Skip to main content

View Diary: Being Against Wars Means You're "Radicalized?" (453 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Evidence gathered points to a heinous crime... (17+ / 0-)

    ...rather than a an act of terrorism.

    Repeating something I stated in response to diarist's post from yesterday...

    Frankly, the entire framing of this event as...

    ...being about a follower (the older Tsarnaev brother) of radicalized Islam (at least partially) belies the greater realities that this may have been as much, if not moreso, about an individual's rage, frustration, and the general sociopathic nature of someone (the older Tsarnaev) who's life in the U.S. was a mess and he "cracked." Period. More in line with the behavior of hundreds of stories we read about in this country, every year, relating to generalized sociopathic behavior it seems! (And, the younger brother being a follower along for the proverbial ride.) If we want to make a comparison--based upon the superficial facts as they've been presented to the public to date--there IS a strong argument to be made for this inconvenient reality (one that doesn't fit in with the military-industrial complex's view, unfortunately for them), with politics being NO EXCUSE for any of these sociopaths' actions, but, perhaps secondary to the greater truth that, indeed, the older Tsarnaev was--as his uncle described him--a "loser," albeit a sociopathic one...with all the political overtones relating to this story being embellishments to (in some instances, conveniently) obfuscate greater truths. Again: WE JUST DON'T KNOW, and we may never know the greater, twisted realities of this story!

    #            #            #

    The Wikipedia pages for the definitions of the following terms may be found via these links, below (it’s pertinent to note that the first sentence of the Wiki page on the definition of the term, “terrorism,” is as follows: ”There is neither an academic nor an international legal consensus regarding the definition of the term ‘terrorism.’”):
                        definitions of terrorism
                        terrorism
                        state terrorism
                        economic terrorism

    Additionally, here’s THE LINK to the Dkosopedia page on “terrorism.”

    Next-to-last but not least, here’s an excerpt from the Wiki page on “terrorism”

    Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion. In the international community, however, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition.[1][2] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Some definitions now include acts of unlawful violence and war. The use of similar tactics by criminal organizations for protection rackets or to enforce a code of silence is usually not labeled terrorism, though these same actions may be labeled terrorism when done by a politically motivated group. The writer Heinrich Böll and scholars Raj Desai and Harry Eckstein have suggested that attempts to protect against terrorism may lead to a kind of social oppression.[3][4]

    The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged,[5] and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. Studies have found over 100 definitions of “terrorism”.[6][7] The concept of terrorism may be controversial as it is often used by state authorities (and individuals with access to state support) to delegitimize political or other opponents,[8] and potentially legitimize the state's own use of armed force against opponents (such use of force may be described as "terror" by opponents of the state).[8][9]

    Terrorism has been practiced by a broad array of political organizations to further their objectives. It has been practiced by both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic groups, religious groups, revolutionaries, and ruling governments.[10] An abiding characteristic is the indiscriminate use of violence against noncombatants for the purpose of gaining publicity for a group, cause, or individual. The symbolism of terrorism can leverage human fear to help achieve these goals.[11]…

    #            #            #

    One more thing...re: diarist's comment...

    ...That's a lot of radicals to keep tabs on...
    Yes, but as many around this community like to say: "He's got this!"

    "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

    by bobswern on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 06:29:28 AM PDT

    •  Nowadays, self-identified "traditional Dems"... (14+ / 0-)

      ...are considered to be radicals, even by some within their own party...even here.

      "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

      by bobswern on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 06:32:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  hell, even quakers are considered to be terrorists (12+ / 0-)

        and have been investigated by this government in recent memory.  the occupy movement, which practiced gandhian non-violence was investigated, infiltrated and brutally repressed by obama's department of homeland security, coordinating with military, federal, state and local anti-terrorism units.

        anybody who mentions that war crimes are likely being committed by the obama administration is probably considered a dangerous radical.  so, i guess the united nations commission on human rights, the bipartisan us constitution project task force on detainee treatment, the aclu and countless others are probably terrorist organizations by the obama administration's definition.

        i'm part of the 99% - america's largest minority

        by joe shikspack on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 06:51:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Occupy (0+ / 1-)
          Recommended by:
          Hidden by:
          stevej

          definitely had some terrorists mixed in. There were some guys making bombs, and that justifies a little attention from Obama.

