Could you be part of a militia movement?

Insurrectionist · Post by **Insurrectionist** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 4:40 pm

You could be if you display political paraphernalia or believe Obama will confiscate guns or enact laws against the 2nd admendment according to a report released to MO Law enforcement.

Read about HERE

I guess I might be considered one apparently. This memo and its findings are potentially dangerous to both the people of Missouri and to our system of free political speech.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 5:14 pm

Yea, you mentioned those FEMA camps…better keep an eye out for black helicopters.

Guess I’m on the list as well, because I’m basically a libertarian.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 5:42 pm

I wondered what that black van with the dark tinted windows was doing sitting outside my Republican front door

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 5:47 pm

Are you saying your front door opens to the right?

Insurrectionist · Post by **Insurrectionist** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:09 pm

SSSSSSSSSShhhhhhh I hear them now.

Richard Cranium · Post by **Richard Cranium** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 8:29 am

Spidey wrote:Are you saying your front door opens to the right?

My door opens in the middle. I like to make big entrances.

SilverFJ · Post by **SilverFJ** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 11:45 am

<---freeman

Insurrectionist · Post by **Insurrectionist** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 11:55 am

SilverFJ wrote:<---freeman

a French-Algerian rapper and dancer from IAM?

VonVulcan · Post by **VonVulcan** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 12:00 pm

Insurrectionist wrote:You could be if you display political paraphernalia or believe Obama will confiscate guns or enact laws against the 2nd admendment according to a report released to MO Law enforcement.

Read about HERE

I guess I might be considered one apparently. This memo and its findings are potentially dangerous to both the people of Missouri and to our system of free political speech.

Link is dead, they found it.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 12:29 pm

\"They cut the hard-lines, get out\"?

I think militia activity is a valid concern of our government. Don't be surprised that they're clamping down on it. Some of our foremost politicians may have their heads in the ideological clouds, but I expect the FBI are absolutely on the ball.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 1:05 pm

And by that I hope you mean…

Politicians are nuts, but at least I hope the FBI can tell a Ron Paul supporter from a terrorist.

Insurrectionist · Post by **Insurrectionist** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 1:17 pm

It can now be found here

Encyclocentral wrote: The law enforcement departments of Missouri said that there is no need to panic over the reports on domestic terrorism. Titled ‘The Modern Militia Movement’, the report mainly aims at identifying the militia groups and members. However, the report was submitted on 20th February and has already caused a lot of concerns for the experts.

The report provides some really disturbing facts. For example, it mentions about the political bumper stickers, conspiracy theories and subversive literature. Naturally, the critics are worried that such things would stifle the political thoughts.

However, the law enforcement officials clarified this particular point. According to them, the report was misunderstood. According to Lt John Hotz, an official of the Missouri State Highway Patrol, the report is derived from the data that is collected from the militias.

Still, many experts are not quite convinced about it. Roger Webb, the president of the Libertarians of the University of Missouri campus, is afraid that the report will gag the free political thoughts. He pointed out that there are many third parties and none of them profess violence.

In fact, he sites the example of his own group and said that one of the major conditions that one has to agree upon to get the membership is to declare that he will not assist violence of any kind. Naturally, he can not understand the threats that the report anticipates from the Third Parties.

According to the officials however, the reports are specifically for the militia. The data are assembled by Missouri Information Analysis Center. They have amalgamated the date gathered by different security agencies including the Department of Homeland Security of the federal government. The center was launched in 2005 in order to fight with criminal activities and terrorism.

Hotz explained that the report basically upholds the trend in the modern militia so that the law enforcement officers can understand more about them.

But Tim Neal does not agree. Neal is a veteran army man. As he went through the pages of the report, he could not check his shock. He said that he is a strong supporter of Ron Paul whom the report detects as a threat. He pointed out the stupidity of the report according to which any one who supports that person, argue on the North American union and possess an “America: Freedom to Fascism” can be called a domestic terrorist. The Modern Militia Movement

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 1:44 pm

Spidey wrote:And by that I hope you mean…

Politicians are nuts, but at least I hope the FBI can tell a Ron Paul supporter from a terrorist.

No. I was at a disadvantage concerning the topic because I couldn't read the link. I was saying that I expect that the government will start exerting pressure on groups that are potentially conducive to thoughts of armed revolution, as a side-effect of identifying and pursuing those groups that are already on the brink, because it appears to me to be a very real threat in our nation today.

I wrote:Some of our foremost politicians may have their heads in the ideological clouds, but I expect the FBI are absolutely on the ball.

And all I meant by that was that even though politicians may be prone to making mistakes and underestimating things and people as they're riding the gravy-train to the perfect liberal utopia, the FBI knows exactly what's going on in this country. They specialize at being in touch with reality.

But I think the FBI must tell the difference, if the politicians won't, if for nothing but purely logistical reasons.

Of course Obama has already shown that he likes to manipulate things at the "grass-roots" level, so in the long run the capacity of a single agency may not be a factor that could be counted on to limit fascist developments (just a thought).

