home

Norway Killings: Lone Right-Wing, Anti-Muslim Extremist

By Jeralyn, Section Foreign Affairs
Posted on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 03:39:00 PM EST
Tags: Norway (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Bump and Update: Here are suspect Anders Behring Breivik 's online postings in English. He "rants against multi-culturalism." BBC News has this profile of him. More from The Telegraph here.

Norwegian police describe him as a "right-wing Christian fundamentalist." It's still unclear if he acted alone.

According to police, Breivik has been charged and confessed. The death toll is close to 100. [More...]

The death toll is Norway is now at 87. Police believe the attacks are the work of a sole, anti-Muslim, right-wing extremist.

National police chief Sveinung Sponheim told NRK that the suspected gunman's Internet postings "suggest that he has some political traits directed toward the right, and anti-Muslim views, but whether that was a motivation for the actual act remains to be seen."

A police official said the suspect appears to have acted alone in both attacks, and that "it seems like that this is not linked to any international terrorist organizations at all."

More details here.

< Saturday Afternoon Open Thread | Raising Medicare to 67: Not an Acceptable Option >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Norway Killings: Lone Right-Wing, Anti-Muslim Extremist | 178 comments (178 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Not a Loon. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 09:56:26 AM EST
    Look, this guy systematically exterminated the future of the left/labor party.  This was a planned political act.  In one of his comments as Fjordman, he said that the left needs to be exterminated.  

    Why is it so hard for people to acknowledge that this behavior is not limited to a specific ethnicity or religion?   Political fanaticism with a dose of delusion creates this cocktail.  

    It seems that under Norwegian law, the most he could get is 21 years.  I am curious where this will go.  

    The "21-year maximum" law... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Addison on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 11:32:34 AM EST
    ...has loopholes. If the person is still judged a danger to society they can be kept longer. I think there may be one or two more loopholes, but don't hold me to that. I don't think the guy who doubled Norway's usual yearly murder total in a day is going to get out in 21 years -- especially not if the Norwegian Labor party exists then.

    Parent
    Wonder what Norwegian standard (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 11:13:47 AM EST
    is for legally insane in a criminal context.  Apparently the alleged mass murder was dressed as a law enforcement officer and cajoled his victims into approaching him b/4 he killed them.  Denotes planning and thought.  

    Parent
    Planning and thought are not necessarily (none / 0) (#19)
    by Peter G on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 11:34:58 AM EST
    inconsistent with legal insanity, depending on the standard used in that jurisdiction.  So you're asking a good question.  

    Parent
    Whether self-professed or described... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Romberry on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 04:25:06 PM EST
    ...by others, calling this guy a Christian (fundamentalist or otherwise) seems wholly inappropriate. Christians are supposed to strive to emulate Christ and to follow the teachings of Christ. I don't recall any version of the teachings of Jesus in which bombing and mass murder were put forth as avenues to salvation of self or others. I'd say this guy is the opposite of Christian. Like many extremists, he may use religion to try and justify his views and his acts, but he's full of...it.

    Here's (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 05:00:47 PM EST
    The problem with what you are saying: you are a Christian terrorist if you proclaim to be a Christian and commit terrorist acts just like Muslim terrorists call themselves Muslims and commit terrorist acts. The Muslims say that the terrorists do no represent Islam. I know this guy doesn't represent Christianity anymore than the Muslim terrorists represent an entire religion. If we all want to stop being identified with a religion and terrorism how about just starting calling everybody terrorists. Then there are no Christian Terrorists and then there are no Muslim Terrorists just terrorists.

    Parent
    And I am always careful to write (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 05:34:57 PM EST
    "radical Muslim terrorists."

    Why can't "radical Christian terrorists" be the correct description rather than "fundamentalists?"

    There are legitimate reasons to describe the person involved beyond the generic.

    Thus "radical Muslim" and "radical Christian" seem to be correct.

    Parent

    Why (none / 0) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 07:16:18 PM EST
    even bring religion into it and just call them terrorists. I mean did anyone call Timothy McVeigh an atheist conservative terrorist? They just called him a terrorist. Terrorism is terrorism no matter which religion the terrorist professes to have and if you want to really identify them, fundamentalist is a much better description because these are biblical and koran literalists. They don't apply reason to the bible or the koran when they read it.

    Parent
    Because knowledge of (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 09:04:18 PM EST
    who the terrorist is will help defense against future attacks.

    If 9/11 had been done by "terrorists" only, would we have known to go after the Taliban?

    As for McVeigh I don't remember him having any religious connections or connections to political groups although there were efforts to attach him to the Michigan Milita as being connected, somehow, to radical Muslims.

    In the same vein, we often hear of "moderate Republicans" but never hear of "moderate Democrats?" Why do you think that is? I mean surely there are some moderate Democrats, someplace somewhere.

    Parent

    If you never hear the term moderate (none / 0) (#74)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 09:39:01 PM EST
    Democrats, it is because you refuse to hear it.

    There are About 1,290,000 results (0.08 seconds) for moderate Democrats on google.

    Parent

    Well, now I know (none / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 10:02:51 PM EST
    An example of a moderate democrat would be a democrat that hold all the traditional democratic party values but sides with the republicans on one or two issues,such as hunting rights for example.
    A moderate democrat and a moderate republican puts the country first before his/her party.They choose a candidate not a party.They dont swing to the far left or right.

    A moderate republican believes in the beliefs of the Ten Commandments but unlike a regular republican or far right wing republican, a moderate republican believes that most issues of today's society should be handled in man's logic and perceptive instead of the religious way.
    For example abortion should be allowed only if the female is raped or incest is involved...regular republicans & right wing republicans would be against any and all abortions...

    Ya gotta love what you can find on the Internet.

    BTW - See the difference?

    Parent

    The difference between what? (none / 0) (#84)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 10:07:53 PM EST
    Reality vs. your opinion that there are no moderate Democrats?

    Sure do ...

    Parent

    Well, based on (none / 0) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 10:15:01 PM EST
    the two I say a moderate Democrat believes in hunting rights and moderate Repubs don't believe in the Ten Commandments being part of government.

    I mean really.

    ;-)

    Parent

    So if you're a Democrat who ... (none / 0) (#100)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 06:42:36 AM EST
    ... believes in "hunting rights", you're a "moderate" Democrat?

    Silly litmus test, but okay.  I guess that means that the vast majority of Democrats are "moderate" Democrats.

    Parent

    Well, that's what I found... (none / 0) (#102)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 08:03:02 AM EST
    Sounded strange to me, too.

    Parent
    McVeigh (none / 0) (#98)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 05:36:42 AM EST
    was attached to fringe groups and listened to conservative talk radio and believed what they were saying about the Branch Davidians. Apparently what they were saying was enough to inspire him to commit terrorist acts. His thinking is no different than a lot of fundamentalists. They refuse to use reason when thinking about stuff and just believe whatever they hear.

    You don't hear about "moderate democrats" because you aren't listening. Have you ever heard of "blue dogs" and also the sources you might be listening to if you're listening to radical conservative news they would never say "moderate".

    Parent

    Yeah, yeah, I know (none / 0) (#103)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 08:06:05 AM EST
    We had a "Blue Dog" who voted along party lines until last November when he retired after seeing poll results that showed he was gone.

    McVeigh? No doubt he was a radical conservative. I know because Clinton told me. No doubt. None.

    (dripping with sarcasm)

    Parent

    Virulently anti-tax and gun control (none / 0) (#107)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 09:00:39 AM EST
    ... virulently anti-federal government, an even broader antipathy toward all levels of government, moving from Buffalo because it was "too liberal", fixation with Waco and Ruby Ridge, planning to assassinate Janet Reno and Lon Horiuchi, etc., etc ...

    Yep.

    You don't need to take Clinton's word for it.  Just look at simple facts.

    But I understand why you would want to deny that McVeigh was a winger.

    BTW - Interesting article from Time Timothy McVeigh and his right-wing associates - Who Are They?

    Parent

    Sounds like a communist to me (none / 0) (#113)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 12:10:20 PM EST


    Parent
    "To you" (none / 0) (#117)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 12:31:05 PM EST
    ... up is down, black is white, right is left.

    But I understand why you would make such laughable claims.

    Parent

    Thought provoking thesis (none / 0) (#118)
    by Rojas on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 12:32:35 PM EST
    Not. An article written less than two weeks after the bombing....

    And while it's been said that McVeigh considered the assassination of Janet Reno, Judge Walter Smith or Lon Horiuchi in lieu of the bombing. Not one of the aforementioned are liberals by any stretch of the imagination.

    In fact, if your intent is to create an authoritarian $hit hole, all three individuals, in their professional capacity (The win at all costs persecutor, the seeing eye dog judge who throws out the jury verdict, and the government assassin), displayed the the prerequisite characteristics required for same.

    The real left, traditional liberals were horrified about Waco and Ruby Ridge. Of course there was less shock within this group as they had been monitoring and writing about the trend in the decades prior. They started sounding the alarm during the eighties

    Parent

    The "real left" (none / 0) (#132)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 03:13:46 PM EST
    No - there were a few, disgruntled, anti-authoritarian left-wingers upset by Ruby Ridge and Waco, but they were hardly representative of "the left".  Ruby Ridge and Waco were rallying causes for Republicans and right-wingers - G. Gordon Liddy, Ollie North, Anne Coulter, Limbaugh, Helen Chenoweth, etc.
    Right-wing protesters were all over the Ruby Ridge area while surrender negotiations were being held (lots of skinheads, militia members, etc.), negotiations held with winger Bo Gritz.  There were no left-wing groups protesting. "real" or otherwise.

    And while it's been said that McVeigh considered the assassination of Janet Reno, Judge Walter Smith or Lon Horiuchi in lieu of the bombing. Not one of the aforementioned are liberals by any stretch of the imagination.

    No one said they were.  He wanted to assassinate them because he was a right-wing gun nut who empathized with other right-wingers, hated the federal government and was angry about Ruby Ridge and Waco.

    But good to hear from the arbiter of the "real left" and "traditional liberals".

    Heh.

    Parent

    To the extent that traditional liberals (none / 0) (#139)
    by Rojas on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 05:02:51 PM EST
    have always stood as a bulwark, more or less successfully, against our authoritarian tendencies, I suppose the distinction you cite may have some merit.

    I suppose before any conversation can proceed you might want to share your guide book. How does one distinguish between the authoritarian left and the authoritarian right in this country? Do they use a different play book or it it simply a matter of party affiliation?

    Parent

    It's not a matter of the difference ... (none / 0) (#150)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 09:09:48 PM EST
    ... between the authoritarian right and left, and it's not about party ID.  My point was that McVeigh was of the radical right, not the left.  Your skepticism due to the timing of the article notwithstanding, the facts are accurate.  McVeigh was a follower of right-wing ideology - a militant gun-rights advocate (quitting the NRA because its positions were 'too weak") and SOF reader, virulently anti-federal government and anti-taxation, violently angry about Ruby Ridge and Waco, violently anti-Socialist ("Blood will flow in the streets, Steve. Good vs. Evil. Free Men vs. Socialist Wannabe Slaves"), pro militia movement, etc., etc.

    Your mutual hatred of anyone involved with WACO/Ruby Ridge notwithstanding (Reno, Horiuchi, Clinton, etc.), they were not causes promoted by the Left.  They were (and are) causes among many on the right.  Moreover, McVeigh's other causes (anti gun-control, anti-taxation, anti-Socialist, etc.) are not causes promoted on the Left - they are right-wing causes.

    Parent

    What happens when left and right converge (none / 0) (#151)
    by Rojas on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 12:48:20 AM EST
    I wasn't aware there could be such a thing as an authoritarian liberal, certainly not in the traditional sense. I've always viewed our authoritarian tendencies as lines on a scale of the reactionary right.

    While you grovel in ignorance about traditional liberals having an interest in Waco and Ruby Ridge, I can assure you your isolation is self imposed. Hell, just google up some of the contemporary copies of NACDL's Defender from that period. You might be surprised with the company you keep.