          Other than that, he let you guys pretty much break whatever you wanted to.

          I'm afraid that my signature won't match the mood of my comment.

          by heybuddy on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 07:10:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Huh? Is this "snark"? (4+ / 0-)

            “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

            by jeff in nyc on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 07:14:55 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  "He", Obama is not our king. (12+ / 0-)
            he let you guys pretty much break whatever you wanted to.
            Maybe you missed the memo:

            Revealed: how the FBI coordinated the crackdown on Occupy

            The documents, released after long delay in the week between Christmas and New Year, show a nationwide meta-plot unfolding in city after city in an Orwellian world: six American universities are sites where campus police funneled information about students involved with OWS to the FBI, with the administrations' knowledge (p51); banks sat down with FBI officials to pool information about OWS protesters harvested by private security; plans to crush Occupy events, planned for a month down the road, were made by the FBI – and offered to the representatives of the same organizations that the protests would target; and even threats of the assassination of OWS leaders by sniper fire – by whom? Where? – now remain redacted and undisclosed to those American citizens in danger, contrary to standard FBI practice to inform the person concerned when there is a threat against a political leader (p61).
            Who's the real terrorist's today?  The FBI offered to target and kill American Citizens with snipers.

            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

            by gerrilea on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 07:21:43 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That is not what the article says (4+ / 0-)

              The article clearly indicates that the sniper threats emanated from unidentified individuals or groups. This kind of obvious misrepresentation is counter productive.

              Nothing human is alien to me.

              by WB Reeves on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 07:55:34 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  What???? (4+ / 0-)

                FBI classified information about OWS assassination plot

                Only one month into the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations last year, plans were formulated to identify key figures in the movement and execute them with a coordinated assault using sniper rifles, new documents reveal.

                -cut-

                An identified [redacted] of October planned to engage in sniper attacks against protesters in Houston, Texas, if deemed necessary. An identified [redacted] had received intelligence that indicated the protesters in New York and Seattle planned similar protests in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and Austin, Texas. [Redacted] planned to gather intelligence against the leaders of the protest groups and obtain photographs then formulate a plan to kill the leadership via suppressed sniper rifles.

                You seriously need to read it again please.  They won't tell us who was planning on targeting and killing American Citizens.

                -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                by gerrilea on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 08:08:29 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I read it when it first came out (4+ / 0-)

                  and I read what you posted earlier. Likewise what you posted above. The article plainly states that the identity of the person(s) making the sniper threat was redacted. By definition that means the source of the threat is unidentified. The documents simply don't say what you want them to say and so they don't prove what you want them to prove. No amount of passionate insistence to the contrary is going to alter that.

                  These documents are raw intelligence reports. Such reports are, by nature, full of unvetted hearsay. It is entirely possible that this particular piece of information turned out to be uncorroborated or proved untrue. It's also possible that the names are being withheld in order to avoid compromising an ongoing investigation.

                  I'd certainly like to know the full story too but suggesting that such redactions amount to proof of FBI complicity in assassination plots is transparently false.

                  Nothing human is alien to me.

                  by WB Reeves on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 09:01:48 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  gerrilea (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  gramofsam1, jeff in nyc

                  You said :
                  "Who's the real terrorist's today?  The FBI offered to target and kill American Citizens with snipers."

                  The FBI didn't offer to kill anyone. You made that up entirely. There was some idiot who was thinking about it, and the FBI was investigating them as a criminal.

                  This has nothing to do with whether or not members of occupy were violent themselves or not.

