So, I am a terrorist according to Homeland Security

[lew]

AL Homeland Security TAP Course

Anti-government groups usually believe:

* Gun Control = Enslavement
* Constitution has been subverted
* The U.S. has lost its sovereignty



Opposition to a strong federal government is not new. The first Continental Congress wrestled with this issue when they first created the “Articles of Confederation” before our present day Constitution. George Washington marched troops into Pennsylvania to uphold the power of the Federal Government to collect taxes. In fact, we fought a civil war over the issue of individual and states versus federal rights.

Today’s anti-government groups have their origins in the shock and outrage among a number of groups to include gun rights groups, tax protestors, and white supremacists over the government actions with the Branch Davidian religious cult at Waco and and white supremacist Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge along with recent laws that limited gun ownership. A coalition of these groups called for the formation of “leaderless resistance” groups—the beginning of “unorganized militias”. Few people involved in this self styled “Patriot Movement” are criminals but there are some on the extreme fringe that are convinced that the Government has been subverted and that their freedoms must be aggressively defended to the point of attacks on our governing institutions.

In general, these terrorists claim that the U.S. government is infringing on their individual rights, and/or that the government's policies are criminal and immoral. Such groups may hold that the current government is violating the basic principles laid out by the U.S. Constitution and that a new world order is attempting to enslave humanity. Some groups also believe that the government and other organizations are transgressing the rule of God as described in the Bible. Some groups see themselves as separate nations within the United States, taking the initiative to establish their own laws and common-law courts.

So, I'm a fucking terrorist since I think the government is grossly over stepping it's constitutional boundaries?

[7960]

we needed another thread on possible mis-use of the word "terrorist"

[JaJae]

Read the sentence before what you bolded:

Few people involved in this self styled “Patriot Movement” are criminals but there are some on the extreme fringe that are convinced that the Government has been subverted and that their freedoms must be aggressively defended to the point of attacks on our governing institutions.

The part you quoted then goes on in further detail of their ideology. If you hold those beliefs and think you must aggressively defend that position to the point of attacking government institutions then yes you would be a terrorist.

Attacks isn't defined, but I'm assuming they mean violence. I say this because the article is about anti-government groups. Then when they start talking about attacks on the government they start referring to them as terrorists. Perhaps they could have worded it better, but it makes sense to me.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by lew

AL Homeland Security TAP Course







So, I'm a fucking terrorist since I think the government is grossly over stepping it's constitutional boundaries?

Here. Let's make this nice and simple so we can just end the thread right here. Are you a terrorist because you "think the government is grossly over stepping it's constitutional boundaries?" NO. I hope you can sleep better now.

[SoFlaJDM]

if you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about

[Diesel66]

missed the line above it

Few people involved in this self styled “Patriot Movement” are criminals but there are some on the extreme fringe that are convinced that the Government has been subverted and that their freedoms must be aggressively defended to the point of attacks on our governing institutions.

That is who the next paragraph is talking about.


Even though that description makes Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, etc... terrorists.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Read the sentence before what you bolded:



The part you quoted then goes on in further detail of their ideology. If you hold those beliefs and think you must aggressively defend that position to the point of attacking government institutions then yes you would be a terrorist.

Attacks isn't defined, but I'm assuming they mean violence. I say this because the article is about anti-government groups. Then when they start talking about attacks on the government they start referring to them as terrorists. Perhaps they could have worded it better, but it makes sense to me.

In short if you believe in the above and start blowing things up then you are a terrorist.

And Spicy that includes attacks on our military!



If everyone who thought the Constitution has been subverted were locked up!

[RMNIXON]

"Some groups also believe that the government and other organizations are transgressing the rule of God as described in the Bible."


Well there goes Jesusland!

[7960]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Even though that description makes Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, etc... terrorists.

At the time, they were.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by 7960

At the time, they were.

Does this mean one can accept the idea that Terrorism is a legitimate tool?

[7960]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Does this mean one can accept the idea that Terrorism is a legitimate tool?

only history can judge........but if Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, etc failed and were jailed or killed, nobody 250 years would have heard their names.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by 7960

only history can judge........but if Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, etc failed and were jailed or killed, nobody 250 years would have heard their names.

Franklin and Washington were already famous

[Linzyhop]

i think the example of Washington etc is a little different. Terrorists aren't trying to break away and rule themselves. It's not like all the terrorists are in Rhode Island and trying to form their own ruling government so they don't have to pay taxes to New York or something.....

that metaphor just doesn't make much sense.

[Jas0n]

The Founding Fathers types didn't use what we'd consider to be "terror tactics" anyway. If they'd have strapped bombs to their chests and detonated in Parliament over in England (or just in a market square, for that matter) in order to gain freedom for America, that would've been terrorism. They generally kept the fighting on military terms, which suggests that "terror" simply wasn't part of the equation.

That said, don't feel bad, lew. If you're a terrorist by their definition, so are lots more of us.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by lew

AL Homeland Security TAP Course







So, I'm a fucking terrorist since I think the government is grossly over stepping it's constitutional boundaries?

you don't see a difference between yourself and timothy mcveigh?

[ballz2wallz]

I love thread backfires

We've had a lot lately!

[lew]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

you don't see a difference between yourself and timothy mcveigh?

That Homeland Security article doesn't mention that these sorts of terrorist only blow up federal buildings.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by lew

That Homeland Security article doesn't mention that these sorts of terrorist only blow up federal buildings.

is there something you need to tell us? Have you been blowing up buildings?

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by 7960

At the time, they were.

I think the term "Rebel" fits better here. They only took hostile action against British Military and they did represent Colonial Government in that action. They also didn't go about attacking British citizens or sympathizers and cutting their heads off in public. The Boston Tea Party was so harmless it was todays College Frat Prank.

But if they lost we would probably have a very different view of them in our British History books. God Save the Queen!

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by lew

That Homeland Security article doesn't mention that these sorts of terrorist only blow up federal buildings.

.......with Day Care Children!