    You ascribe to me a hatred of anyone involved with WACO/Ruby Ridge, but the fact of the matter is I am simply ashamed. If you had any sense of decency you'd be ashamed too. I don't think history is going to be kind to the civil rights generation.

    Parent

    None of which changes my original ... (none / 0) (#152)
    by Yman on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 08:00:07 AM EST
    ... point - McVeigh was a right-wing terrorist.  He was anti-liberal, anti-Socialist, gun-loving, federal-government-hating winger.

    Yes, occasionally there is some agreement between some elements of the right and left (I was actually referring to what appeared to be your shorthand for the the anti-authoritarian right and left), but I'm not "groveling in ignorance" about anything.  You want to cite a criminal defense newsletter as evidence that Ruby Ridge and Waco were causes of the "left"?

    Seriously?

    Too funny.

    Yes, a number on the Left wanted Weaver and the BDs to receive a fair trial (myself included), and a smaller number may have even felt empathy for Weaver and/or the BDs, but that hardly means they are the only "true liberals".  I didn't have to go to a criminal defense newsletter to find right-wing outrage re: Ruby Ridge and Waco.  It was out there every day on TV, the radio and the newspapers.  Right-wingers (militia, gun-nuts, white supremacists, skinheads) were filling the airwaves and were showing up to protest at Ruby Ridge and Waco.  Hell, go on any winger blog today and they are still talking about it.  The Left?  Nope.  Although I'd love to see any data you may have re: the "real Left" and their thoughts about Ruby Ridge/Waco.

    So you go ahead and "wallow in isolated ignorance" with fantasies about being the arbiter of membership in the "real Left".

    It's entertaining.

    Parent

    Do you consider the host of this site (none / 0) (#163)
    by Rojas on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 01:43:40 PM EST
    to be one of the "few, disgruntled, anti-authoritarian left-wingers"?


    Parent
    I consider the host ... (none / 0) (#164)
    by Yman on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 02:03:54 PM EST
    ... of this site to be a criminal defense attorney with strong sympathies towards those accused of crimes and (understandably) an agenda to match.

    So what?

    Back to the point - McVeigh was a right-winger, and Ruby Ridge/Waco were causes heavily supported by the Right.  Once again, if you have some data suggesting that: 1) McVeigh was not a right-winger, or 2) Waco and Ruby Ridge were a cause among the "true Left" (as a group), I'd love to see it.

    Parent

    And the ACLU (none / 0) (#167)
    by Rojas on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 03:21:37 PM EST
    do they fit in you description of "few, disgruntled, anti-authoritarian left-wingers"?

    Parent
    Maybe, on this issue (none / 0) (#170)
    by Yman on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 04:11:43 PM EST
    I'm not gonna make you a list.  If your claim is that either of my statements are false (McVeigh is a conservative/right-winger and RR/Waco were rallying causes for the Right), let's see some data.  Otherwise, I'm not about to take the word of a self-appointed arbiter of the "true Left".

    Parent
    So we can safely say (none / 0) (#178)
    by Rojas on Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 08:31:11 AM EST
    the Addicus Finch wing is excluded from consideration here.
    If you won't accept positions from the nations two preeminent civil rights organizations  I not sure where the conversation could go.

    I suppose I could cite some position papers from the academic community or simply point you to the divided appeals court cases and you could decide for yourself weather the decisions were split on a liberal/conservative metric that you can accept.

    Parent

    Where's the data? (none / 0) (#182)
    by Yman on Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 09:39:35 AM EST
    You keep ignoring it, but it won't go away.  The NACDL, like the ACLU, has a strong, narrow focus and agenda when it comes to the rights of defendants, although I don't think the NACDL is one of the top two preeminent civil rights organizations.  Not very surprising that they would be critical of government action at Waco/RR, or that they would focus on the rights of the defendants at trial.  But yes, you can safely exclude any wing based on a fictional movie character, although it would be nice to see some data that refutes my thesis (that McVeigh was a right-winger and that Waco/RR were causes promoted by the Right) or supports yours (the "real left" was horrified by Waco/RR).  In the generic sense, I'm sure that many liberals were "horrified" by the loss of life at Waco and RR, because liberals tend to be offended by any loss of life - particularly children, and particularly when the government is a party to it.  Similarly, many were probably also critical of the government action at both Waco and RR.  But that does not mean that the "true left" were crazy enough to adopt the crazy, unsupported, conspiracy-laden positions of the Right (i.e. the government was responsible for "murdering the Davidians by deciding to use tear gas, the government burned down the Waco compound, etc.).  Certainly there are probably a few on the left that may believe this, but that hardly means they are representative of "true Liberals" or the "real Left".

    You still haven't addressed my points.  Where were the "liberal" protesters at Ruby Ridge and Waco?  Lots of steel-toed jackboots there.  Lots of shaved heads.  A whole lot of camo-wearing gun lovers with fantasies of forming their own amateur armies.  Not so many Birkenstocks ... not many tree-huggers ... not a single tie-dyed shirt.  Where were they afterwards?  The airways were filled with winger talk show hosts ranting about Waco and RR on a daily basis for months afterwards, and for years after that (they still rant about it).

    There are plenty of "preeminent civil rights organizations" who have examined Waco and Ruby Ridge.  Take a look at the Southern Poverty Law Center, for example.  They have many papers/reports discussing Ruby Ridge, all of which discuss the right-wing hate groups that have seized on RR and Waco as rallying causes.  The NAACP doesn't have much on Waco/RR, but then again, I wouldn't expect them to.  I guess that means they're not part of the "real Left".

    You should let them know..

    Parent

    The SPLC? (none / 0) (#183)
    by Rojas on Wed Jul 27, 2011 at 08:15:45 AM EST
    Oh good lord, Morris Dees is the Ron Popeil of civil rights.
    So good in fact that in 1998 the Direct Marketing Association inducted him into its Hall of Fame. "I learned everything I know about hustling from the Baptist Church," Dees has said. "Spending Sundays on those hard benches listening to the preacher pitch salvation-why, it was like getting a Ph.D. in selling."

    So you didn't see any tie dyed liberals protesting in support of Randy Weaver. Well there was one.

    Not too many Birkenstocks at Waco I grant you that. Of course we did see the North Texas chapter of the Klu Klux Klan. They came to voice their support for the ATF and to volunteer their services. Their offer, If the FBI would just aside. they would take the vermin out and get the damn thing over with.

    I don't know if the NAACP has ever made any statements regarding Waco but it seems curious that you wouldn't expect them to. I think around 40% of the Davidians were people of color. You'd be hard pressed to find a more ethnically and nationality diverse population in the entire country.

    Parent

    STILL no data? (none / 0) (#184)
    by Yman on Wed Jul 27, 2011 at 09:35:27 AM EST
    What a shock?

    Gerry Spence?!?  So now we're using not just the metric of criminal defense lawyers, but Weaver's own attorney?!?  I know Koresh's mother is dead, but is Weaver's still around?  Maybe we could ask her.

    Not a big fan of Morris Dees?  That's a shame.  I don't fault him for making money (even lots of it)  - but apparently his former partner does.  Of course, none of that actually contradicts their numerous research papers documenting the right-wing support for Waco and RR.  Unless, of course, you mean they're only producing those papers to get donations.  In which case, you may want to stop citing the ACLU, since they bring in @ $80 million in donations annually.

    As far as the Texas KKK, why would it surprise me that they weren't big fans of the Davidians?  As it runs out, the Texas KKK was upset that the Davidians had people of different races living together.  Although it is interesting that the FBI threw Louis Beam (head of the Texas KKK) out of a press conference when he asked "When are you going to stop using 'tanks' on children?".

    The author also has a pretty interesting story about some wingers (militia members, "sovereign citizens", "Patriot" movement, etc.) who were going to try to get into the compound to talk to Koresh.  He also discusses how Kirk Lyons (a KKK/Patriot/militia attorney - the "William Kunstler of the right") was trying to get in to see Koresh and wanted to represent him.

    BTW - The reason I said it would surprise me that the ACLU would take up RR or Waco as a cause is because (unlike the NACDL or the ACLU), their interest tends to be focused on instances where someone's civil rights have been violated due to their race.  The mere fact that some (the author says it was @ 20%) of the Davidians were black doesn't mean the NAACP is going to take a position defending them ... or at least I hope not.  As far as the "diversity" of the Branch Davidians, again ... so what?  All that demonstrates is that it's not only white people who are foolish/crazy enough to join a religious cult and follow a lunatic.

    Parent

    Yes Gerry Spence (none / 0) (#188)
    by Rojas on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 07:52:49 AM EST
    The correspondence between Alan Hirschfield and Spence that I linked to sums up the issue quite well.

    I don't understand your disdain for defense attorneys. Perhaps you would have preferred that Weaver and Harris had been represented by the typical appointed council in which case they simply plead out to a manufactured case and disappear. That's one way to assure no government malfeasance comes to light.

    You brush off the NACDL and invoke the SPLC as important in securing civil rights. Again this seems a very odd position especially in a country that has the highest per capita prison population in the world.

    I don't begrudge Morris Dees making a living and the SPLC has done some good work. However, their interest is clearly in growing their endowment while neglecting traditional civil rights work. It's an insult to the sensibilities to compare them to the ACLU or the NAACP or the NACDL when 5 percent of black males are incarcerated. Hell, they are not even in the same fight.

    As to whether their position papers are created to generate revenue I suspect that's exactly what they do.
    Here's one from their Terror on The Right report. This happened locally so much of the discovery was reported in the local paper. The link makes it clear that it was updated after 2007 so the discovery was available.

    April 22, 1997
    Three Ku Klux Klan members are arrested in a plot to blow up a natural gas refinery outside Fort Worth, Texas, after local Klan leader Robert Spence gets cold feet and goes to the FBI. The three, along with a fourth arrested later, expected to kill a huge number of people with the blast -- authorities later say as many as 30,000 might have died -- which was to serve, incredibly, as a diversion for a simultaneous armored car robbery. Among the victims would have been children at a nearby school.

    It all sounds really nefarious. What they don't say is that Robert Spence had been making six figures as a professional informant prior to him taking a leadership position in the klan. A klan whose membership role was all of five people, one of which, the leader  was on the government payroll. There was no sour gas at the refinery, the release of which was supposed to cause the 30,000 casualties. It was just another typical case where a paid informant, with promises of a nice little cash stipend from his handlers, talks a few idiots into taking part in a conspiracy. There's a bit of coverage at Texas Monthly Ku Klux Klowns.

    How much of Dee's research is simple propaganda like this I can't say. But if you're looking for militia men underneath your bed Dee's is ready to stand and deliver.

    Parent

    Now you're just making up ... (none / 0) (#189)
    by Yman on Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 08:29:21 AM EST
    ... diversionary arguments because you still have no data to refute my points:  1)  RR and Waco were causes promoted by the right wing, and 2) McVeigh was a right-wing terrorist.

    I don't have disdain for defense attorneys or Gerry Spence.  I know many defense attorneys and have great respect for them.  I've also done some defense work myself.  But to claim that RR and Waco were causes for "true liberals" or the "real left" simply because Weaver's attorney empathized with Weaver or criticized government action in his case is ridiculous.

    Yes - liberal and the "Left" wanted Weaver and the Davidians to have effective counsel.  They also wanted claims of government misconduct investigated.  But it was only a very few on the loony Left who bought into the ridiculous claims that were mainstream on the Right (the government used "poison gas" at Waco, the government set fire to the compound to end the seige, etc.).  Then again, maybe you bought into those conspiracy theories and that's who you're talking about when you define the "true Left".

    The rest of your post is just a diversion to another issue because you have no data to refute my points.  Get back to me when you do.

    Parent

    Woops (none / 0) (#121)
    by Rojas on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 12:52:36 PM EST
    The real left, traditional liberals were horrified about Waco and Ruby Ridge. Of course there was less shock within this group as they had been monitoring and writing about the trend in the decades prior. They started sounding the alarm during the eighties that elements and agencies from the security state would weave their way into the domestic agenda as the cold war ran down.