                  I'm afraid that my signature won't match the mood of my comment.

                  by heybuddy on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 09:02:04 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  What part of sitting down and planning WITH (0+ / 0-)

                    the FBI do you not understand?

                    plans to crush Occupy events, planned for a month down the road, were made by the FBI– and offered to the representatives of the same organizations that the protests would target; and even threats of the assassination of OWS leaders by sniper fire
                    And the fact that there may have been violence at the OWS protests has nothing to do with what you said that Obama allowed OWS to break stuff.  

                    Who's zooming whom here?

                    Who's the real criminal here?  Our government knew and planned with corporations to target and kill American protesters.  We don't know who they were going to target or who was actually doing the targeting.  They clearly knew there were plans to attack innocent people.

                    If they were not part of the plans why did they redact the names?  What do they have to hide?

                    Shouldn't we know who in or out of our government is planning on killing us?

                    I've made nothing up here.

                    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                    by gerrilea on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 09:44:13 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  when you said, (0+ / 0-)

                      "Shouldn't we know who in or out of our government is planning on killing us?

                      I've made nothing up here."

                      You are conveniently ignoring the basic fact that you would know nothing about this at all if the FBI hadn't stepped in and prevented some RW nut job from sniping someone. I don't know the details, cause they're redacted, but I know the FBI was helping someone survive, perhaps by setting up a sting, but clearly they were on the side of prevention of murder.

                      The mental gymnastics it must take to maintain your paranoid view of our government makes my muscles sore just watching it. It's been five years, now. "We" run the show. If you are still singing this song at this point, well.

                      I'm afraid that my signature won't match the mood of my comment.

                      by heybuddy on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 10:43:26 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Now your being totally dishonest (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      jeff in nyc

                      You have not shred of proof for your claim of FBI-Corporate assassination conspiracy. If you're not being paid to discredit OWS supporters and critics of the National Security State, you ought to be. Hr worthy.

                      Nothing human is alien to me.

                      by WB Reeves on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 10:44:58 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  So, when Naomi Wolf asks the same questions (0+ / 0-)

                        She would HR"d as well?

                        It is in the documents released after a FOIA request, that I linked to.  There is no conspiracy theory here.

                        You attacking me personally is HR'able.  Empty claims that I'm mentally unstable 'having' what did you say?  "Messianic" tendencies"???  And now a paid shill are beyond reason and a clear violation of our site rules.

                        Have a good day, I wish no further interactions with you.

                        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                        by gerrilea on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 11:07:53 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Hypocrite, CT is against the rules as well. (0+ / 0-)

                          Nothing human is alien to me.

                          by WB Reeves on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 11:12:25 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  There is no conspiracy here, I've presented (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            bobswern

                            the FBI's own documents and a link to Naomi Wolf's discussion of those documents.

                            Please stop this bullying.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 11:32:06 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  There's no bullying here (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            jeff in nyc

                            and whether or not Wolf agrees with you is irrelevant. The documents do not support your claim of a FBI-Corporatist assassination conspiracy. If you think otherwise, take it to Admins and see what they say.

                            Meanwhile, please honor your earlier commitment to cease interaction. I've no intention of further enabling your behavior which is absolutely destructive to the interests of supporters of OWS and critics of the National Security State.

                            Nothing human is alien to me.

                            by WB Reeves on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 11:44:29 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

          •  the "terrorists" were an invention of the fbi... (12+ / 0-)

            i'm part of the 99% - america's largest minority

            by joe shikspack on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 07:22:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Who? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mrkvica

            Do you have a link?  

            I don't recall any Occupy protestors making bombs.

            It is an old strategy of tyrants to delude their victims into fighting their battles for them. FDR

            by Betty Pinson on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 07:51:46 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  the fbi infiltrated cleveland occupy... (6+ / 0-)

              and the fbi operative talked a bunch of impressionable mostly teenagers into bombing a bridge.  the fbi operative then made all of the arrangements for them, procuring the bomb and driving the kids around.  then at the dramatic last moment of course the fbi arrested all of the kids.  

              it makes for great propaganda for the government and internet trolls.

              i'm part of the 99% - america's largest minority

              by joe shikspack on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 08:00:20 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •   link (0+ / 0-)

              http://www.dailykos.com/...