VonVulcan · Post by **VonVulcan** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 2:57 pm

Insurrectionist wrote:It can now be found here

Thanks.
So that is an official state police organization that created that report?

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 4:09 pm

Sergeant Thorne wrote:No. I was at a disadvantage concerning the topic because I couldn't read the link.

I kinda suspected as much, but the point here is not whether the government should keep an eye on paramilitary groups, but what it uses as clues to who might be in one, at least that’s the point for me.

Insurrectionist · Post by **Insurrectionist** » Sat Mar 21, 2009 4:12 pm

VonVulcan wrote:
Insurrectionist wrote:It can now be found here

Thanks.
So that is an official state police organization that created that report?

Yes very much so.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 12:45 am

Well, with regard to the topic I should have known better, I guess. It's just something that has been on my mind. That was a poor excuse for missing the topic.

But how do I know that these extremists aren't really behind these supposedly harmless revolutionary groups (or at least contributing to them), books, and videos? Do you know they're not?

Insurrectionist · Post by **Insurrectionist** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:29 am

It seems to me a Ron Pual supporter is the wrong way to go, or the people who think illegal immagrantion is wrong. Why don't they go after the people who really want to do harm.

http://www.christianaction.org/homegrownjihad.aspx

VonVulcan · Post by **VonVulcan** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:04 pm

Well now isn't that special...

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:32 pm

But those are the people this new government wants to cozy up to.

And one of the reasons why we need militias.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:43 pm

Saying that militia terrorist groups commonly support Ron Paul isn't the same thing as saying that Ron Paul supporters are commonly in militia terrorist groups. Note the distinction.

Insurrectionist · Post by **Insurrectionist** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:57 pm

But a person with a Ron Paul bumper sticker could be in the militia is what the report is saying. So How about Ron Paul he has a Ron Paul bumper sticker on his bumper. Is he a militia member? He is a Republican United States Congressman.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 7:07 pm

Jeff250 wrote:Saying that militia terrorist groups commonly support Ron Paul isn't the same thing as saying that Ron Paul supporters are commonly in militia terrorist groups. Note the distinction.

That comment begs the question…what's the point?

No one has said anything like the former, and the latter is what some people might object to.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 7:25 pm

Sorry Spidey, I was mostly reacting to Rush Limbaugh's response to this document, not to anything that was posted here. But I think that some posters in this thread were still thinking it even if it wasn't written, and Insurrectionist's response to my post defends this notion.

Insurrectionist wrote:So How about Ron Paul he has a Ron Paul bumper sticker on his bumper. Is he a militia member? He is a Republican United States Congressman.

If the report says that Ron Paul supporters are commonly in militia terrorist groups, then we could support a statement like that Ron Paul is likely in such a group using the report, and then only if we decide to ignore all other factors, like that he is a U.S. Senator, and so on. But as far as I can tell, it only says that militia terrorist group members commonly support Ron Paul, not the other way around.

-----

Here's something perhaps more interesting to discuss though. Since Ron Paul supporters represent a small portion of Americans and Ron Paul supporters represent a large portion of members of militia terrorist groups, we could make a strong argument that Ron Paul supporters tend to be in militia terrorist groups more than, say, supporters of McCain or Obama. So, should we use this in our decision matrix for determining whether someone is in a militia terrorist group? Since I'd wager that most of the posters in this thread would be willing to use someone's Arabness or Muslimness in deciding how likely someone is to hijack a plane, then how is using whether someone is a Ron Paul supporter relevantly different when deciding how likely someone is in a militia terrorist group?

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 7:41 pm

I could continue that line of dissussion if I believed the report, but I don’t.

Mud people unite!

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:20 pm

Jeff250 wrote:Since I'd wager that most of the posters in this thread would be willing to use someone's Arabness or Muslimness in deciding how likely someone is to hijack a plane

Except, ironically enough, for the Ron Paul Supporters.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:22 pm

I think most of them voted for McCain.

flip · Post by **flip** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:23 pm

When did militia's become terrorist groups rather than just people upholding their right to form a militia? Don't get me wrong, some of these groups are half baked no doubt and a real threat to all of our liberties, but to start tacking the word terrorist onto that is gonna create a dangerous stereotype. We see evident dangers inside the government and these groups, when ran by reasonable and level headed people, are the only real viable threat left to preserve our way of life. Maybe that's exactly why their being stigmatized now.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:45 pm

Spidey wrote:I could continue that line of dissussion if I believed the report, but I don’t.

I guess I don't see any reason to doubt a report when it says that people who are against large federal government, taxation, and generally hold libertarian beliefs would tend to support Ron Paul more than most Americans.

Flip wrote:When did militia's become terrorist groups rather than just people upholding their right to form a militia?

