The extremist liberal left really concern me!!

[NsXMas]

I consider myself an independent, who really despise Bush and am no fan of Kerry either.

However, seeing how extreme some of those on the left act really concerns me, and has swayed me to lean more towards the right than ever.

Two examples:

1) A 25-year-old from Georgia who was distraught over President Bush's re-election apparently killed himself at ground zero - no one should be so upset at the results of an election that they should feel compelled to commit suicide. An election inherently means that there will be one winner and one loser. If you want to committ suicide over that, may I recommend Russian Roulette? At least the odds will be better than 50/50 in that game.
I can bet you if Bush lost the election, you won't find Republicans wearing black arm-bands and killing themselves.

2) I am a moderator on another forum, where we have some nut-cases, I mean users, who are extremely political. This technical forum has nothing to do with politics, but invariably people start fighting over politics and I have to impose order. One user who was extremely hateful of the Republicans put this in his signature after the election: "F**k you America! You will get what you deserve!"

I didn't think it was appropriate and sent the user this message: "I noticed your signature. I know you're passionate about politics, but can you please change your signature? Know that there were 49 % of Americans who didn't vote for Bush, so it is wrong to have such a mean signature. Kindly tone it down."

The user never replied to my request, but changed his signature to the following: "The Infidels will get what they deserve."

This user who is American, really frightens me about the mindset of some of the liberals. Are we going to have more home-made liberal terrorists who are going to strike out because the election did not go their way??

In the case of these two examples, I can gladly say that I am happy that the Republicans overwhelmingly won the election...

 

[brahtw8]

Politics is a highly emotionally charged business these days.

I think we would have seen extreme reactions to a Kerry presidency as well. Many of the Bush supporters I spoke to were visibly afraid of having Kerry in the white house. I think that kind of fear is irrational on both sides.

I believe there are legitimate reasons to fear four more years of a Bush presidency, but I understand that feeling is not shared by all.

The saddest part of the state of our political discourse is that by and large we want the same things. Our disagreement is primarily factual, both in terms of what has happened and what we propose as a solution. I fear that unless the public can take control over the media, we will never return to a time where facts were independent of opinion.

 

[Casper91]

A 25-year-old from Georgia who was distraught over President Bush's re-election apparently killed himself at ground zero - no one should be so upset at the results of an election that they should feel compelled to commit suicide.

Obviously the man was only firing on one cylinder. The election was only an excuse to have someone else take responsibility for his problems. And the story made for good ratings or circulation.

2) I am a moderator on another forum, where we have some nut-cases, I mean users, who are extremely political. This technical forum has nothing to do with politics, but invariably people start fighting over politics and I have to impose order. One user who was extremely hateful of the Republicans put this in his signature after the election: "F**k you America! You will get what you deserve!"

If he had said "F**k you Republicans!" I would assume he had half a clue. But since he included himself in his ranting - I would advise him to finish his education before he takes his opinion to the message boards.

Puts you in an awkward spot as a moderator, but don't judge democrats by the small percentage of hateful nut cases who speak out.

 

[satan_srv]

1) IF Kerry had won and some pro-bush guy had committed suicide would you have gone more to the right?

2) So what? Welcome to internet forums were people say dumb stuff that they wouldn't in real life.

So you have based your opinion of the political by some nut job and a guy hiding behind a keyboard..very scientific

 

[Carguy!]

I keep reading about GOP headquarters vandalized including vehicles with their tires slashed. With these type of acts it won't take long before we start seeing violence.

This type of behaviour really puts a bad taste in my mouth for people on the fringe left. I realize that these people are the extreme, but I think if important people on the left publicly chastised these acts it might help. I don't think we would of seen similiar occurances if Kerry had won, but I guess we can never know for sure.

I hope America is able to recover from the great divide and come together to enjoy the greatest country in the world.

 

[brahtw8]

I keep reading about GOP headquarters vandalized including vehicles with their tires slashed. With these type of acts it won't take long before we start seeing violence.

This type of behaviour really puts a bad taste in my mouth for people on the fringe left. I realize that these people are the extreme, but I think if important people on the left publicly chastised these acts it might help. I don't think we would of seen similiar occurances if Kerry had won, but I guess we can never know for sure.

I hope America is able to recover from the great divide and come together to enjoy the greatest country in the world.

I certainly condemn the acts of property damage apparently committed by extremists who support the democratic party. I abhor fascism in all forms, whether it is politically correct or not.