              That's from here.

              Type in Occupy + bomber to the goog.

              I'm afraid that my signature won't match the mood of my comment.

              by heybuddy on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 08:04:41 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  They weren't part of Occupy (3+ / 0-)

                The only internet sources that claim they were from Occupy are right wing sites.   Sorry, not buying it.  

                It is an old strategy of tyrants to delude their victims into fighting their battles for them. FDR

                by Betty Pinson on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 08:39:53 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  So the DOJ (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  blueyedace2, mallyroyal

                  is a right wing site?
                  That seems odd, but ok.

                  I'm afraid that my signature won't match the mood of my comment.

                  by heybuddy on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 08:54:27 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Sorry, (5+ / 0-)

                  I can't speak for the Occupy Chicago guys, but the Occupy Cleveland bombing plot was carried out by members of the Occupy group there.

                  One of those now convicted bombers had signed a lease for a building where Occupy Cleveland was living in.

                  http://www.cleveland.com/...

                  Occupy Cleveland admits that those convicted were part of their movement:

                  http://www.cleveland.com/...

                  None of them were teenagers, as Joe seems to imply. Their ages were 21,21, 27 and 35. All were convicted and sentenced to prison with terms ranging from 6 to 11 years.

                  You can scream entrapment all you want, but these were adults who decided that blowing up a bridge was a good idea, even if they didn't come up with the idea themselves.

                  The vast majority of Occupy was non-violent. But there were certainly violent elements(this is does not even delve into the clusterfuck that was Occupy Oakland) and to deny this is totally dishonest.

                  Look, I tried to be reasonable...

                  by campionrules on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 09:06:06 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The judge disagreed (6+ / 0-)

                    he gave most of them much lighter sentences than the federal prosecutor was pushing for.

                    The Cleveland splinter group did not come up with the idea of blowing up a bridge.  That idea came from the paid FBI infiltrator and the FBI agents themselves.  All of those facts came out in court.  

                    From The Guardian

                    Cleveland anarchist bomb plot aided and abetted by the FBI

                    Cleveland Occupy arrests are the latest in FBI's pattern of manipulation

                    From Rolling Stone:

                    The Plot Against OccupyHow the government turned five stoner misfits into the world's most hapless terrorist cell

                    Don't get me wrong, I don't like anarchy or violence.  I disapprove of everything these guys did. But had the FBI not infiltrated this splinter group and hired the violent ex-con to lure these kids into his (the FBI's) bridge bombing plot, nothing would have happened. Without FBI influence, these guys would not have plotted to blow up the bridge.

                    And not just any informant, but a smooth-talking ex-con – an incorrigible lawbreaker who racked up even more criminal charges while on the federal payroll. From the start, the government snitch nurtured the boys' destructive daydreams, egging them on every step of the way, giving them the encouragement and tools to turn their Fight Club-tinged tough talk into reality. To follow the evolution of the bombing plot under the informant's tutelage is to watch five young men get a giant federal-assisted upgrade from rebellious idealists to terrorist boogeymen. This process looks a lot like what used to be called entrapment.

                    It is an old strategy of tyrants to delude their victims into fighting their battles for them. FDR

                    by Betty Pinson on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 10:56:43 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  You don't understand Occupy (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Agathena, gerrilea

                    Imagine if all Christians were treated as terrorists because some Christians bomb abortion clinics. I think we can all agree that would be unfair.

                    And if the label "christian" in the preceding paragraph were substituted with "Democrat" or "atheist" or "Muslim" or any other label defining a broad group, most reasonable people would say it would be unfair to draw sweeping conclusions about anyone who identifies with such labels.