    Parent
    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by lentinel on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 05:08:03 PM EST
    makes a point of describing himself as a Christian.

    Yet he drops bombs from drones on a regular basis into areas where civilians live and are bound to be killed.

    GW Bush  described himself as a Christian.
    He is responsible for the slaughter of 100s of thousands of people.

    None of these people are interested in what Jesus had to say.

    Parent

    Obama is... (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Romberry on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 05:52:18 PM EST
    ...no more a Christian that was Reagan or Dubya. Or me. And I don't profess to be a Christian.

    Obama no doubt likes the idea of being a Christian, or at least calling himself a Christian, same as Dubya and countless others. I'm sure he appreciates the political advantages as well. But actually being a Christian and striving to live that life? No way.

    Parent

    Somewhere I'm sure there has (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 06:41:35 PM EST
    to be a passage where Jesus preaches that stealing from the poor and giving it to the rich is the surest way into heaven. A similar passage must be in the Koran and the Torah. It has to be there, since the majority of our fine religious folks in D.C. devote most of their effort making sure that their legislation accomplishes this task.

    Parent
    Acts Chapters 4 and 5 (none / 0) (#58)
    by MKS on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 07:13:53 PM EST
    These versus from the New Testament must drive conservatives crazy.  Basically, the first Christians after the death of Jesus held all property in common: Acts 4:32-37 (NIV)

    All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God's grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.
     36 Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means "son of encouragement"), 37 sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles' feet.
     Emphasis
    Added

    Acts 5:1-11 (NIV)

    Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2 With his wife's full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles' feet. 3 Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God."

     5 When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6 Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.

     7 About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 Peter asked her, "Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?"

       "Yes," she said, "that is the price."

     9 Peter said to her, "How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also."

     10 At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

     
    Emphasis Added.

    The Republican Gospel of Greed has not basis in the teaching of Jesus.....

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 07:19:56 PM EST
    it doesn't bother conservatives because they don't read the whole passage. They are fundamentalists who quote verses but have no concept of the "whole bible".

    Parent
    What they say about Chapters 4 and 5 (none / 0) (#61)
    by MKS on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 07:28:20 PM EST
    ...is that God was angry about the lies....For conservatives, the moral of the story is don't lie, not anything about sharing one's wealth....They just "intepret" the verses away....

    And that pesky verse about it being harder for a rich man to get into Heaven than a camel to pass through the eye of a needle?  Well, with a lot of intrepretaion, conservatives say that the "eye of the needle" was the name of an actual gate into Jersusalem.  Camels could not pass through without first unloading all the goods, letting the camel pass through, then passing the goods through.  The moral of the story for conservatives: one must first obey God and be willing to let go of one's possessions, but then one can have all the possessions anyway.  

    Conservatives who literally believe the Bible really do a lot of explaining away of Jesus's teachings about money and poverty....

    Parent

    Holy Schmoly. (none / 0) (#63)
    by lentinel on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 07:56:48 PM EST
    Ye have heard that it bath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say Unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."

    I wonder if there is one so-called leader of a country - a person in a position of power - a person in a position to deal with perceived enemies - is there one of them purporting to be Christian that have ever spent a little time trying to understand what J.C. meant by this.

    Parent

    A wonderful reminder of what Jesus preached (none / 0) (#88)
    by christinep on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 10:19:38 PM EST
    ...and, you know what, it would undoubtedly be very hard to locate an individual who personifies politics & sainthood in one.  But, even more, it isn't for us to judge--even with all the surface disparities and downright hypocrises. Pointing it out is good...it hits home for many believers.... Yet, professing to know others' hearts is something else:)

    Parent
    I don't (none / 0) (#110)
    by lentinel on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 10:50:26 AM EST
    profess to know what is anyone's heart.
    I don't care what's in their hearts.
    I judge the state of their hearts by their actions.

    As I asked above, do you think that there is a political leader in this world - especially those who declare themselves "Christian" in public - who have given any serious thought to what J.C. said in the Sermon on the Mount?

    I certainly would be interested in some reporter asking Obama about it the next time he "testifies".

    And yes, Christine, that goes for Bush, Clinton and the rest of 'em.

    How someone can declare themselves to be Christian and then go about as if Jesus's teachings never existed escapes me.

    Parent

    I've asked myself the same thing (none / 0) (#134)
    by christinep on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 03:34:53 PM EST
    on a number of occasions as well. But, then, lentinel, I have to realize that the only ones who can answer whether they believe what they truly profess to believe are...the individuals themselves. That was why I made the statement about not knowing.

    While I agree that we can measure peoples' actions and should do so in the context of secular expectations (government standards, community standards, good citizenship standards, etc.), I always get edgy about judging what is in their hearts or internal belief systems. (And, I often sound picky about that issue, yep.)

    Parent

    Mr. Hyde. (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by lentinel on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 07:17:30 PM EST
    I know that only the individuals involved can truly know whether they actually believe what they say they believe - although a good reporter could find out a great deal if they were willing to ask good questions - which they clearly are not.

    As I said, I can't guess and don't much care about what is in a person's heart. I can tell who they are by what they do. By their fruits shall ye know them. Works for me.

    Parent

    you know, (none / 0) (#94)
    by cpinva on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 02:27:47 AM EST
    that passage reeks of organized crime.

    Parent
    and he's going after the (none / 0) (#66)
    by suzieg on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 08:56:04 PM EST
    poor and the elderly - very Christian of him!

    Parent
    Indeed indeed you are so right. (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 04:49:22 PM EST
    But that doesn't fit the profile that the writers want to produce. They, of course, are as bad as those who write of "Muslim terrorists" rather than "radical Muslim terrorists."

    Parent
    Well, I am saddened to know that there (none / 0) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 09:43:13 PM EST
    are no good people on the Christian Right.

    Of course being a Social Liberal I guess I can have some good qualities, small though I am sure they are.

    And while I have no knowledge of the events, I do know that initially a website claimed credit for jihad somebody because of various but unspecified insults to Mohammed.

    That may have caused some confusion.

    Parent

    Okay... (none / 0) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 10:05:44 PM EST
    Now you understand why I always try to write "radical Muslim terrorists."

    And that noise? You may be right. I mean, who can trust the New York Times?

    Parent

    I feel the same way about the Times. (none / 0) (#90)
    by hairspray on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 10:49:59 PM EST
    They have some wonderful coverage and some excellent stories, probably the best in the country, but the Judith Miller story was the straw.  Before that, however, Jeff Gerth, Steven laBatton, Don Vanata and that ilk turned me off in their hunt to destroy Bill Clinton. Howell Raines was only too happy to turn the dogs loose and while he admits that he was vicious in his hatred of Clinton he never explained why. That sorry 5-6 year journalistic malpractice still haunts me.
    I often think the damage they did to the country by focusing on this crap instead of examining the terrorism growing around this country and perhaps it could have prevented 9/11.

    Parent
    I am proud of you guys (none / 0) (#105)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 08:21:35 AM EST
    But on breaking news I will still take what they say.

    BTW - Here's what I posted.

    A terror group, Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami, or the Helpers of the Global Jihad, issued a statement claiming responsibility for the attack, according to Will McCants, a terrorism analyst at C.N.A., a research institute that studies terrorism. The message said the attack was a response to Norwegian forces' presence in Afghanistan and tounspecified insults to the Prophet Muhammad.
    NYTimes



    Parent
    You skipped a part of what you said (none / 0) (#108)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 09:07:49 AM EST
    Immediately before the "quote" that you claimed was from the NY Times article you said;

    So you don't see radical Muslims as a threat?

    Okaey dokeyyyyyyyy

    I'd better not ask anyone from Norway, either...just to be fair, eh??????

    More importantly, that quote did not appear in the NY Times article you linked to.

    What a surprise.

    Parent

    Are you surprised that I (none / 0) (#112)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 12:09:11 PM EST
    took a New York Times article as being correct?

    And you didn't?

    You are more to the Left than I thought.

    And yes, that was the direct quote from the NY Times at the time I posted the comment.

    It now states:


    Initial reports focused on the possibility of Islamic militants, in particular Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami, or Helpers of the Global Jihad, cited by some analysts as claiming responsibility for the attacks. American officials said the group was previously unknown and might not even exist.

    There was ample reason for concern that terrorists might be responsible. In 2004 and again in 2008, the No. 2 leader of Al Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahri, who took over after the death of Osama bin Laden, threatened Norway because of its support of the American-led NATO military operation in Afghanistan.

    Link

    You will have to ask the NYT why the change but you will note that there is no factual difference.

    But why I am surprised you tried to imply that I lied? Such stunts are.... well, just you.


    Parent

    Of COURSE I implied it, Jim (none / 0) (#115)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 12:28:12 PM EST
    Because you post false information on a regular basis.  Why would that surprise you?

    BTW - Still don't believe it.  The Times noted revisions and corrections at the bottom of the article, and it says nothing about the prior "quote' you attributed to them, sooooo ...

    JimakaPPJ or the NY Times?  Not really a difficult one.

    BTW - Assuming, ad arguendum, that the NY Times article did contain the original quote, the reason you jumped all over their entirely factual quote (i.e. that an unknown Muslim terrorist group had claimed responsibility) is because it fits your preconceived notion of terrorism.  You suggested it was a Muslim terrorist group that was responsible based solely on this (alleged) claim of responsibility because it fits your winger, anti-Muslim world view.  "Terrorist act?" > "Probably a Muslim!"  Then, when confronted with actual facts that disprove it, you say we should reserve judgment until the facts are known.

    It's seriously funny!  Transparent as he//, ..

    ... but hilarious, Jim!

    Parent

    Facts be facts, Yman (none / 0) (#123)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 12:59:36 PM EST
    The quote is real and the revision has no factual differences.

    You know that and I know that. Even the NYT knows that.

    A version of this article appeared in print on July 23, 2011, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Attacks on Capital and Island Camp Kill Scores in Norway.

    Your apology is accepted but not expected.

    But if you want a source more to your likingThe New York Times is reporting that the terror group Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami, was posted on the democraticunderground.com

    But keep on trying.

    lol

    Parent

    Apology? (none / 0) (#129)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 02:17:57 PM EST
    Jim, are you having trouble reading, again?  The NYT knows know such thing as what you claimed - all it says is that a version of the article appeared on page A1 of the NY edition.  Similarly a comment posted by someone on the DU underground is not the quote you claimed was in the article.  then again, it's not really surprising, given the amount of false and misleading information you spew.

    That being said, it changes nothing.  Even if (and that's always a big issue with you) the NYT stated that initial reports focused on the possibility that it was committed by Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami, it was you that was jumping to the conclusion that it was a Muslim terrorist attack, just as I'm sure you were doing when there were reports of a "dark-skinned" male at the OK City bombing.  Then, when confronted with the reality of a blonde, blue-eyed, Christian-fundamentalist, right-wing terrorist, you reverse course and say we should wait for all of the facts to come in.

    It's seriously funny watching you contradict yourself within the space of a few minutes.

    Parent

    The NYT said what I (none / 0) (#131)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 02:43:27 PM EST
    quoted.

    And I weary of your slurs. And you know that calling someone a liar is beyond the pale.

    Now. You also claim:

    Then, when confronted with the reality of a blonde, blue-eyed, Christian-fundamentalist, right-wing terrorist, you reverse course and say we should wait for all of the facts to come in.

    Show us where I did that.

    BTW - Do you have a cousin named Dark Avenger??

    Parent

    Don't believe you, Jim (none / 0) (#136)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 04:31:05 PM EST
    You quoted an article, provided a link, an (low-and-behold) the link didn't contain the quote.

    Par for the course with you.

    BTW - You may be right about not saying we should wait for the facts.  I think I got you confused with your fellow winger.  You were the one who, upon (supposedly) seeing an article stating an unknown Muslim group was claiming responsibility, jumped in and immediately concluded it was a Muslim terrorist attack - despite all the evidence to the contrary.

    BBTW - Your paranoia is showing ...

    ... again.

    Also not a surprise.

    Parent

    My parnoia doesn't exist (none / 0) (#137)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 04:42:01 PM EST
    You got confused just as you became confused over the NYT article.

    BTW - There was no evidence to the contrary when the article was published.

    If you can't keep up, please apologize and quit making false claims.

    Parent

    BTW - NRO (none / 0) (#138)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 04:53:10 PM EST
    at 2:37PM on 7/2 posted the same as I did:

    A terror group, Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami, or the Helpers of the Global Jihad, issued a statement claiming responsibility for the attack, according to Will McCants, a terrorism analyst at C.N.A., a research institute that studies terrorism. The message said the attack was a response to Norwegian forces' presence in Afghanistan and to unspecified insults to the Prophet Muhammad

    Link

    There must be a Right Wing Conspiracy here someplace.... I must call Limbaugh...

    lol

    Parent

    The NRO is SLIGHTLY ... (none / 0) (#146)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 08:27:19 PM EST
    ... more reliable than you, Jim, but I do appreciate the first comment in the article.

    Now that the perp has been identified as a white, self-described fund. Christian, nationalist, CONSERVATIVE...National Review and the Right will suddenly drop all their "See? Proves they're ALL terrorists" rountine and go to "What? It's one lone nut with no connection to any religion or political ideology!

    Ex-ACT-ly ...

    Parent

    Of course you will (none / 0) (#155)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 08:59:20 AM EST
    You agree with people who agree with you.

    Nothing unusual in that.

    lol

    Parent

    Folks, can I jump in here for a minute? (none / 0) (#140)
    by jeffinalabama on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 05:12:22 PM EST
    I'm gonna try and be a peacemaker, or get all of y'all pissed at me, one of the two.

    Yman, Donald, Jim is remarkably consistent in his arguments. He's held the same positions as long as I've been posting here on a few key areas-- radical islam, torture, and, oh, there are a couple more that should come to mind, but those are his major areas of "This far and no farther."

    I don't think Jim and I agree on most of those. But on some we do. We agree on a lot of little points, and on some huge ones, also.

    Yman, Donald, look beyond a perceived personality, please. I know jim through the telephone. WE're planning to meet face to face. We will STILL disagree on the areas we disagree on, but we're going to use our re-hashed arguments in Tunica to distract other players and win more money. Why?

    Jim's a liberal in the area of single-payer health care. Jim's a liberal in the area of Military-Industrial-Complex and mismanagement of Iraq and Afghanistan.

    But lots of centrists and bluedogs and even some liberals supported all that going on, including Obama while in the senate.

    I sincerely think there's more agreement among us four than difference. The differences are the ones that come out.

    There's more, and we all have honest differences. Jim will start with his opinion and a quote, nothing attacking anyone, but he gets personally attacked, not just shown that he misquoted (or not), or that he misinterpreted (or not). So he gets on the fightin' side afterwards.

    PLEASE, since I think these discussions are important, and Jim represents a major part of the population, let's not look at whose 'index finger' is longer, not until 3 or 4 posts have been made.

    I reserve the right to be ab a$$hole to Jim, because, hey. HE prolly has some of my money.

    No, I'm not looking for PPUS here. find the areas you get along, and the ones you disagree, and then write about the disagreements while knowing the agreements. Jim's not a molotov throwing person, except on occasion.

    Now, I'd rather the three of you be pissed at me than at each other, because all of you say important things in your posts. So-- blame me!

    Parent

    Appreciate the sentiment, Jeff (none / 0) (#148)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 08:38:55 PM EST
    ... and I know you two are able to bond over poker, but it doesn't work for me.  Yes, Jim supports single-payer health care (although he wants to fund it with a regressive tax), but he also consistently posts unsupported, winger opinions.  On those rare occasions he does post links to "evidence", he cites winger sources as if they're reliable sources of information (i.e. Fox News, climatedepot.com, etc.).

    I appreciate your attempt to mediate (although there's no need), as it were, as well as your ability to befriend Jim on another level.

    I just disagree.

    BTW - Jim also frequently throws insults - he just follows his with an "LOL!" or  a ;-), as if he's just being funny.

    He's not.

    Parent

    Jeff (none / 0) (#156)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 09:07:39 AM EST
    Yman, as was the Dark Avenger, is my shadow. He shows up on all most all of my comments making some snarky comment, such as " read this slowly...." and when I disagree he starts his patented jabs of "you're paranoid.... that's not the point..... or we going to fast, etc...."

    I don't think you will find a single string where I initiated the conversation. He is always the aggressor.

    So I will continue commenting and he will continue to attack. My choice is whether to just ignore him or respond.  

    Parent

    Wrong ...... again (none / 0) (#157)
    by Yman on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 09:24:44 AM EST
    I don't think you will find a single string where I initiated the conversation. He is always the aggressor.

    ... Except for this very article (see comment number 23).

    Classic.

    BTW Jim - I frequently caution you to read my comments slowly because of your habit of reinterpreting and misstating my position(s).  I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming the misinterpretation is unintentional, and that if you re-read them you'll understand their plain meaning.

    Of course, I could be wrong about that.

    Parent

    I don't think (none / 0) (#160)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 10:14:44 AM EST
    is what I wrote.

    You found one in which I asked a question.

    Any more???

    Parent

    Sorry - You did indeed write that (none / 0) (#161)
    by Yman on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 10:20:51 AM EST
    You did much more than "ask a question", but on this one, ...

    ... I completely agree with you.

    Parent

    Your understood (none / 0) (#171)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 04:26:09 PM EST
    what I meant.

    And thanks for taking the bait demonstrating your talent for snarking.

    I rest my case.

    Parent

    yes, you're the victim here, Jim (none / 0) (#166)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 03:16:48 PM EST
    just your average well-meaning social liberal, who innocently wandered over to this site eight years ago with no intention to passively-aggressivly bait the posters here with daily recieved opinions from, and links to, the American Spectator, Power Line, and the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth (that was basically your m.o up until 2008.)

    And who could forget that oft-reiterated historical prouncement, voiced here by you on numerous occasions, about how the Democratic  Party was taken over by "the radical left" in the sixties? You mean you don't believe that any more? And you don't belive any more what it says at your site about there being "no moderate Democrats"?

    All the jive-ass attempts at self-rehabilitation in the attempt to have some cache with the Obama-loathing Clinton crowd here won't wash -- for anyone who's watched your schtick here off and on since '02.

     

    Parent

    can't blame a guy for trying... (none / 0) (#169)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 03:40:26 PM EST


    Parent
    jondee (none / 0) (#172)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 04:38:55 PM EST
    You haven't changed a bit over the years.

    I mean you don't mention that I honored Kerry for his service but condemned him for his actions after he returned home.

    And if you can prove other wise, do it. In fact, show where I have changed any position. Let me help. I changed from being for execution to LWOP.

    I mean your memory is as bad as it ever was. If it is actually your memory that is failing.

    And yes, the Democratic Party was taken over by the Left, many of them radicals, in the mid to late 60's. That is a fact and I am glad to confirm it.

    And yes, I read and listen and watch a lot of different sources. Unlike you I can detect BS from the Left and the Right. I would advise you to do the same but I don't think you have talent. You have, Jondee, sold your soul. You have only one agenda and believe only what you see as being "progressive." But do be careful. "Who's on first" may start changing so fast you'll get whiplash trying to figure out what the latest game plan is.

    So take your failing memory and roll on down the road while I return to my previous position of ignoring you.

    Parent

    you condemned him for his actions.. (none / 0) (#173)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 05:08:29 PM EST
    about five times a day leading up to the '04 election. And by extension, the actions of all the other Viet Vets against the War (who all had one advantage over you, Newt, Cheney, Rectal Cysts Limbaugh and the rest of the 101st Chickenhawk battalion in having actually been to Vietnam..)

    But thank you, Jesus-Rush, for the update on the state of my soul, I'll take it under consideration. While you get back to your previous position of ignoring uncomfortable reality and shadow-boxing with the ghosts of MLK, Walter Cronkite and Jane Fonda.


    Parent

    Yes, I did condemn Kerry for his anti-war actions (none / 0) (#174)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 06:03:44 PM EST
    and all the others like him. Together he and the other anti-war folks convinced the North Vietnamese they could win a political battle.

    In fact:

    Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?

    A:  It was essential to our strategy.  Support of the war from our rear was completely secure  while the American rear was vulnerable.  Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m.  to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement.  Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence  that we should hold on  in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.

    Link

    Thousands of American service men's lives were sacrificed because of Kerry, Fonda and a host of others. They all have blood on their hands.

    And if that includes you, so be it.

    As for my military experience all I have ever said is that I spent 10 years in Naval aviation.

    And I believe that is a lot more service to the country than you.

    Parent

    And they still (none / 0) (#175)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 10:03:23 PM EST
    remember you fondly at TANG..

    Tell me, is it true you and Bush once hid out for a whole weekend inside a hollow hippopotamus at Disney Land with an eight ball and a bottle of Jim Beam?

    You wanted them there, being killed and killing people (in a christian kinda way), and we wanted them home. So who has blood all over themselves, hands included?

    Parent

    You know, I have never met anyone who (none / 0) (#179)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 09:06:17 AM EST
    served that wanted a war.

    You can debate forever whether or not we should have engaged the North Vietnamese, but the fact is that we did. Once a battle is joined it is never acceptable to lose.

    And once a battle is joined you use every weapon you have. We didn't do that and the demonstrators and fellow travelers gave the enemy a huge boost.

     

    Tet was designed to influence American public opinion. We would attack poorly defended parts of South Vietnam cities during a holiday and a truce when few South Vietnamese troops would be on duty. Before the main attack, we would entice American units to advance close to the borders, away from the cities. By attacking all South Vietnam's major cities, we would spread out our forces and neutralize the impact of American firepower. Attacking on a broad front, we would lose some battles but win others. We used local forces nearby each target to frustrate discovery of our plans. Small teams, like the one which attacked the U.S. Embassy in Saigon, would be sufficient. It was a guerrilla strategy of hit-and-run raids. [lloks like a re-writing of history with the benefit of hindsight]

    Q: What about the results?
    A: Our losses were staggering and a complete surprise;. Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for re-election. The second and third waves in May and September were, in retrospect, mistakes. Our forces in the South were nearly wiped out by all the fighting in 1968. It took us until 1971 to re-establish our presence, but we had to use North Vietnamese troops as local guerrillas. If the American forces had not begun to withdraw under Nixon in 1969, they could have punished us severely. We suffered badly in 1969 and 1970 as it was.

    Link

    You can run but you can't hide. The blood on your hands shows who and what you are.

    And Vietnam brought us Iran 1979 and the chain continues until this very moment.

    Parent

    who can forget (none / 0) (#176)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 10:14:53 PM EST
    those molotov-cocktail-hurling radicals Robert Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey?

    This is right-wing talk radio loony tunes stream-of-consciousness right up there with that bird who claimed Clinton was recruited into the communist party by Sen Fulbright..

    You guys have really gone off the rails in the last couple of decades.

    Parent

    Kennedy and Humphrey (none / 0) (#180)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 09:09:00 AM EST
    were politicians who did the bidding of the mob to gain their votes. In many respects they are worse than the mob.

    Parent
    "Can't keep up" - heh (none / 0) (#147)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 08:29:54 PM EST
    No worries, Jim - might as well worry about a Ferrari keeping up with Barbie Jeep.

    Parent
    BTW - Your "paranoia" ... (none / 0) (#149)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 08:41:11 PM EST
    ... I was your repeated "queries' about the Dark Avenger.

    Parent
    Don't ... (none / 0) (#116)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 12:29:02 PM EST
    ... sit by the metaphorical phone ...

    Parent
    Donald, I am devastated (none / 0) (#124)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 01:02:58 PM EST
    just devastated to know that I will no longer be subjected to your personal attacks and claims of greatness.

    Bye youall!

    Parent

    There are (none / 0) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 05:03:25 PM EST
    Christian ministers who profess dying for your religion or suffering for religion is serving Jesus. The problem with fundamentalists of any stripe is they find a verse and take it literally. I mean there's a verse in the bible about cutting your hand off and Eric Rudolph's brother who was a fundamentalist took a saw and cut his hand off.

    Parent
    Could you tell me who (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 05:23:41 PM EST
    these ministers are?

    And will you try and get a grip on the numbers?

    I mean if everything else is equal, wouldn't we have proportionate number?

    Parent

    Well, (none / 0) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 07:13:13 PM EST
    the one that did my grandmother's funeral was pretty much advocating overthrow of the government at the time. No one has to come out and say "blow up a building" to get people to do that kind of stuff. All they have to do is create enough rage in somebody for them to think they are doing the right thing.

    Parent
    So I guess you are advocating (none / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 09:15:58 PM EST
    censorship.

    Am I overstating your position when it comes to this?

    And I guess you must have been appalled at the "Lynch Clarence Thomas" video I put in my comment  to Scribe.

    The world has always had a fine line that people walked. The Internet, YouTube, cellphone cameras, etc., etc., has made it even finer.

    Parent

    Good grief. (none / 0) (#99)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 05:49:43 AM EST
    Nowhere did I advocate censorship but these fundamentalists are encouraging terrorism no different than the imams in the middle east. If you use you pulpit to whip people into a frenzy then you are part of the problem.

    What you don't realize is that radical fundamentalism is a problem all across the world.

    I did not watch the Clarence Thomas video but it sounds like U tube should just take it down. It serves no purpose. Who did that anyway? The conservatives are the ones that believe in lynching down here in Georgia.

    Parent

    Well, if you don't watch the videos (none / 0) (#106)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 08:28:48 AM EST
    you will not know what is happening.

    I now understand your political positions.

    And all I know is that prior to Carter turning the terrorists loose in 1979 radical Islam was not the huge problem it is today.

    You just won't face facts as you demonstrate by refusing to watch the "Lynch Clarence Thomas" video.

    And no, the shouldn't take it down. The purpose it serves is that there are nuts on the Left as well as the Right.

    Try to hold that thought. It is important.

    Parent

    WEll (none / 0) (#144)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 07:20:12 PM EST
    when people on the left start doing massive terrorism like people on the right let me know and don't start talking about stuff 40 years ago.

    You're going to compare a video to actually killing people like conservatives do?

    And if you believe Carter "let loose" radical Islam then you have to believe Reagan was a big cause of it to by enabling then in Beirut back in the 80's. Remember those barrack bombings? By your own silly logic, Reagan was a "cut and run" coward.

    There was terrorism before Carter and there will be terrorism after. For some reason, you have an irrational fear of Muslims who commit terrorism but have no fear of America's homegrown terrorists or conservative terrorism. So all I can surmise from what you are saying is that conservative terrorism doesn't bother you or you'd rather apologize for it.

    Parent

    Fear??? No. (none / 0) (#159)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 10:08:33 AM EST
    Rational concern? Yes. It is rational to have concern about any persons or group that states an opposition to your country, society and religion and then demonstrates their seriousness by attacking and killing thousands and then launches many follow up attack attempts. So far the "attempts" have been unsuccessful due to outstanding work by our law enforcement people and a bit of luck.

    In this thread you have claimed:

    There are...Christian ministers who profess dying for your religion or suffering for religion is serving Jesus

    When I asked who they were you brought forth this.


    the one that did my grandmother's funeral was pretty much advocating overthrow of the government at the time.

    I am underwhelmed.  Later you opined:

    What you don't realize is that radical fundamentalism is a problem all across the world.

    Of course I realize that people at the extremes are always a problem. But here is the difference between the radical Christians who attack and kill and the radical Muslims.

    There is no organization like al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezabollah, PLO or The Muslim Brotherhood, supporting these radical Christians.  In fact, there is absolutely no wide spread/large numbers of Christian ministers who preach death to Muslims and urge demonstrations based on perceived insults to Christ or the Christian church. That is not true within the Muslim mosques.

    It appears to me, for some reason, whenever a radical Muslim attacks or attempts to attack, the far Left has people who raise the argument that Christians attacked Muslims during the Crusades. Yes. Yes they did but that was 800 years or so ago. That is always followed by "Oklahoma City." And then Ruby Ridge, etc., etc.  

    What is the purpose of these arguments? No one is denying that there are radicals who claim to be Christian just as there are radicals  who claim to be Muslim.

    You wrote:

    You're going to compare a video to actually killing people like conservatives do?

    The video of the mob that demands that Clarence Thomas be lynched also includes hanging Thomas' wife, hanging Roger Ailes, Alito sent back to Sicily, and a call for revolution now, just like in Egypt.  At the beginning of the video you will see Common Cause thanked and a Code Pink dressed person at the end although the affiliation of these two groups and the people making the radical violent comments is not plain.

    I wonder. Is the above what you mean when you wrote:

    No one has to come out and say "blow up a building" to get people to do that kind of stuff. All they have to do is create enough rage in somebody for them to think they are doing the right thing.

    Finally, I sometimes wonder if we are not like the Democrats and Republicans arguing about the intentions of Germany and Japan before December 7, 1942.

    Parent

    When (none / 0) (#177)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 08:27:04 AM EST
    something actually happens from that video then get back to me. Certainly you have to believe that if the Imams can inspire terrorism then the ministers here in the US can inspire terrorism too.

    Oh, there's plenty of people who see perceived "insults to Jesus" in a lot of things. Remember the outrage on the artwork that was displayed in NYC a number of years ago? You don't remember the Catholic church's outrage at the book and movie made from the book "The Thorn Birds". This has been going on for quite a while here too.

    I haven't mentioned the crusades but a friend of mine who has a brother who is a middle east specialist says that those events informed and continue to inform a lot of the middle east hatred toward the west. I see it no different than the people here in GA who still want to resurrect the confederacy of which Rick Perry seems to be a part of in Texas. They are still smarting over things that happened 150 years ago and will probably continue to smart over it 200 years from now. These conservatives are no different than the people in the middle east still angry over the crusades.

    Parent

    the historic record (none / 0) (#42)
    by observed on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 05:12:00 PM EST
    Violently begs to differ with you.


    Parent
    I think you've missed the point (none / 0) (#50)
    by Romberry on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 05:47:47 PM EST
    Someone calling themselves a Christian does not make them one. In all my life, the number of people I have personally known who I would not hesitate to call Christian could be counted on the fingers of my hands with fingers left over.

    There are very, very few Christians. Being a Christian is hard.

    Parent

    As Mahatma (none / 0) (#62)
    by Zorba on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 07:35:25 PM EST
    Gandhi once said, regarding Christianity:  "I like your Christ.  I do not like your Christians.  Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

    Parent
    but these people (none / 0) (#77)
    by observed on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 09:47:55 PM EST
    Sincerely believe . By what authority can you say they are wrong? Its not as
     if Jesus is here to say.


    Parent
    Christians (none / 0) (#109)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 10:21:18 AM EST
    are also supposed to do what God tells them. In the bible God spends a lot of time telling or allowing his followers to murder neighboring tribes, and they do it, e.g. the Canaanites (Numbers 21) or the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15).

    It seems to me to be eminently Christian to murder in the name of God. You let religion and Christianity off the hook far too easily with this 'no true Scotsman' argument.

    Parent

    I was gonna stay out of this but.... (none / 0) (#120)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 12:36:18 PM EST
    The Old Testament was fulfilled with the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ.

    The Christian Faith is based on the New Testament.

    So your comment is just plain wrong.

    Think not that I come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy but to fulfil.

    Mathew 5:17

    Read the remainder of Mathew 5 for more understanding.

    Parent

    What you quote from (none / 0) (#122)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 12:56:49 PM EST
    Matthew 5:17 supports my claim. Jesus is not come to destroy the old law or the prophets. This passage affirms that what we now know as the Old Testament is a part of Christianity. Why else is the Old Testament part of the Christian bible? So your comment is just plain wrong.

    Or are you saying that the coming of Jesus somehow meant that nothing God did in the Old Testament really happened? God didn't really order Saul to slay the Amalekites right down to the last man, woman, child and cow? Then what's it doing in the Christian bible, Jim? Just a little light reading before one gets to the real bible?

    You should have gone with your first instinct and stayed out of the conversation.

    Parent

    Learn the meaning of words (none / 0) (#130)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 02:22:01 PM EST
    fulfill:

    to satisfy (requirements, obligations, etc.): a book that fulfills a long-felt need.

    4. to bring to an end; finish or complete, as a period of time:

    I asked that you read the remainder of Mathew 5.

    All the way through it Jesus expands and modifies the old laws.

    21 You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.'

    22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.

    38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'

    39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

    40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.

    41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.

    42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

    change

    Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.

    Luke 9:60

    What this means is that what happened in the past was over and that new rules were in place.

    I mean, you don't think they crucified Jesus for going along with them do you?

    Now, I'm done. I have given the information and see no reason to debate such a cut and dried subject.

    Parent

    Not a word you have quoted (none / 0) (#133)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 03:16:40 PM EST
    or pointed to says that God will never again order believers to murder other people like he did in the Old Testament. Nothing Jesus said, did or 'fulfilled' changes this fact. You cannot argue that because Jesus is introducing a few new laws that all the old laws are repealed because a) Jesus never says that, and b) Jesus says the exact opposite in Matt. 5:17-18. Read it, Jim. The 'fulfilled' used in 5:18 hasn't happened yet. Heaven and earth have not yet passed, Jim.

    Please point me to the passage where Jesus says 'God will never order a believer to kill another person and if he does he's just kidding so don't do it.' And please DO NOT point me to 'Thou shalt not kill' because that was the law even when God was ordering his followers to go and kill people.

    I'm not saying God says 'go ahead and kill people'. I'm saying God's law has always been, and remains, 'Do not kill people unless I say it's ok'. Nothing Jesus says changes this.

    Parent

    heh (none / 0) (#141)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 05:32:38 PM EST
    Matt 5:18

    For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

    All was fulfilled with the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ.

    That was the end of the Old Testament and the beginning of the New.

    But no need to go further. You do not believe and that is your right. You also have the right to be wrong.

    Parent

    Then the words (none / 0) (#142)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 06:35:26 PM EST
    Till heaven and earth pass are devoid of meaning in the sentence. Why are they there? Why is Revelations in the New Testament if everything was fulfilled upon the resurrection?

    You too have right to be wrong. And in this instance you're going to need it more than I am.

    Parent

    I'll add that (none / 0) (#145)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 07:36:00 PM EST
    the proper Christian interpretation of 'fulfilled' in Matthew 5:17-18 is that Jesus fulfilled the sacrificial laws of the Old Testament by dying. Hence animal sacrifice as practiced in the Old Testament was no longer necessary.

    That's it. He didn't change all the laws of the Old Testament, and he certainly didn't change God from a being who orders genocide in the Old Testament to one who has come to believe that genocide is wrong by the time of the New Testament.

    Parent

    What can I say (none / 0) (#153)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 08:56:41 AM EST
    Should I believe the simple words of the Bible or the words of someone who is obviously a non-believer?

    All was fulfilled with the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ.

    That was the end of the Old Testament and the beginning of the New.

    Parent

    It's not an either-or proposition (none / 0) (#158)
    by Warren Terrer on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 09:49:29 AM EST
    You can easily believe neither me nor the words of the bible. Do you believe the words of the Koran?

    Parent
    Your definition (none / 0) (#162)
    by Warren Terrer on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 11:13:52 AM EST
    of 'fulfilled' is not a reading the 'simple words' of the bible. Instead it's a contorted definition concocted by theologians. You didn't get your definition from a reading of the 'simple words'. Someone taught it to you and you accept it.

    Furthermore, your reading completely ignores the words Till heaven and earth pass. You've offered me absolutely no explanation for why those simple words would be there if Jesus is saying that fulfillment will occur upon his resurrection. Those simple words completely contradict your interpretation, and my being a non-believer doesn't change that one jot or one tittle.

    Parent

    go tell a practicing Jew what (none / 0) (#165)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 02:53:11 PM EST
    "the simple words of the Bible" say (for everyone to read and understand!)

    You're going to get some vigorous disgreement regarding your it's-all-as-plain-as-day theologocal thesis.

    Parent

    What can I say (none / 0) (#154)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 08:56:41 AM EST
    Should I believe the simple words of the Bible or the words of someone who is obviously a non-believer?

    All was fulfilled with the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ.

    That was the end of the Old Testament and the beginning of the New.

    Parent

    now.. (none / 0) (#168)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 03:25:15 PM EST
    if the the Rapture'd only git goin', we could get all them blind unbelievers (who don't see whats as plain as day) coverted after the Tribulation..

    Though, the whole thing might entail a little roundin' up and sequesterin' of some folks.

    Parent

    Anyone who reads the Bible (none / 0) (#181)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 09:20:10 AM EST
    understands that the "Rapture" is just a commercial make believe story to sell media.

    jondee, try reading the Bible. Attend a church that teaches the Bible.

    It will make you a better person.

    Parent

    I'll match you quote for quote (none / 0) (#185)
    by jondee on Wed Jul 27, 2011 at 02:33:09 PM EST
    and I won't have go to a Heritage Foundation, or a 700 Club website - that "prove" that saturation bombing and Agent Orange were right in line with the teachings of Jesus - to do it either.  

    Parent
    Really? Someone should tell (none / 0) (#187)
    by Yman on Wed Jul 27, 2011 at 06:05:05 PM EST
    Anyone who reads the Bible understands that the "Rapture" is just a commercial make believe story to sell media.

    ... the 41% of Americans who believe in the Rapture (58% of White Evangelicals and 59% of Southerners/Westerners).

    Parent

    "unbeliever" (none / 0) (#186)
    by jondee on Wed Jul 27, 2011 at 02:38:25 PM EST
    ie, someone who doesn't believe what you believe.

    Now, if you just changed "simple words" to "simpleton interpreted words", I think you'd be closer to the reality of the situation.

    Parent

    Don't Jump to Conclusions (1.83 / 6) (#4)
    by VanO on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 08:46:38 AM EST
    Mark Twain reportedly said "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes"?

    This person is a loon.  Your title takes some inferential preliminary information and makes a declaration out of it, attributing his actions to anti-Muslim right wing extremists.

    I'm anti-Muslim.  Muslim extremists commit atrocities in the name of their god nearly every day!!  I'm also conservative and could be considered "right wing".  I'm not anti-government; according to the Bible governments were instituted by God (Rom 13).  I am anti-evil government.

    These killings are similar to the Gabrielle Gifford's shootings that were also initially attributed to a right wing extremist (later information revealed the individual was actually a left leaning, disturbed person).

    I can't imagine a rational purpose in indiscriminately killing nearly a hundred people.  In fact this almost seems like a false flag operation. I'm just now hearing reports of a possible second shooter.  Is this another Columbine?  We have to wait until all the facts come in to find out what really motivated these guys and who they were.  Hopefully we will get the truth!!    

    Ridiculous (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 09:13:07 AM EST
    I'm anti-Muslim.  Muslim extremists commit atrocities in the name of their god nearly every day!!

    Christian/right-wing extremists frequently commit atrocities, too.  In the US, they commit far more hate crimes and atrocities than "Muslim extremists".  What's your point?

    These killings are similar to the Gabrielle Gifford's shootings that were also initially attributed to a right wing extremist (later information revealed the individual was actually a left leaning, disturbed person).

    No, they're not "similar".  Jared Loughner was not shown to be a "left leaning" person - just "disturbed".

    I can't imagine a rational purpose in indiscriminately killing nearly a hundred people.  In fact this almost seems like a false flag operation. I'm just now hearing reports of a possible second shooter.  Is this another Columbine?  We have to wait until all the facts come in to find out what really motivated these guys and who they were.  Hopefully we will get the truth!!

    Interesting logic - declaring we must "wait until all the facts come in", while at the same time theorizing this "almost seems like a false flag operation" and the involvement of another shooter.  Of course this should (and will) be thoroughly investigated, but the evidence so far shows that this is not Muslim extremists and was, in fact, a Christian fundamentalist extremist.

    Parent

    Norway Shootings (1.50 / 2) (#12)
    by VanO on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 10:51:10 AM EST
    You're making a declaration out of "evidence so far".  False Flag operations are intended to create outrage and win over public opinion so a government can take forceful or military action. Hitler used one to invade Poland.  We may have used one to justify our involvement in Vietnam (the Gulf of Tonkin Incident). Certainly this shooting in Norway has created outrage - it remains to be seen where it's all leading.

    Your statement declaring Christians in the US to be greater terrorists than Muslims is mind boggling.  Where have you been the last 20 years?  This is slander, pure and simple.

    Jared Loughner burned a flag in one of his last videos, a penchant of the left I might say.  He was distrustful of government and heavily into drugs - perhaps the source of his derangement.

    Shooting 20 people and killing six, including a nine year old girl could not be construed as a political assassination, but rather a massacre admittedly by a demonically crazed individual.  The operation in Norway seems more sophisticated and intended to make a political statement.  Whatever the purpose I think it will have the opposite effect - thus the false flag consideration.

    Parent

    You're constructing a "false flag ... (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 11:06:29 AM EST
    ... conspiracy" out of nothing but your imagination.  There is zero evidence of a "false flag operation", while there is substantial evidence that this guy was a right-wing fundamentalist killer.

    Your statement declaring Christians in the US to be greater terrorists than Muslims is mind boggling.  Where have you been the last 20 years?  This is slander, pure and simple.

    Read my statement again ... slowly.  I stated there were far more attacks in the US perpetrated by right-wingers/Christian fundamentalists than Muslims.  It's a fact.  Would you like links to more than a dozen attacks by wingers from just the past couple of years?

    Jared Loughner burned a flag in one of his last videos, a penchant of the left I might say.  He was distrustful of government and heavily into drugs - perhaps the source of his derangement.

    There is just as much (if not more) evidence suggesting Loughner is a right-winger rather than a left-winger.  Personally, I don't think he's either.  Loughner's best friend stated he was apolitical - not left or right.  Being "distrustful of government" and "heavily into drugs"  (because he smoke pot?) are hardly left characteristics.  Loughner also believed the gold standard is the only legitimate monetary standard, a position espoused by the right-wing "Patriot Movement".  He's also a follower of a "language control" conspiracy theory promoted by Patriot conspiracy theorist David Wynn Miller.

    Parent

    Yeah, just for fun, let's look at'em (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 01:23:36 PM EST
    It's a fact.  Would you like links to more than a dozen attacks by wingers from just the past couple of years?
    .

    Given that the US Christian population is around 300 million and the Muslim population is around 1.5 million, what weighting would you give to the population size disparity?? 300:1? 280:1?

    You know, you want to go fishing with a net. ;-)

    And don't forget the known planned/attempted unsuccessful attacks stopped by our security forces.

    And could you show me the international organization that is sponsoring/teaching/preaching that Christians attack us, and other Christians of different denominations??

    (Gotta watch those Baptists. They're always after those Lutherans!)

    Your turn.

    Parent

    Read it slooooooowly, Jim. (none / 0) (#29)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 03:29:52 PM EST
    Christian/right-wing extremists frequently commit atrocities, too.  In the US, they commit far more hate crimes and atrocities than "Muslim extremists".

    No need to weight anything to prove/disprove that statement, Jim ... just count.  Tell ya what - you link to all the examples of militant muslim attacks in the US, and I'll link to the winger attacks and we'll compare numbers.  I'll even help get you started.

    And could you show me the international organization that is sponsoring/teaching/preaching that Christians attack us, and other Christians of different denominations??

    Not sure what your point is - hard to decipher that sentence with so many qualifiers.  It's almost like you're trying to steer the discussion to something else.

    Hmmmmm ....I wonder why.

    Parent

    Thanks (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 04:30:42 PM EST
    But I thought you were serious. I mean....

    This is your problem??

    May 6, 2010--Dr. Christina Jeffrey, a Republican candidate in South Carolina's 4th Congressional District, posts a YouTube video where she holds an AK-47 assault rifle and tells viewers, "Why do we have the Second Amendment? The Second Amendment ensures all of our other rights ... The Second Amendment was placed in the Constitution, plainly, to ensure that our limited government stayed limited and that we would be able to enforce those limitations if need be ... We are a sovereign people. A sovereign people is an armed people."

    If I remember correctly it wasn't an assault rifle, but a replica. Either way, not my cup of tea but this your typical Christian terrorist?? Some politician reminding us that we should be wary of government??

    Wow.

    And my point was that we have no Christian equivalent to the various radical Muslim organizations preaching/teaching/urging jihad. These are basically single nut cases doing nutty and sometimes bad things.

    I know you can't see the difference. I just cannot figure out why. What is the fascination of the Left??? Why do I not see continual marches and protests against the actions taken against women, gays, Jews, Christians and other minorities in Iran and other Islamic theocratic countries by NOW, Code Pink and other groups?

    BTW - No comment on my mathematics?? Didn't see my point?

    Parent

    Good, Jim (none / 0) (#35)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 04:43:57 PM EST
    Pick the least offensive example and ignore all the others ... precisely what you always do.  Forget the murders, assassination plots, etc., and pretend they don't exist.

    Back to my original point - If, as you claim, my statement is inaccurate, you can list all the examples of muslim extremist violence in the US and I'll list all the examples of winger violence and we'll compare.

    But I understand why you'll never do that.

    Parent

    You first (none / 0) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 09:45:30 PM EST
    And perhaps you can explain the mathematics.

    Parent
    Already did, Jim ... (none / 0) (#85)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 10:12:58 PM EST
    ... a couple of times, as you know.

    The mathematics is easy.  Many acts of right-wing, severe violence (murder, assassination plots, shootings, etc.) compared to ... well ...

    ... nothing.

    Parent

    Nothing???? (none / 0) (#104)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 08:13:49 AM EST
    We have had no attacks from radical Muslims?

    Really????

    9/11 didn't happen?? The DOJ didn't convict a guy from Denver and now his father? The car found in Times Square wasn't real? The Portland Christmas bomber is fiction?? The Shoe Bomber was just kidding? The Underwear Bomber was trying to get a Jockey commercial? Fort Dix was just a dream??

    300 million Christians and 1.5 Muslims?

    What triggers the radical Muslims????

    Inquiring Minds Want To Know.

    Parent

    My point was you hadn't ... (none / 0) (#135)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 04:23:03 PM EST
    ... listed your examples, Jim - that's why I said "nothing".

    Geez - it makes my head hurt to have to explain everything to you.

    Back to my original point - that wingers have committed more acts of domestic terrorism than Muslims radicals.  You've listed 7 attacks from Muslim extremists since 9-11.  Well, mostly plans to attack, but let's count all of them.  I've listed more than a dozen from just a two-year period.  You wanna keep trying, or should we just count that as you proving my point ...

    ... again.

    Parent

    You obviously aren't familiar (none / 0) (#13)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 11:01:50 AM EST
    with the US terrorist attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan killing more than a million innocent civilians.

    George Bush, for example, was distrustful of government and heavily into drugs - perhaps the source of his derangement.

    The Bush Crusade

    Where have you been the last 20 years?

    Parent

    I'm "anti-drone." (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 11:23:43 AM EST


    Parent
    I recently asked how many different (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 01:51:19 PM EST
    UAV's the U.S. military has now and I was told probably 15 to 20 different ones.

    Parent
    I anticipated your response would be: (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 01:59:06 PM EST
    better drones than boots on the ground.  But, no!