I also share your sentiment, but I fear the President's spoken goals, i.e. more tax cuts and privatization of social security, and the continued use of anti-gay marriage amendments as a political tool (coming to a ballot near you in 2006 and 2008), and his apparent unwillingness to acknowledge the problems with our self-interested, pro-business, black and white view of the war on terror, will only drive the wedge in the country further and further apart.

I would remind you that violence has been and is being perpetrated by the government and extremists who support the republican party.

You may not have seen footage of peaceful protesters at the 2000 inauguration being beaten by police officers, some of which were not in uniform. Abortion clinic bombings are another example of how the extremist right wing manifests itself. White power organizations and militia groups are another. This is of course only a small part of the right, but it does some significant damage. Political beliefs are a spectrum, with the left and the right connected by the moderates and the extremists at either end.

On another note, and certainly not to compare the two, I wanted to bring up the following:

We find ourselves in the first significant battle of the Iraq war, Fallujah. I don't understand why we waited until after the election, and I have heard no military justification for the decision to leave the insurgents alone in the city for several months. There is an obvious political justification to wait until after the election, but I don't know that to be the case.

We will lose a lot of good people in Fallujah, and to what end? I know many believe the ends justify the means in the war on terror, and many believe the war on error includes Iraq.

We must strive for an open discussion of what is going on in the war. We need to know if Iraq can truly be a unified nation, given that it was created by the west without any consideration for the three distinct ethnic and religious groups that live within its borders. Iraq may not be a viable state. It was held together by a dictator, first supported then sanctioned by the US. We have seen what happens to eastern european states that are united by oppression when the oppressor leaves.

Our actions there are not winning us support in the war on terror. They are seen by many to be the actions of Jews. I realize that sounds absurd to many of you, but that is what the islamic propaganda machine believes. Our support for Israel and our current actions have insighted a massive backlash against america. The things they do with their hatred are certainly evil, but we cannot deny that we give some of them a reason to hate us. We have long supported evil people in that region, indeed, we continue to do so. They don't see us as having the moral high ground, which is why they resist us and will continue to do so until we give up or destroy the country. That is the nature of a war of attrition. Vietnam and the war on communism have many lessons for Iraq and the war on terror.

 

[sgvnsxrated]

i thought this was a little wild also
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=573&e=2&u=/nm/canada_usa_dc

 

[apapada]

The user never replied to my request, but changed his signature to the following: "The Infidels will get what they deserve."

Not being paranoid here, but to me, this statement/signature is not less than a religiously motivated threat. Had he said "The Infidels got what they deserve" would still be discrimination based on religion, but could be understood as refering to Bush or worse to 9/11 and could be protected under freedom of speech right. HOWEVER using the future tense "will get" is clearly pointing to future events and compounded by the "infidels" calling can clearly lead to believe this is a threat. Now, let me make clear that I believe the odds for this idiot fanatic muslim (they are the only one calling everyone non-muslim "infidels" nowadays) to do anything dramatic are very little. However, there is a fundamental difference between freedom of speech ("Infidels got what they deserve") and illegal threats ("Infidels will get what they deserve"). I seriously think you should report this person to the adequate agency.

 

[satan_srv]

canada rules!

 

[NSXLNT]

I would probably be considered a compassionate conservative, though I lean more towards Libertarian. In no way am I a leftist, yet I am very much a pacifist. I am a Christian, yet am embarrassed by the media's and society's current notion of what a Christian is/believes today. Oct 2001 I attended a huge peace rally in Washington,DC. It was the scariest experience I had ever had in my then 43 years. The jack-booted capital police with their darth-vader like uniforms, the snipers on the rooftops, the police on horseback - it was very comforting and yet, very disheartening in an incredibly surreal way.
Lining the streets were the anti-demonstrators, those ultra-conservative right wingers, some religious groups and some militia types who all were wishing harm upon those of us who only were calling for a peaceful resolution to the crises at hand.
I am old enough to remember the nightly news showing the body counts and returning body bags from the Viet Nam war, 58000 who died for absolutely nothing. I was a junior in high school in 1975 when the US finally pulled out of Saigon. We were all wondering if we would have to go, and fight and die, for nothing. Everyone knew someone who knew someone who had been killed. For nothing.
And now, my son is a junior in high school, facing the possibility of a protracted and unwinable situation in the middle east. Will he, and the sons of my friends, and perhaps any of your sons, and daughters - be asked, no, forced to die - for nothing? Will we ever learn from the past mistakes that this world has made?
This is not to debate the merits, the pros and cons of this current war. But, before anyone starts claiming it's necessity remember this: Fear and revenge
are not a good enough reason to kill. Not if we consider ourselves enlightened.
Not if we believe that we are anything other than barbarians. Lady Liberty's torch must light the way to peace and justice in a cold and dark world. It must not burn, it must not hurt, it must not destroy. Otherwise, the cycle will only continue.

 

[huckster]

Hey brahtw8, I thought your comment "Iraq may not be a viable state" was pretty astute. I fear you may be right. It appears to be a 'boiling pot' (not melting pot) of different factions. But then again most countries have some variation on this, just not so extreme or radical.

I have become that cliche. I was fairly liberal in my younger years and have slowly shifted to the right over the last 10yrs. I still vote people not party, however.

I'm still abhorred over what the republican party did to President Clinton. Base politics at its worst imo. A president's sexual escapades are not my business unless his behavior represents a serious security risk. Although I do think it represents poor judgement and serious mis-estimation of his political opponents to engage in such behaviour while President. THAT level of poor judgement from a president is a little scary. Even CEOs know better than to diddle their employees, let alone the president of the U.S.

I'm still surprised at the level of animosity from the liberal left over this presidential race and election. I think "hollywood-ism"/Michael Moore did much to incite this.

I've never thought I was a 'hawk', but in truth my belief is that Iraq IS a logical extension of the war on terrorism. Like most people, I do fear that our Iraq war will/is inciting more problems with terrorism. It is probably a foregone conclusion that the war in Iraq is polarizing people worldwide. But I also believe that this is really inevitable. Going into a war with Iraq may have been a distraction, but I suspect the terrorists are no more polarized against the U.S. than they were before Iraq. Letting a country like Iraq go unchecked during a time when we've been attacked by terrorists seems like a very bad idea to me. And the former Iraq regime clearly stated their desire to do us harm. Their ability, whether currrently there or not, was only a matter of time. The real problem with terrorism is that it is not bounded by country lines on a map. But again, it seems a logical extension to me that a country calling for our downfall would/does directly or indirectly support terrorism as a means to that end.

If the rest of the world wants a 'non-interventionistic'/isolationistic' U.S., the liberal left appears to be their best bet. For better or worse, much of the successful economies worldwide are dependent upon our economy and our involvement in worldwide affairs. Protecting our position is not the same as furthering our position, but there is a time and place for both. In the past 100 years when the U.S. has adopted an isolationstic policy, we've seen other countries further their position through war. Currently I see our policy as 'protectionistic', not just for the U.S. but for economies around the world. That is probably where I most differ from the current liberal position.

 

[nkb]

I consider myself an independent, who really despise Bush and am no fan of Kerry either.

However, seeing how extreme some of those on the left act really concerns me, and has swayed me to lean more towards the right than ever.

Two examples:

1) A 25-year-old from Georgia who was distraught over President Bush's re-election apparently killed himself at ground zero - no one should be so upset at the results of an election that they should feel compelled to commit suicide. An election inherently means that there will be one winner and one loser. If you want to committ suicide over that, may I recommend Russian Roulette? At least the odds will be better than 50/50 in that game.
I can bet you if Bush lost the election, you won't find Republicans wearing black arm-bands and killing themselves.

NsXMas,
This is another perfect example of the mistake of projecting one person's actions onto a huge group. I hope you realize that there are extremes to each group of people, whether it be political, religious or other aspects, and they usually do NOT represent the vast majority.

Let me give you an example: Deanna Laney brutally murdered her two young sons by bludgeoning them to death with a rock. The reason she gave is that God told her to do it.

If this is all you heard about this story, would you assume: a) I am concerned about how extreme some of the religious people act, and that makes me move more towards atheism, or b) this woman had some serious problems, and she does not represent all religious people?

If you picked a), then that explains how your 1st story would influence you to move towards the right, and also uncovers some serious flaws in your logical reasoning. If you picked b), then that nullifies your reason for condemning the "liberal left" as a whole.

Your 2nd story runs along the same lines.

 

[nsxlover]

Someone sent this to me today. Thought it was funny...

We at Carnival Cruise Lines: didn't forget that a lot of
entertainers had promised to leave the country if George W.Bush
were to be re-elected President.
With that in mind, we have a Special Offer for those who still
>>want to keep their promise!
>>
>> Attention: Would Alec Baldwin, Rosie O'Donnell and her wife,
>>Ed Asner, Janeane Garafalo, Whoppi Goldberg, Al Franken, Michael
>>Moore, Cher, Phil Donahue, Rob Reiner(apparently still a
>>"meathead"), Barbara Streisand, Jane Fonda, as well as the entire
>>staffs of the LA and NY Times and anyone else who made that
>>promise, please dispose of all US assets and report to Florida for
>>the sailing of the Funship Cruise, "Elation," which has been
>>commissioned to take you to your new vacation homes in Afghanistan.
>>
>> You may opt to be dropped off in Somalia or Iraq.
>>
>> The Florida Supreme Court will sponsor a Farewell Parade in
>>your honor through Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade counties
>>prior to your cruise.
>>
>> Please pack for an extended stay... at least four more years.
>>
>> Note: Since you advocate strict gun control, you may not bring
>>any.
>>
>> Staffing your voyage is Bill Clinton as captain, Al Gore as
>>cruise director, Grey Davis, Purser Terry Heinz Kerry hopefully
>>will be kept somewhere below decks away from the media.
>>
>> Monica Lewinsky as the "Cigar and Cigarette Girl",
>>
>> Entertainment by the Dixie Chicks and Bruce Springsteen, John
>>Kerry will be our Life Guard in consideration of his past
>>experience in pulling people out of the water. (Unless he decides
>>at the last minute not to go) He is advocating the ellimination of
>>the game "shuffleboard" in favor of his new game he calls
>>"waffleboard" Be sure to pack your flip flops as you will need
>>them! while playing.
>>
>> Ted Kennedy will double as Bartender and Director of Emergency
>>Procedures
>>
>> Rev. Al Sharpton will provide inspirational services, and
>>Ex-Congressman Gary Condit as intern coordinator.
>>
>> If you have any questions about making arrangements for your
>>homes,friends and loved ones, please direct your comments to
>>Senator Hillary Clinton. Her village can raise your children while
>>you're gone, and she can watch over all your money and your
>>furnishings until you return.
>>
>> "Bon Voyage!"

 

[T Bolen]

I'm still abhorred over what the republican party did to President Clinton. Base politics at its worst imo. A president's sexual escapades are not my business unless his behavior represents a serious security risk.

Uh - he lied under oath to a court of law. Perjury, it's called. A serious breach of the law.
And the Republicans "did" this to him???
Sorry - he did it to himself, and had to answer for his lawlessness. And wasn't he an attorney? You know, that whole "officer of the court" thing. Supposed to know better, right? Unless it's his ass, that is... - then lie to save it.
What a great example for our children...

 

[SCS2k]

To address the title of this thread: It's not just the extreme left that frightens me, it's the extremes of either side. I think this country works best when we all meet somewhere in the middle. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening very often in the next four years, but I hope, in that respect, I am wrong.

 

[Cairo94507]

1- Well I have to agree with T. Bolen's assessment re Clinton - though I personally have no problems with Clinton, I was disappointed in the posture he assumed during his whole mess. Standing tall and admitting he made a mistake would have been a very small blip on the radar screen of history, instead of the wave he ultimately created.

2- I am afraid to say that were I the moderator on that other board with the implied threat, I would have forwarded it to the Department of Homeland Security (I too read it as a threat for future violence) to let them worry about it.

That is close to a Criminal Threat in CA and a felony:

CA Penal Code 422 - Threats to Commit Crime Resulting in Death or Great Bodily Injury:

Any person who wilfully threatens to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in wiriting, or my means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby cause that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family's safety, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year or by imprisonment in the state prison.

I do not think threats should be just laughed off as the idle chatter of bored people. Here in the US we have seen a few mass-murder attacks in schools that were first written about on web-sites and in e-mails that some just laughed off, unfortunately.

People that communicate these types of threats are sick and need to be removed from society and evaluated for professional help for their safety as well as the safety of the public.


Just my 2 cents - sorry.

 

[brahtw8]

2- I am afraid to say that were I the moderator on that other board with the implied threat, I would have forwarded it to the Department of Homeland Security (I too read it as a threat for future violence) to let them worry about it.

That is close to a Criminal Threat in CA and a felony:

CA Penal Code 422 - Threats to Commit Crime Resulting in Death or Great Bodily Injury:

Any person who wilfully threatens to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in wiriting, or my means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby cause that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family's safety, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year or by imprisonment in the state prison.

I do not think threats should be just laughed off as the idle chatter of bored people. Here in the US we have seen a few mass-murder attacks in schools that were first written about on web-sites and in e-mails that some just laughed off, unfortunately.

People that communicate these types of threats are sick and need to be removed from society and evaluated for professional help for their safety as well as the safety of the public.


Just my 2 cents - sorry.

I think you and apapada are reading too much into this person's words.

According to the above posts, first he said "F*ck you America, you will get what you deserve" and later changed that to "the Infidels will get what they deserve."

Neither is a particularly warm statement, but there is no specific threat. He is basically saying, what goes around comes around, and implying that America has done wrong and will pay in the future. To go beyond a general statement of karmic retribution is too much.

This is not behavior that should be reported to any governmental agency. No laws have been broken and the person, however ineloquent, is still well within the confines of protected speech.

If he had made a specific threat, I would agree, but to express outrage with america and a belief that its actions will have consequences is not a terrorist act, and does not even approach a violation of the above CA statute. Note the statute's language with respect to a specific, immediate threat:

wilfully threatens to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in wiriting, or my means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby cause that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family's safety

By no means do I condone this individual's message, but I cannot agree with the conclusion that it is criminal or even approaching criminal.

 

[SCS2k]

I think you and apapada are reading too much into this person's words.

According to the above posts, first he said "F*ck you America, you will get what you deserve" and later changed that to "the Infidels will get what they deserve."

Neither is a particularly warm statement, but there is no specific threat. He is basically saying, what goes around comes around, and implying that America has done wrong and will pay in the future. To go beyond a general statement of karmic retribution is too much.

This is not behavior that should be reported to any governmental agency. No laws have been broken and the person, however ineloquent, is still well within the confines of protected speech.

If he had made a specific threat, I would agree, but to express outrage with america and a belief that its actions will have consequences is not a terrorist act, and does not even approach a violation of the above CA statute. Note the statute's language with respect to a specific, immediate threat:

wilfully threatens to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in wiriting, or my means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby cause that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family's safety

By no means do I condone this individual's message, but I cannot agree with the conclusion that it is criminal or even approaching criminal.

I agree. It reminds me of a quote I read once. I don't remember where this came from:

"When the first speech is censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, the first time any man's freedom is trod on, we are all damaged."

And as Benjamin Franklin wrote (the wording may not be exact):

"Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither."

Let's not have this become the new McCarthy era where everyone screams "terrorist!"

 

[apapada]

I think you and apapada are reading too much into this person's words.

According to the above posts, first he said "F*ck you America, you will get what you deserve" and later changed that to "the Infidels will get what they deserve."

Neither is a particularly warm statement, but there is no specific threat. He is basically saying, what goes around comes around, and implying that America has done wrong and will pay in the future. To go beyond a general statement of karmic retribution is too much.

This is your analysis, and unless you are an expert on terrorist analysis your opinion is as good as mine. Back in '93, after the first attack on the WTC, nobody thought much when that Yousef terrorist was quoted saying something I'm paraphrasing here but basically was like "we failed, but one day others will succeed". With the same logic you're advocating, this is no general threat right, just another "general statement of karmic retribution". Well, we all know what happened 8 years later, and the one lesson we must learn is to take seriously what these fanatics say. I don't think I'm reading too much nor assuming wrong when I say the poster is obviously an anti-Bush fanatic muslim fundamentalist. De facto I now take these people seriously...

This is not behavior that should be reported to any governmental agency. No laws have been broken and the person, however ineloquent, is still well within the confines of protected speech.

Again, unless you are an expert in the matter, you are not anymore proficient than me to judge if this individual's demeanor is a threat, thus a criminal act or not. I never proposed to ban or provide any form of retribution to or even condemn/jusdge in any way this individual. All I suggested is to let the adequate agency(ies) know about it and let them decide if they need to look into it more or just dismiss it. After all, all we can do is report; it's their job, not ours, to decide what's a real threat and what's not...

 

[brahtw8]

This is your analysis, and unless you are an expert on terrorist analysis your opinion is as good as mine.

I am not an expert on terrorist analysis, but I am an expert on civil rights and the limits of governmental power. When people sue government officials, I have the privilege of representing the government, whether it be a village, town, city, or county. I practice municipal and civil rights litigation in state and federal court. I speak from a position of experience and authority, and probably have a better understanding of civil rights and governmental power than anyone currently in this thread, although I am open to the possibility that there are others with a substantial base of knowledge, including yourself.

As far as your example of the statement by Yousseff (Massawi?), that is not a specific threat that violates any law I am aware of. If you have a law that you would like to submit for my analysis, I am open to it.

Should it be evaluated by a governemental agency? Yes. This is not helpful to your original argument, however, because the source of the statement, an individual responsible for a terrorist act against the US, makes it a much more specific and credible threat and places it in a far different context than an ill-conceived signature on an automotive forum.

I would also disagree that you can conclude someone is an anti-Bush radical fundamentalist muslim based on the signature, but that is a matter best left to the psychiatrists and psychologists of the board.

I am concerned with americans being asked to spy on their neighbors. Of course it makes sense to pay attention to specific, credible threats, but we dont' have the time or the resources to waste the government's time with simple expressions of opinion, no matter how revolting we may find the particular opinion.

One of the reasons why the Patriot Act is such a horrible thing is that it embodies the mentality that terrorists act a certain way, look a certain way, dress a certain way, etc. We rounded up and held thousands of people because they fit a racial and ethnic profile. As of the last time the government issued statistics, (they no longer issue them), they had brought in well over a thousand people, and had nothing to show for their efforts, beyond a few suicide attempts while in custody. Not only were none of these people identified as terrorists, they were not charged with any crime. This policy has hurt our relationship with the muslim community in this country, thereby endangering our safety. We need to have open relationships with muslims. That is where intelligence comes from.

There are many legitimate, specific threats, and many other ways to spend our limited resources to fight the war on terror.

Do you remember the TIPS program? We citizens were supposed to report suspicious behavior? Do you know what the government did with the information? They told people to call America's Most Wanted. Apparently the program has since been abolished.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/08/06/tips/index_np.html

 

[apapada]

I am not an expert on terrorist analysis, but I am an expert on civil rights and the limits of governmental power. When people sue government officials, I have the privilege of representing the government, whether it be a village, town, city, or county. I practice municipal and civil rights litigation in state and federal court. I speak from a position of experience and authority, and probably have a better understanding of civil rights and governmental power than anyone currently in this thread, although I am open to the possibility that there are others with a substantial base of knowledge, including yourself.

You acknowledged it yourself that you are not an expert on terrorist analysis, nor am I myself. If you are an expert on civil rights and the limits of governmental power good for you, that doesn't give your opinion any more weight. The same way I don't think the FBI should protect the citizen by practice of municipal and civil rights litigation in state and federal courts, I don't think your point and opinion on the matter is not anymore valid than mine.

As far as your example of the statement by Yousseff (Massawi?),...

No, I was refering to the Pakistani Ramsi Yousef, the mastermind of the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, not the french-maroccan allegedly 20th hi-jacker.

... that is not a specific threat that violates any law I am aware of. If you have a law that you would like to submit for my analysis, I am open to it.

I never said it was a violation of any law, truth is I wouldn't even know if it is or not, that's why we have people like you to help us out. What I do know now however, is that we must take this kind of people seriously.

Should it be evaluated by a governemental agency? Yes. This is not helpful to your original argument, however, because the source of the statement, an individual responsible for a terrorist act against the US, makes it a much more specific and credible threat and places it in a far different context than an ill-conceived signature on an automotive forum.

First of all, you are agreeing with me that this should be evaluated by a government agency, then you are saying it is not helpful to my original argument. I perceive that signature as a threat, hence I think it's an illegal demeanor, but maybe not, so let's let proficient people (the agencies) decide. Unless I'm missing something, you are contradicting yourself as my point exactly was to have this reported to a government agency. Just arguing relevance of context on a limited amount of information is irrelevant itself, as it's typically what I call "Monday morning quaterbacking". Remember that a rear-view mirror will always be more clear than your windshield !

I would also disagree that you can conclude someone is an anti-Bush radical fundamentalist muslim based on the signature, but that is a matter best left to the psychiatrists and psychologists of the board.

No need for psychiatrists and psychologists here. The original poster clearly brings the religion issue into play since there is only one major religion faith who refers to people of other faiths as "Infidels". Just as a gest to prove to you that I know what I'm talking about, the actual word "Infidels" is actually a poor english translation choice for what is usually mentioned in arabic as "Kafirs" or "Kafr" (those who reject the Islamic Faith). Bottom line, everywhere the arabic word "Kafr" appears it is incorrectly translated into "infidels" in English. As for the anti-Bush, I take the thread starter's word that this guy was frustrated that Bush won...

I am concerned with americans being asked to spy on their neighbors. Of course it makes sense to pay attention to specific, credible threats, but we dont' have the time or the resources to waste the government's time with simple expressions of opinion, no matter how revolting we may find the particular opinion.

No one said anything about spying thy neighbor. That would be the government's agency to do if fit it found it to be. What part of us reporting the facts, and the agency to decide is hard to understand ? Let them decide if it's a waste of their time, it's not up to us to filter that kind of information for them.

I'm not even going to address the Patriot Act as it goes way beyond this "discussion".

 

[nkb]

No need for psychiatrists and psychologists here. The original poster clearly brings the religion issue into play since there is only one major religion faith who refers to people of other faiths as "Infidels". Just as a gest to prove to you that I know what I'm talking about, the actual word "Infidels" is actually a poor english translation choice for what is usually mentioned in arabic as "Kafirs" or "Kafr" (those who reject the Islamic Faith). Bottom line, everywhere the arabic word "Kafr" appears it is incorrectly translated into "infidels" in English. As for the anti-Bush, I take the thread starter's word that this guy was frustrated that Bush won...

Merriam-Webster disagrees with your definition and etymology of the word "infidel". http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=infidel&x=0&y=0

Actually, I believe the word was used widely by Christians well before Muslims, which is supported by the 1st definition.

Where did you get your origin of the word?

 

[brahtw8]

First of all, you are agreeing with me that this should be evaluated by a government agency, then you are saying it is not helpful to my original argument. I perceive that signature as a threat, hence I think it's an illegal demeanor, but maybe not, so let's let proficient people (the agencies) decide. Unless I'm missing something, you are contradicting yourself as my point exactly was to have this reported to a government agency.

You have misunderstood. I am saying that the statement of the WTC bomber should be reported, not the signature from the forum.

I would also note that I think my expertise on civil rights and governmental power are relevant to this discussion. That you believe the only relevant expertise is someone with experience evaluating terrorist threats is troubling to me and may be troubling to others who feel strongly about protecting society from abuses of governmental power, which can come from the federal or local level. I do not represent the federal government or FBI directly (that is the responsibility of the DOJ), but that does not mean I do not have a significant understanding of what the limits on their power are.

I also have significant doubts that the poster of the signature that offended you has the same understanding of the word 'infidel' or the islamic world in general. It really seems like nothing more than in inelegant expression of frustration that was apparently offensive to some people. That you find it offensive does not make it something that should be reported to the government.

You are free to disagree. That is what makes this country great. I promise I won't report you to the government. Can you say the same?

 

[apapada]

Merriam-Webster disagrees with your definition and etymology of the word "infidel". http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=infidel&x=0&y=0

Actually, I believe the word was used widely by Christians well before Muslims, which is supported by the 1st definition.

Where did you get your origin of the word?

You are correct about the definition of the word "infidels". However, when fanatics Muslims refer to non-muslims they use the word "Kafr" or "Kafir", which is then incorrectly translated into "infidels" as they both mean "non-believers" or "unbelievers". But as with many other words, consistent incorrect use makes them somehow the norm (think jihad, islamist or even pepperoni ) I strongly believe the author of the signature used this word into the context I described above.

 

[apapada]

To the coward who left me a negative feedback with "Totally unrealistic" as a message about my thesis on "Infidels" name-calling... Let me inform him/her that a commission was created by Congress, and here is the report from May of 2003. The US Commission on International Religious Freedom: "Independent studies conducted in recent months" indicated "that official government textbooks, published by the Saudi Ministry of Education, include offensive and discriminatory language, in some cases promote intolerance, hatred of other religious groups. Major findings: one, Islam - specifically the Wahhabi interpretation - is presented as the only true religion and all other religions are considered invalid and misguided. Christians and Jews repeatedly labeled as infidels, enemies of Islam who should not be befriended or emulated, and referred to in eight grade textbooks as `apes' and `pigs.' Jews are" regularly "referred to as `wicked nation,' characterized by bribery, deception, betrayal,' and those who abandon Islam for another religion deserve to be killed, or at least imprisoned."

Still think it's "Unreallistic" ? Welcome back to reality when reading these facts about the "infidels" calling:
#1
#2
#3