I think you have my motives wrong. I don't tack terrorist onto militia to try to include all militias as being terrorist. I tack terrorist onto militia to exclude the militia groups that aren't terrorist from what I'm saying.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:02 pm

Since I don't think I've been effectively communicating, to summarize: Militia groups and Muslims have a lot in common: both are largely law abiding but have a small, extremist portion that have a history of terrorist activity in the U.S. Should law enforcement consider whether someone is Arab and Muslim when trying to assess whether someone is a risk for hijacking a plane? And is the answer to this question different than the answer to the following: Should law enforcement consider whether someone is white, Christian, and a supporter of Ron Paul when trying to assess whether someone is a risk for blowing up an abortion clinic?

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:48 am

Jeff250 wrote: I think you have my motives wrong. I don't tack terrorist onto militia to try to include all militias as being terrorist. I tack terrorist onto militia to exclude the militia groups that aren't terrorist from what I'm saying.

*blink*

lmao ... I actually followed that!

Insurrectionist · Post by **Insurrectionist** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 4:28 am

I can see why some would put terrorist at the end of militia. One so called militia member and so called libertarian carried out one of the worst attacks on the governemnt on April 19, 1995. Timothy McVeigh was convicted of bombing the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City on the second anniversary of the Waco Siege, as revenge against what he considered to be a tyrannical federal government. The bombing killed 168 people, and was the deadliest act of terrorism within the United States prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks.

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 5:08 am

No I think that's a far stretch. Timothy McVeigh belonged to a militia yes, but it was proven he and Terry Nichols worked independently to engineer that bombing. That line of reasoning is akin to saying all teenagers are possible murderers because of Columbine. Well in a truth they are, but trying to preemptively decide which one WILL murder is first UnAmerican, and unfair to the 99% that won't. One instance of 2 independent loonies does not make a strong case at all.

Insurrectionist · Post by **Insurrectionist** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 5:44 am

My first sentance was.

Insurrectionist wrote:I can see why some would put terrorist at the end of militia.

I don't believe all Militia people or libertarians are terrorist. This was in response to your statement

flip wrote:When did militia's become terrorist groups rather than just people upholding their right to form a militia?

Also I stated.

Insurrectionist wrote: One so called militia member and so called libertarian carried out one of the worst attacks on the governemnt on April 19, 1995

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 6:17 am

My comments are more a guard against sweeping generalizations and not really direct responses to either yours or jeff250's remarks.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 6:46 am

Should law enforcement consider whether someone is Arab and Muslim when trying to assess whether someone is a risk for hijacking a plane?

I would, personally, within reason.

People of Arabic descent aren't the only ones who have hijacked planes, but they're the only ones that I know of who have used them in suicide missions. If that ain't worth looking twice...

Edit: But I guess if American extremist groups want to take advantage of blinding political correctness, why should other groups have all the fun?

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 7:52 am

Jeff250 wrote:
Spidey wrote:I could continue that line of dissussion if I believed the report, but I don’t.
I guess I don't see any reason to doubt a report when it says that people who are against large federal government, taxation, and generally hold libertarian beliefs would tend to support Ron Paul more than most Americans.

That part probably is correct.

Is this debate about their politics, or whether they’re in a militia?

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:12 am

[quote="Sergeant Thorne"to limit fascist developments[/quote]

What would give you the idea that it would be fascist?

Also, the Oklahoma bombing wasn't terrorism, it was revenge.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:43 am

I think there's a very fine line between Socialism, in practice, and Fascism. Especially in a country like ours.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 1:32 pm

Jeff250 wrote:Should law enforcement consider whether someone is Arab and Muslim when trying to assess whether someone is a risk for hijacking a plane? And is the answer to this question different than the answer to the following: Should law enforcement consider whether someone is white, Christian, and a supporter of Ron Paul when trying to assess whether someone is a risk for blowing up an abortion clinic?

1) We need better statistics. Are a significant majority of hijackers (specifically those who'd use a plane as a weapon) Arab and/or Muslim? Are a significant majority of abortion clinic bombers white, Christian, Ron Paul supporters, and/or in a militia group? How strong is the correlation, and to which factor?

2) If one of the above is true, the question becomes, how should the information be used? If "this person is a Muslim" or "this person is a Ron Paul supporter" is your only piece of information, it's pretty obviously not enough to go on. What about "this person has engaged in suspicious behaviors X, Y, and Z and also fits the demographic"? Does fitting the demographic matter? If it's a "bubble" case where there's some suspicious behavior but not enough to be sure, do you put extra surveillance on everyone, or do you use demographic information to decide how to distribute your resources? Put another way, if you let every mildly suspicious person who DIDN'T fit the profile go, how often would that end up being a mistake?

I think it's worthwhile to put extra observation on the more extreme militia groups as well as the more extreme Islamic groups, and to pay extra attention when someone from such a group acts suspiciously, because I suspect there's a strong correlation between such groups and the activities in question; I think you'll get the best payoff that way. But it's important to make sure you've identified the groups correctly; "Arab" and "Ron Paul supporter" are a couple steps removed from the actual dangerous subgroups. (The actual decision should be made by someone with actual data, rather than by me pondering and guessing.)

Could you be part of a militia movement?

Could you be part of a militia movement?

Re:

Re:

Re: Could you part of a militia movement?

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: