Characteristic's of a Terrorist.......

[Jackofalltrades]

"Rawles writes that the following are characteristics that qualifies a person as a potential domestic terrorist:

Expressions of libertarian philosophies (statements, bumper stickers)

Second Amendment-oriented views (NRA or gun club membership, holding a CCW permit)

Survivalist literature (fictional books such as "Patriots" and "One Second After" are mentioned by name)

Self-sufficiency (stockpiling food, ammo, hand tools, medical supplies)

Fear of economic collapse (buying gold and barter items)

Religious views concerning the book of Revelation (apocalypse, anti-Christ)

Expressed fears of Big Brother or big government

Homeschooling

Declarations of Constitutional rights and civil liberties

Belief in a New World Order conspiracy"

Judging by that list, I would be classed as a terrorist (and I know for a FACT I am NO such thing), aswell as a lot of member's on this site also would be classed as a terrorist.......

IF the list is real, and they class people that believe in a new world order conspiracy, a terrorist, what make's all the non-believer's think that there is no such thing as a new world order ?

There are various sites with this info on them....

[Mikko-kun]

Just goes to show that they dont have enough "real" terrorists that are threats enough. And you can't say you're not allowed to believe in those things, just that you might suffer consequences from doing so. I didn't check out with the religious views and fear of economic collapse, because I dont really mind if it happens, no feeling of fear involved. Two points short, dang!

[Ashotep]

According to that list 80% of the people out there would qualify.

[Babe Ruth]

During Clinton's term, folks with those views were said to be "militia" type people. After 911, they are now described as "terrorists".

Back in the early 1900's, the hobgoblins held up to scare people were "anarchists" or "communists".

[Jacques Terreur]

the more paranoid/desperate a political system becomes, the more open is the scheme one has to fit in to qualify as "terrorist", "anarchist", "communist"....whatchamaycallit. It's only the name of the group that is different every time.

[Mikko-kun]

Hmmm... if you actually checked as "no-terrorist" on all those parts, something I think only 1% of the earth's population would do, how could you convince them that you aren't a terrorist? Lets assume you're thrown into QuantumTarantino cell with a hood on your head and they gag you and straw-feed some porridge each day.... "suck your porridge you evil terrorist!!1".. what would you do to make your case?

[Mr.United_Nations]

Vampires are terrorists

[No Censorship]

You get the impression that if you're not a proponent of huge government, you're considered to be a terrorist. Some pressure groups portray people as hateful and violent if they're not statists. It's the old trick of guilt by association, but these ludicrous "characteristics" sound like satire. Of course, we live in a country where a young girl was accused of making "terroristic threats" because she told her friend that she would shoot her with a plastic toy bubble gun.

[Babe Ruth]

Exactly right DM!

Statist is a good way to describe it. Rather one of the characteristics of a fascist state, as described in a current article by Jim Fetzer over at Veterans Today.

Our society today displays many characteristics of a fascist state.

[Stellar]

Judging by that list, I would be classed as a terrorist (and I know for a FACT I am NO such thing), aswell as a lot of member's on this site also would be classed as a terrorist.......

IF the list is real, and they class people that believe in a new world order conspiracy, a terrorist, what make's all the non-believer's think that there is no such thing as a new world order ?

There are various sites with this info on them....

Just playing devils advocate here: I've seen a number of people on this forum alone call for armed revolution against the government. These people do seem to share a certain pattern of beliefs. Therefore, if you were to ask me which group of people are most likely to start a revolution, I would point you to those with that particular set of beliefs... Is that not logical? I'm not saying you should go out and imprison them, I'm just connecting the logical dots.

[redhen]

Laws are about to passed in the U.S. that would legally label people as terrorists if they surreptitiously videotape activities in slaughterhouses, or even if they donate to certain groups.

"(5) Specifies that any person, animal, or ecological terrorist

organization will be guilty of the crime of participating in or

supporting animal or ecological terrorism if he or she raises,

solicits, collects, or provides any person with material,

financial support, or other resources that will be used to

encourage, plan, prepare, carry out, publicize, promote, or aid

an act of animal or ecological terrorism or the concealment of or

an escape from an act of animal or ecological terrorism"

http://www.house.mo....pdf/HB2095I.pdf

"First they came for the

communists

,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the

socialists

,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the

trade unionists

,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,

and there was no one left to speak for me."

- Martin Niemöller (1892 – 1984)

Yup, I'm a terrorist, good thing I don't live in the U.S. anymore.

[Kowalski]

Just playing devils advocate here: I've seen a number of people on this forum alone call for armed revolution against the government. These people do seem to share a certain pattern of beliefs. Therefore, if you were to ask me which group of people are most likely to start a revolution, I would point you to those with that particular set of beliefs... Is that not logical? I'm not saying you should go out and imprison them, I'm just connecting the logical dots.

It says in the Declaration of Independence:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

[Stellar]

It says in the Declaration of Independence:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

You're speaking as if its a majority of the population that want revolution. What if its the minority? What if the majority doesn't want an armed revolution? The Declaration of Independence doesn't protect the right of any person to wage a civil war simply because they, themselves, feel the government becomes destructive.

[Almagest]

It says in the Declaration of Independence:

What you're missing here is the fact that any attempt by the people to overthrow the Government will have to deal with the army. Perhaps civilian militias could take on the army, but it will require them to commit acts of terrorism. 'Patriots' hold up the Vietcong as an example of successful guerilla warfare but don't seem to mention the atrocities they commited. Such a revolution should be viewed as an absolute last resort. Some folks seem to think that the time for the last resort is drawing near, but have people truly exhausted their non-violent options?

As for the list, a real danger is to assume that a terrorist fits any kind of profile. It is especially dangerous to try and focus on one group at the expense of the other. I've watched a couple of episodes of Doomsday Preppers and the folks there are perhaps a bit obsessive, but they're just normal people. Its probably the same with the militias. Now if somebody buys the ingredients for a couple of hundred kilos of explosives they are a potential suspect.

I think the most important thing to stress is that nobody is a terrorist until they have carried out an act of terrorism. It is a crime just like any other. You don't see lists circulating regarding signs of a potential murderer. Everyone is a potential murderer, they come in all shapes and sizes, just like terrorists.

[Babe Ruth]

Nothing wrong with being prepared for the future. It's impossible to predict the future, but there's nothing wrong with being prepared for it, especially if one lives out in the country.

[Kowalski]

It depends on what you mean by "revolution." If you mean a armed uprising with killing and bloodshed, then No I am not for that. If you mean, revolution (from the Latin revolutio, "a turn around"): is a fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time. Aristotle described two types of political revolution:

1. Complete change from one constitution to another
   
2. Modification of an existing constitution.
   

Then, yes, I am for a change in government. My weapon of choice: The ballot

[AsteroidX]

There is many many people ready for change in America. To think differently is to be blind. Those that wish to go with the status quo...Well let them go the way of the Dinosaur. If secession is not an option then revolution is. Its a pick your poison. Theres too great a part of America that wants change to continue the status quo.

Sheeple excluded.

[Stellar]

It depends on what you mean by "revolution." If you mean a armed uprising with killing and bloodshed, then No I am not for that. If you mean, revolution (from the Latin revolutio, "a turn around"): is a fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time. Aristotle described two types of political revolution:

1. Complete change from one constitution to another
   
2. Modification of an existing constitution.
   

Then, yes, I am for a change in government. My weapon of choice: The ballot

Nope, I am indeed saying I've heard people on this very forum advocate armed revolution. They tend to share the same particular set of beliefs as well. So, if you were to tell me that a domestic terrorist threat was foiled, I'd be less surprised if it turned out to be perpetrated by one of the people I speak of than if it were perpetrated by another group that I haven't seen make reference to armed revolution. Isn't that logical?

[Stellar]

There is many many people ready for change in America. To think differently is to be blind. Those that wish to go with the status quo...Well let them go the way of the Dinosaur. If secession is not an option then revolution is. Its a pick your poison. Theres too great a part of America that wants change to continue the status quo.

Sheeple excluded.

Yes... "sheeple excluded" because if you counted those you consider to be sheeple, you would not be a majority.

[AsteroidX]

Yes... "sheeple excluded" because if you counted those you consider to be sheeple, you would not be a majority.

Dont overestimate the number of sheeple please.

http://news.yahoo.com/sarah-palin-compares-obama-bernie-madoff-sips-big-200807860--abc-news-politics.html

Edited March 16, 2013 by AsteroidX

[Kowalski]

I understand what you are saying Stellar, but you can't lump everyone in the same catagory.

I and many other don't advocate armed revolution. We're sick and tired of the way Washington is being run and we want change. But, IF Washington keeps doing what it is doing, they will push us into a corner, and we will have no choice BUT armed revolution, and I dread that day more than anything in my life, and hope like hell it never happens. If it does, I am prepared, though.

Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. -- Edmund Burke

[Stellar]

I understand what you are saying Stellar, but you can't lump everyone in the same catagory.

You definitely cant. That is certain, and one must understand that when dealing with topics such as these. However, there is some logic behind it that, when used properly, can help keep someone safe.

For example, lets say your job is to attempt to stop any Al Qaida terrorist attacks. Is there any particular group of people you would suspect of being an Al Qaida terrorist more than another?

Dont overestimate the number of sheeple please.

Would you care to set the record straight? How many "sheeple" to "non-sheeple" are there? What percentage of the USs population wants armed revolution?

[AsteroidX]

Would you care to set the record straight? How many "sheeple" to "non-sheeple" are there? What percentage of the USs population wants armed revolution?

0% of the People want armed revolution Stellar.

As for the Govmnt figures I have no data.

[Just Dave]

So basically they are making us behave like robots i mean you guys... We dont have such idiocracy here yet. I think they lost it on full scale.. deficiency of brain power. I mean this really is a whole new level of stupidity...

This leaders of yours should all be judged with crimes like obstructing the mankinds evolution, simple multiple constitutional violations, killing thousands of innocents worldwide, support and aid to market and baking fraud, the list goes on for god sake..

[Just Dave]

There should be civil trials like they did after ww2.. president, general staff, all who go along with such stupidity... all sentenced to instant life in prison or death... They will have the benefit of a trial..