    Parent
    Keep On Rockin' (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 02:13:19 PM EST
    in the Free World?

    By the end of 2012 after his drawdown he'll have only twice as many troops in Afghanistan as were there on the day he was inaugurated. It's not much, but it's progress, incrementally, gradually. It may even qualify him for a Nobel Peace Prize. And I can't even begin to guess how many civilian contractor jobs there will be there.


    Parent
    I vote boots before drones (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 02:54:58 PM EST
    If you are going to be involved, go in the flesh and understand as a human being.  Drones don't have souls, or consciences, or feelings and the people operating them are far away and they don't care because they can't relate and they can afford not to and don't have to see their handiwork up close or experience what it costs.  I think drones are a horrible battlefield evolution, and they will lead us to worse places yet.

    Parent
    If they were serious about (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 03:38:44 PM EST
    putting terrorists out of business, they'd have to invade the white house, langley, and the pentagon. And Texas.

    Parent
    You clearly haven't read the man's writings... (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by Addison on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 11:37:21 AM EST
    ...there is no mistaking his political viewpoints -- he was a Christian conservative against multiculturalism and Marxism (it is true that all this has a different context in Norway than in the USA, and we should be careful when drawing parallels). And his online presence has none of the "schizophrenic" markers that Loughner's did. As far as it being a "false flag" operation -- well Infowars is that way. He started his farm (apparently to collect fertilizer) way back in 2009, and bought the fertilizer in May of this year. There's a pretty clear trail for this guy going back years, so it's not like some Norwegian radical dropped out of the sky at the behest of the New World Order.

    Parent
    He may be a conservative, even... (none / 0) (#34)
    by Romberry on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 04:42:54 PM EST
    ...a radical conservative. But as I posted further down the thread, this guy is no Christian.

    Parent
    No True Scotsman (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 03:02:24 AM EST
    is a name for this logical fallacy, a form of circular argument.  No true christian would gun down ninety people therefor Breivik was not a christian. blah blah blah

    Parent
    False flag operation (none / 0) (#11)
    by waldenpond on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 10:17:16 AM EST
    Ah yes, a repeat of what Tbogg showed the Astute bloggers trotted out after their triple putz lutz... It's really a leftist making the right look bad.

    Unfortunately for you, his writings are out there.

    I don't think your tribe is with you.... they have already imagined why someone would do this and eerily stated that the camp was a socialist nazi youth camp.

    Parent

    Norwegian officials say this is their (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 12:02:10 AM EST
    Oklahoma City, not their Sept. 11.  Query:  why does Pres. Obama say otherwise?

    At the White House, President Obama sent his condolences to Oslo and called for stronger global cooperation to combat terrorism.

    "It's a reminder that the entire international community has a stake in preventing this kind of terror from occurring," said Obama, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009. "We'll provide any support we can to them as they investigate these occurrences."

     [LAT]

    Obama takes any type of terrorism to strengthen (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by jawbone on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 05:27:49 PM EST
    his arguments for doing what he's been doing worldwide.

    For being Bush III.

    Parent

    Not getting why this is (none / 0) (#2)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 12:15:50 AM EST
    an inconsistency.  Oklahoma City absolutely was terrorism.

    Parent
    What I'm not getting, though (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Towanda on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 08:47:53 AM EST
    is what the international community can do to prevent a country's internal, homegrown crazies.  How could global cooperation have stopped a McVeigh in Oklahoma?  What do international security measures -- or, say, our TSA -- have to do with that?  Was some other country supposed to have tipped off Norway to this Norwegian?

    Parent
    Why not? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 09:27:48 AM EST
    This individual could have had electronic communications with likeminded people from other countries. Initial reports seem to suggest that he was also quite incensed about "multiculturalism" in the UK and other European countries. I am sure that electronic surveillence capabilities of the US government is much better than that of the Norwegian govt. There is a lot that the international community can do to help. In this day and age, people travel more than they used to and use electronic methods of communication more than it was ever done before.  

    Parent
    Stunningly, we in the U.S. (none / 0) (#54)
    by Towanda on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 06:19:32 PM EST
    can surveil those internet toobz all over the world.  And I would not bet that those Norwejins are so far behind.  I really would not. . . .

    Parent
    For example, see world stats (none / 0) (#128)
    by Towanda on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 02:02:29 PM EST
    on Internet access.  As of 2010, 77% in the U.S. vs. 95% in Norway.  That's data on the population, but why think that its government is so out of the loop as to not access the Internet to surveil its public, when its public is so technologically savvy?  

    Parent
    yeppers. (none / 0) (#3)
    by cpinva on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 12:57:30 AM EST
    terrorism is terrorism, regardless of the source. historically, most terrorists are locals, who know the territory.

    Parent
    I don't get the LAT reference to the Nobel (none / 0) (#10)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 10:01:48 AM EST
    It's like something they stuck in there that even though true has zero relation to the comment Obama made.

    It's not a very good way of trying to slide in propaganda drawing equivalency between between Obama's GWOT and peace. Someone might notice.

    They would have been more truthful had they said...

    "It's a reminder that the entire international community has a stake in preventing this kind of terror from occurring," said Obama (grinning), whose attacks on Afghani and Pakistani and American civilians are the work of a right-wing extremist. "We'll provide any support we can to them as they investigate these occurrences."



    Parent
    Possibly the Oslo connection? A reminder he (none / 0) (#15)
    by ruffian on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 11:10:22 AM EST
    has been to Oslo and made contacts there?

    Parent
    Greenwald's "take" on our President's (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 12:32:15 PM EST
    statement and media initial reporting:  link

    Parent
    All I have to say is... (none / 0) (#8)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 09:47:32 AM EST
    you sure don't read about Atheists going off on these horrific killing sprees.
    "I asked god for a sign and god made me an atheists"

    Holy Stalin, batman (none / 0) (#49)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 05:45:02 PM EST
    60 million or so.

    Parent
    What a disappointing comment (none / 0) (#93)
    by NYShooter on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 01:35:41 AM EST
    Like anyone, I don't always agree with your posts, but more often than not, they reflect an educated, intelligent, and well thought out point of view. This one definitely does not.

    #1. Joseph Stalin was an atheist and therefore there's a causal relationship between atheists and mass murderers? Think about that for a moment; sounds pretty silly, doesn't it. How about this: Joseph Stalin was 5' 6" tall, therefore...........

    #2.  "One thing that's always bothered me about many hardcore atheists is their adamant refusal to admit that atheism is itself a belief system."

     Why would we "admit" to a nonsensical, silly statement? Again, analogies seem to be the best way to debunk crappy logic. You say, "I believe chocolate donuts rain down from the sky." I say, "no, they don't. So now, I suppose I have to "admit" that I have a belief system that states, "chocolate donuts don't fall from the sky." Lacking a belief is not a belief; if you make a statement that's crap, and I point out that it's crap, that does not create a "belief" system on my part. Its just debunking crap.

    3. ".....Their attempts to impose their own rigid concept of secularism upon the rest of us are truly no different than what those on the Christian right try to do, when they seek to maned statute to require prayer in public school, etc."

    Where and/or when did atheists try to impose anything on the rest of you? Rejecting "your" attempts to impose your beliefs on me is quite different than the meaning of your statement. If I go to school, I want to study & learn.....period. You say, sure, but first we have to make delusional  requests from, and grovel before, an imaginary, Charlton Heston look-alike in the sky. So, if I say, whoa, I ain't doing that crap, and besides, its against the law. By your convoluted logic, I'm "attempting to impose (my) own rigid concept of secularism upon the rest of (you)? Sounds pretty silly saying it that way, doesn't it?

    4. Finally, your last sentence:

    "We need to learn to allow our diversity to define us as a nation, without having it divide us as a people. "
    There you go,(finally) I agree 100%! So why did we have to go through all that nonsense  just to get to a sentence that makes sense?

     

    Parent

    Oh, for Christ's sake! (none / 0) (#97)
    by NYShooter on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 05:30:23 AM EST
    (was that a clap of thunder I just heard?)

    Look, I don't know what your problem is, and........ let's just leave it at that.

    I don't engage ABG, jimakaPP, or that Abdul guy (at least not any more) you know why?  Because, they're 100% right......even when they're 100% wrong.

    Adding a forth is the way I'm gonna go.

    Maybe when you feel better we can try it again, but until then.....ciao


    Parent

    I agree with Donald (none / 0) (#125)
    by waldenpond on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 01:09:23 PM EST
    The more I watch religious people, this discussion over whether the christian Norwegian is a christian or not (my personal magical white-gowned bearded fairy that lives in the sky is better than your personal magical white-gowned bearded fairy that lives in the sky), the more I come to the strong belief that religious people are.....  ?

    I am also very supportive of having to be subjected to the anti-intellectualism that is religion.  I never debate with four year olds, I have stopped debating with the delusion that is conservatism and when people declare they are christian, I used to debate, then I found the humor, then I switched to distancing, then ignoring, now....I look for a way out of the room.  Really, I just don't want to be bothered with the drivel anymore.

    I completely associate christianism with conservatism.  I repels me now.

    Parent

    22 year old (none / 0) (#21)
    by Nemi on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 12:21:51 PM EST
    Thorbjørn, (in the green jersey):
    "First he shot. Then he told people it was safe to come out, they would be saved, he was the police. Then he continued shooting. When the shooting began we were 30-40, when he finished there were only 5-6 of us left.

    I've never lost anyone I know before, so starting with losing 85 friends is very dramatic."

    Thorbjørn also tells about how the very calm shooter shot most of the victims twice - as if to make sure they really were dead.

    This is just so terrifying and so very, very sad.

    Hillary Clinton made a very appropriate, heartfelt comment:

    Clinton offers condolences to families of shooting, bombing in Norway, condemns terrorism

    Google translations of the shooter's comments -- (none / 0) (#24)
    by jawbone on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 01:40:43 PM EST
    LINK

    RUsh Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Erick Erickson (none / 0) (#31)
    by scribe on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 04:00:09 PM EST
    RedState, and their European and Norwegian counterparts can puff out their chaests in pride today.  Someone has undertaken to carry out their dearest fantasy:  killing liberals.

    In the past, I worked with and for some hard-right Republicans, both employers and clients.  In the course of that work, I was also expected to socialize with them and their friends.  I cannot tell you how many times - I lost count - when, their discretion loosened by a little alcohol and the sense of being among like-minded people, they would let slip that their solution to whatever was the political problem du jour, was the kill all the liberals.  I'm a good listener, so I'd nod my head gravely in seeming agreement.  One could see the blood lust in their eyes.

    And these were wealthy people of considerable social and political standing in their localities, state and, for some, the whole country, deep education, and extensive experience in business or the professions, as well as serving various institutions.

    (Actually, some of the nastiest, most blood-thirsty were the wives.)

    The common thread running through right-wing propaganda in this country and Europe has, for most of the last century, been eliminationism.  Back 70, 80 or 100 years ago, it was directed at Jews, blacks, garlic-eating southern and eastern Europeans, and unionists. 30, 40 and 50 years ago, it moved to liberals, blacks, unionists, feminists, gays and immigrants generally:  anyone who might be seen as upsetting the elite's birthright claim to an applecart of privilege, power and primacy for them and no one else.  And, in the form of Muslims, they have found another "Other" to blame for all the ills of the world, and against whom to direct their murderous rage, in addition to the usual suspects of liberals, dark-skinned people, and unionists.

    This guy bit and swallowed hard, got his belly full and pulled off a wickedly successful one-man attack.  The Right should - and in their private precints is and will be - proud of their success in causing this and later deflecting the blame onto the victims. Their propaganda worked.

    Oh please (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 04:43:59 PM EST
     I'm a good listener, so I'd nod my head gravely in seeming agreement.  One could see the blood lust in their eyes

    Are you writing a novel or a screen play? If so, include this:

    In one panel segment, gay sex advice columnist Dan Savage said of Republicans, "I wish they were all f--king dead" (video follows with transcript and commentary, extreme vulgarity warning):

    Link

    This could also fit in:

    Lynch Clarence Thomas

    Now I am sure we could swap anecdotes about the evileeeee Rightees and Lefties, but to what avail?

