

I give it a day before some right-wing group claims liberals did this just to foment anger against conservatives. Because, clearly, the tree-hugging tofu-eating peaceniks would kill a cat just to make a point.

I’m at a loss. As a person who’s always had animals in the house, it hurts me deeply. And, frankly, it’s textbook terrorism. Violence enacted to instill fear aiming toward political goals. This is terrorism.

Random terrorism/security thought

Can someone explain to me why the gubmint insists on adding new laws and legislation vis a vis national security? Last I checked, whatever measures we’ve had for the past ten years are working fine. And hell, had some people not completely dropped the ball back in ’01, they would have worked just dandy then as well.

It’s starting to look like most lawmaking in relation to defense and security is just posturing to impress people and say “look at how tough on terrorism we are!”

So about that "no more Bill of Rights" bill…

In case you’re wondering, the reason it took me so damn long to get into S 1867 is that before I’m willing to join the alarmist sabre-rattling, I insisted on actually reading the gaw damn bill. So I fired up the Library of Congress and tried sifting through the 687 pages of the thing to see what all the fuss is about. To put it mildly, this is a dense, difficult read, and finding anything pertinent was difficult.

To start things off, again, the bill is nearly 700 pages, and we all know how the Senate is about reading things fully. Secondly, the vast majority of this is an appropriations bill, talking about budgetary matters and the allocation of funds. So when people start yammering about how these and those Democrats voted for it, and how it passed 97-3, there’s a good chance that they were simply not aware of this earth-shattering matter. Follow the Razor, folks.

Now then, the pertinent part of the bill, insofar as I can tell, is Title X Subtitle D, “Detainee Matters”, and its seven sections. In there, it discusses the rules about detaining terrorist suspects on American soil. I read through that section a few times, looking up everything in the bill relating to detainees, and in there I found the following bits:

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

Among others. Unless there’s something in this bill I have yet to find, I don’t know why this has suddenly been turned into the bill that decimated the Bill of Rights. The slight ambiguity of “requirement” as opposed to “authority” may be the difference here, but the reason for that is that the bill now states that foreign combatants must be held as per this bill’s wording, and that this does not apply to American citizens or lawful aliens. There is nothing in here, anywhere, that expands the power of the military to declare American citizens “enemy combatants” and throw them into the gulags.

Is the bill worded optimally? Maybe not, but thus far, in none of the articles about this thing where they sound the sirens do they point out specific sections and refer to the text of the bill. Rather, the echo chamber has caused everyone to go berzerk based on a few contortions of language.

Besides, Bradley Manning was held without trial for how long, now? Not only didn’t this bill change anything, but it’s not like we were doing so well without it.

"Credible but uncomfirmed" 9/11 anniversary terrorism threats

I have to be 100% honest here. If there’s nothing the people can do, then why tell us?

Still, it’s good to know that the Obama administration is on top of terrorism. However, that’s kind of a catch 22: prevent all the attacks way early on and you don’t have the big glorious fight a la Bush. Just as Clinton about that.