                    When the media says an individual is a "member" of Occupy, it's a bit misleading. Anyone can go stand with Occupy and thus be loosely defined as "associated" with Occupy. Anyone. But planned actions in most cities would be approved by the Occupy General Assembly (of that particular city) before it can be said to be an Occupy action. And furthermore, the Occupy movement in each city is completely autonomous.

                    Because Occupy was taking place in the open, in parks, anyone could show up. But merely having spent some time there doesn't mean actions of individuals reflect the desires of the organized participants.

                    Let's say someone went to open meetings of a worker's union. And they later went and bombed a bridge. One cannot say the union bombed a bridge, and start treating all union members as terrorists.

                    Or let's say someone got access to a Democratic Party convention in some city. And later they bombed something, somewhere. Should I conclude from that that all Democrats should be investigated as terrorists? Maybe you should be investigated, using that as a basis.

                    The same applies to the often misleading label "anarchist". The term has become popular, is frequently misunderstood and misused, and people using the term have their own notions and misconceptions about anarchism. Anyone can claim to be an anarchist, since there is no official membership card, and no one owns the term. Most anarchists (authentic ones familiar with anarchist theory) strongly appose violence against innocent people. They are in fact far more anti-war and anti-violence than the average drone supporting Democrat.

                    Anarchists don't believe they have the right to assert unjustified authority over another. Violence against people is a form of asserting authority, and thus it is disfavored. Even the tiny subset that damages windows of banks shares this view. Those who want to kill people by blowing up bridges don't reflect the view of most anarchists.

                    Did you know Gandhi sometimes self-identified with anarchism?

                    If he were still living, should he be barred from entering the US? Investigated by the FBI? Put on a terrorist list?

                    It's time we stop letting fear cause us to react irrationally, leading us to violate the civil rights of any group that scares us.

                    "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                    by ZhenRen on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 11:18:23 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  h/r for BS etc. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            joe shikspack, mrkvica, gerrilea

            to blithely state that Occupy had guys making bombs with no link or context is to deliberately mislead by implying that Occupy was pro violence.

            •  You're a bully, steve. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              blueyedace2, campionrules

              The context was the comment I was responding to in which Obama and his DOJ were said to be "repressing" occupy.

              Obama would have appreciated occupy except there were some crazy elements to it, so he had to deal with them to save lives and keep it from becoming a political liability.

              And I don't need to link things that are common knowledge, such as the fact that several groups of people were charged with conspiracy to make bombs. There was the bridge, and there was the molotov cocktail makers. They have been discussed at length before.

              You might not like the truth, but you can't HR it.

              Maybe you should HR the person claiming that president Obama is a repressor. Please fix mine.

              I'm afraid that my signature won't match the mood of my comment.

              by heybuddy on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 08:48:02 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  The dangerous 'far left' lol (9+ / 0-)

        What amazes me is what is considered 'moderate' these days. Is self radicalized like self identification where a person says I identify with drone bombing and revising the constitution to fit our inevitable 'world as we find it' because I'm a moderate and this is necessary because 'terrists are gonna kill yer family' and banksters need to be in power otherwise we all go over  apocalyptic cliffs. The world is a dangerous place they say so get moderate or else.  Is being radical on a skewed political ideological scale devised by the truly radical new normal a crime? Seems to me when the spectrum of right center and left are this messed up any one who questions or resists the fictitious narrative of constant fear and hate is radical.  

         

    •  And Dillinger's career is best seen as (0+ / 0-)

      An extended and egregious account overwithdrawal.

      Nope. He was a bank robber. Because why? Because he chose to rob banks.

      The Boston bombers chose to act as terrorists. That makes them terrorists.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (132)
  • Community (53)
  • Baltimore (45)
  • Bernie Sanders (36)
  • Civil Rights (35)
  • Culture (25)
  • Freddie Gray (21)
  • Elections (20)
  • Racism (20)
  • Education (20)
  • Hillary Clinton (19)
  • Law (19)
  • Economy (18)
  • Labor (17)
  • Politics (16)
  • Rescued (16)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Texas (14)
  • Media (14)
  • Environment (13)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site