    Could anyone here admit that both sides have a "few good men" and both sides have their nut jobs??

    Parent

    I haven't seen any "liberals" (none / 0) (#41)
    by scribe on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 05:10:07 PM EST
    at least since about 1973, taking up arms to exerminate their (perceived) political opponents (Loughner, Gabby Giffords), or gunning down cops with the AK he was not legally allowed to own (Pittsburgh, 3 cops, a couple winters back), or shooting up an immigrant help center and killing a dozen or so people (Binghamton, NY, about the same time as the Pittsburgh shootings), or randomly sniping at cars passing on the interstate (some guy in Ohio a couple winters ago), or making (vehicle) bombs to blow up buildngs (McVeigh, WTC 1993, any number of FBI sting victims since then), or building dirty bombs in their basements (that guy in Bangor, Maine who was going to do Obama's inaugural until his battered wife whacked him in his sleep), or building backpack bombs loaded with metal for shrapnel (at the MLK Day parade in Spokane, this past winter) or engaging in planning running gun battles with police - while wearing white tuxedoes - to culminate in killing the president-elect (Obama, those crackers in Tenn., IIRC), or gathering the materials for chemical weapons (some crackers in Arkansas or somewhere there) or dragging rich white gus a couple miles behind their pickup (Jasper, TX), or any of the many white on black immigrant beatings and killings here and in Europe, or killing a gas station attendant because he was obviously a filthy, turban wearing Muslim (he was a Sikh, happened post 9/11 in Ariz., IIRC), or many, many more.

    In every one of those instances (Save WTC 1993), it was a right-wing nutjob who took the right-wing propaganda to its unstated but ineluctable conclusion and killed and/or maimed a bunch of people for no good reason other than the voices on his radio and internets told him it was acceptable because they were the Other and that made it OK.  The propagandists didn't come right out and say it, but anyone over the ageof 4 knows how and understands implication and things-left-unsaid.  Most, if not all, of the examples I've cited were some combination of avid listeners of Rush, Hannity and Beck (How soon you're forgotten!), readers/participants on various wingnut sites (many of whom left the more mainstream sites like Erickson and Malkin because they weren't harsh enough), engaged in some flavor of [neo-]Nazi ideation or ideology, or were otherwise convinced the Damned Liberals were bringing this country down and had to be stopped.

    If one utterance out of Dan Savage and a site about Thomas are all you've got, then you've got nothing.  Well, nothing save being a gullible consumer of the right-wing propaganda so suffusing this society that even the most "liberal" of establishment papers seems to have come to the conclusion (pointed out by Greenwald) that only Muslims can be "terrorists", regardless of the atrocities the white folks perpetrate.

    In any event, you should go home.

    Parent

    I should have known (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 05:48:02 PM EST
    Gifford's attacker was not a Rightie.

    In every one of those instances (Save WTC 1993), it was a right-wing nutjob who took the right-wing propaganda to its unstated

    Shall we forget about Fort Hood? The lady whose husband beheaded her in NY? The shoe bomber. The Xmas attempt in Portland? Fort Dix?

    So forgive my attempt to note that both sides have their bad guys. I could give you lots more but I suspect it would be useless. You have found your enemy and he is anyone who doesn't agree with your agenda.

    Parent

    It's not "both sides" (none / 0) (#70)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 09:26:46 PM EST
    Shall we forget about Fort Hood? The lady whose husband beheaded her in NY? The shoe bomber. The Xmas attempt in Portland? Fort Dix?

    So forgive my attempt to note that both sides have their bad guys. I could give you lots more but I suspect it would be useless. You have found your enemy and he is anyone who doesn't agree with your agenda.

    No you couldn't.  None of the examples you listed above were "lefty"/left-wing terrorists.  Scribe was making the point that it's right-wingers - not liberals - who commit acts of terrorism in the US.  You're trying to say that "both sides" do it, when you're comparing right-wingers to to Muslim terrorists.

    Now if you're trying to make the point that there are radical right-wing terrorists and radical Muslim terrorists, I don't think anyone would disagree with that platitude.  

    Parent

    I'm saying exactly that. (none / 0) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 09:51:28 PM EST
    Both sides have their nut jobs.

    And should we say their are also radical liberal terrorists????

    The point is this. Whenever we have a radical Muslim attack the response is always that Christians have also done bad things, even though the examples chosen often have no connection to any Christian organization.

    Parent

    Scribe's point was ... (none / 0) (#91)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 10:57:53 PM EST
    ... that the right-wingers engage in actual violence, as opposed to liberals engaging in (arguably) violent rhetoric.

    See the difference?

    It's funny, because you always claim there are acts of left-wing violence comparable to right-wing violence, but the examples you give are always fake/debunked (i.e. Kenneth Gladney or the imaginary bus attack at the RNC) or just silly in degree (a guy smacking a cell-phone away from his face).  There are dozens of real, right-wing violence (murder, assassination plots, etc.) from just the past few years readily available (gun nuts, militia members, anti-abortion nuts, etc.).

    BTW - Google "Christian Identity Movement" if you think none of these domestic terrorists have any connection to any Christian organization - not that membership in any organization is required to be a terrorist.  Many Christian fundamentalists espouse hatred and violence toward the "sinners" (i.e. gays, Muslims, Jews, abortion providers, etc.).

    Parent

    How about Pim Fortuyn (none / 0) (#92)
    by diogenes on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 11:45:12 PM EST
    From Wikipedia
    "Fortuyn was assassinated during the 2002 Dutch national election campaign [5][6][7] by Volkert van der Graaf. In court at his trial, van der Graaf said he murdered Fortuyn to stop him from exploiting Muslims as "scapegoats" and targeting "the weak members of society" in seeking political power.[8][9][10]"

    Parent
    If you read my original post ... (none / 0) (#101)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 07:11:00 AM EST
    ... I was discussing acts of domestic terrorism here in the US, but if you want to expand it to other countries - okay.  Let's assume van der Graff was an example of left-wing violence.  If you want to take up Jim's mantle and compare, here's just a few examples of more recent right-wing violence from just a two year period:

    -- July 2008: Jim David Adkisson - killing two churchgoers and wounding four others.

    -- October 2008: Daniel Cowart and Paul Schlesselman arrested in a plot to murder dozens of African-Americans, culminating in the assassination of President Obama.

    -- December 2008: "Patriot" movement radicals Bruce and Joshua Turnidge, who wanted "to attack the political infrastructure" -- kill two police officers with a bomb.

    -- December 2008: James Cummings, agitated by the election of Obama, building a "dirty bomb" in his basement.

    -- January 2009: Keith Luke - raping and wounding a black woman and killing her sister, then killing a homeless man before being captured by police as he is en route to a Jewish community center.

    -- February 2009: A Marine named Kody Brittingham is arrested and charged with plotting to assassinate President Obama. Brittingham also collected white-supremacist material.

    -- April 2009: Richard Poplawski, believing President Obama intended to take away the guns of white citizens like himself, kills 3 police officers.

    -- April 2009: Joshua Cartwright, similarly fearful of Obama's purported gun-grabbing plans, kills two deputies.

    -- May 2009: Scott Roeder walks into a church in Wichita, Kansas, and assassinates abortion provider Dr. George Tiller.

    -- June 2009: A Holocaust denier and right-wing tax protester James Von Brunn opens fire at the Holocaust Museum, killing a security guard.

    -- March 2010: Seven militiamen arrested for plotting to assassinate local police officers with the intent of sparking a new civil war.

    -- March 2010: A "sovereign citizen" from Georgia is arrested in Tennessee and charged with plotting the violent takeover of a local county courthouse.

    -- May 2010: A still-unidentified white man walks into a Jacksonville, Fla., mosque and sets it afire, simultaneously setting off a pipe bomb.

    -- May 2010: Two "sovereign citizens" named Jerry and Joe Kane gun down two police officers who pull them over for a traffic violation, and then wound two more officers in a shootout in which both of them are eventually killed.

    -- July 2010: Byron Williams - attempting to attack the offices of the Tides Foundation and the ACLU, shooutout with officers wounding two.

    -- September 2010: Justin Carl Moose arrested for plotting to blow up an abortion clinic.

    See how this goes?

    Parent

    To restate (none / 0) (#111)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 11:58:47 AM EST
    The point is this.

    Whenever we have a radical Muslim attack the response is always that Christians have also done bad things, even though the examples chosen often have no connection to any Christian organization.

    I also noted the population disparity of about 300 to 1.5 and asked what triggers the Muslim to become a radical Muslim? Obviously something drives a far larger percentage of Muslims to become radicals than Christians.

    I also noted that there are no organized Christian groups practicing jihad on the US.

    All this "violent right....non-violent left" is just inaccurate chaff that covers the problem."

    Both sides have nut jobs.

    That is bad.

    But the real problem is radical Muslims attacking us and preaching jihad.

    Parent

    Restate all you want (none / 0) (#119)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 12:35:14 PM EST
    You're just ignoring the fact that there are far more right-wing/Christian fundamentalist terror attacks in the US than there are Muslim terrorist attacks.

    Wingers love their guns and violent rhetoric, and if they can combine that with their own form of religious fundamentalism, well ...

    ... that's all the better.

    Parent

    Oh, yeah, Jim - one more thing (none / 0) (#43)
    by scribe on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 05:16:14 PM EST
    I was at those parties.  I represented those people.  I listened to them closely and respectfully as a junior lawyer should when being spojen to by a client, client's spouse, or other assorted wealthy person who might need our services.  I allowed no judgment or condemnation to cross my face or pass my lips - "don't offend the money people (at least outside a closed office)" being the cardinal rule of private practice.

    And I listened closely because I wanted to hear and understand them.

    No, I'm not writing a script.  I lived it.

    Parent

    Well, I have been around some (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 05:38:53 PM EST
    yahoos, some rich and some poor.

    I would say you need a whole new group of associates.

    Parent

    I wrote in past tense for a reason. (none / 0) (#48)
    by scribe on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 05:41:17 PM EST


    Parent
    Glad to know you have found (none / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 05:49:41 PM EST
    fair fields, cool streams and sunshine 24/7.

    Parent
    That's about the size of it. (none / 0) (#64)
    by scribe on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 08:33:38 PM EST
    Cool streams, cool summers, colder than all getout winters, pretty-to-break-yer-heart scenery, friendly people, good fishin', good huntin', elbow room.

    Not a lot of jobs, but the livin's pretty cheap in most ways.  I'm gettin' by.

    Parent

    Good for you (none / 0) (#83)
    by MKS on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 10:05:53 PM EST
    I stayed way too long.....

    Parent
    Quotes (none / 0) (#56)
    by daring grace on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 06:57:30 PM EST
    that caught my eye from a Freep article:

    Freep

    Police Chief:"He has had a dialogue with the police the whole time, but he's a very demanding suspect," Sponheim said.

    From the figurehead king:Norwegians, who pride themselves on the openness of their society. Indeed, Norway is almost synonymous with the kind of free expression being exercised by the youth at the political retreat.

    King Harald V, Norway's figurehead monarch, vowed that those values would remain unchanged.

    "I remain convinced that the belief in freedom is stronger than fear. I remain convinced in the belief of an open Norwegian democracy and society. I remain convinced in the belief in our ability to live freely and safely in our own country," said the king.

    I wish our figurehead monarchs had as much sense...

    Y'all might be interested in Armando's (none / 0) (#126)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 01:09:27 PM EST
    diary at DK:  What's Christianity Got To Do With It.  

    Spam (none / 0) (#191)
    by Edger on Sat Oct 22, 2011 at 06:22:36 PM EST


    Norway Killings: Lone Right-Wing, Anti-Muslim Extremist | 178 comments (178 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment