Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » How many people know there was a terror attack in Colorado on Tuesday? (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: How many people know there was a terror attack in Colorado on Tuesday?
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why the heck isn't this news?

To connect with another thread I've been posting on, its very hard to look at this and not see evidence of racism in the (lack of) media coverage.

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ScottF
Member
Member # 6897

 - posted      Profile for ScottF         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Because nobody was injured. If it bleeds it leads.
Posts: 177 | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I knew [Big Grin]
Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nice try.

I've pointed to failed fire bombings of LDS chapels that weren't reported; didn't you and tomd pooh pooh me on that?

Clearly DailyKos is itching for more race riots and killings now. Don't see what other effect reporting now would have, before the investigation brings up any facts.

e

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Nice try.


Thanks?

quote:
I've pointed to failed fire bombings of LDS chapels that weren't reported; didn't you and tomd pooh pooh me on that?


No.

quote:
Clearly DailyKos is itching for more race riots and killings now.
Sure, along with millions of people on twitter; its a wonder a giant race war hasn't killed us all by now.

quote:
Don't see what other effect reporting now would have, before the investigation brings up any facts.

Yes; clearly you don't see.
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How many incidents of random shootings at police since the NYC officers' assassinations have gone unreported?

The NAACP has largely been acting like a terrorist organization. If you doubt that then look at their links to Farrkhan, the guy who just proclaimed that blacks need to "tear this g*d* country up," and advocated murder and destruction of the entire nation.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:

The NAACP has largely been acting like a terrorist organization.

Wait, did you actually just justify this bombing? Oy...
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Don't see what other effect reporting now would have, before the investigation brings up any facts.
Yes; clearly you don't see.

Holy smug non statements, master Yoda.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:

The NAACP has largely been acting like a terrorist organization.

Wait, did you actually just justify this bombing? Oy...
That, or he might have been intimating that the NAACP had planted a false bomb to stir the pot. False flqg operations certainly fit the mo of the company they keep.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Would you literally like me to list effects that covering a terror attack would have? We could start with: it would imply that a terror attack directed at the black community is as significant as any other terror attack. The news channels didn't wait for the investigation to happen before telling us about 9-11 or the shootings in France. Heck, most prevented attacks, like the planned new york attacks, get more coverage than this.
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:

The NAACP has largely been acting like a terrorist organization.

Wait, did you actually just justify this bombing? Oy...
That, or he might have been intimating that the NAACP had planted a false bomb to stir the pot.
Well, that would be a less horrifyingly awful sentiment...

quote:
False flqg operations certainly fit the mo of the company they keep.
Not that it isn't still awful. NAACPBombing truthers? Why not...
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not justifying it nor am I suggesting it was a fake, though they certainly associate with enough frauds where it could be. Their links with Farrakhan and the NBPP should at least put them on an FBI watch list.

As it was said earlier, news like there where no one was hurt tends to get drowned out when other attacks where a dozen people were murdered happened.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Primary suspect is a middle aged white man driving a white pick-up per NPR earlier this evening.
Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
Would you literally like me to list effects that covering a terror attack would have? We could start with: it would imply that a terror attack directed at the black community is as significant as any other terror attack. The news channels didn't wait for the investigation to happen before telling us about 9-11 or the shootings in France. Heck, most prevented attacks, like the planned new york attacks, get more coverage than this.

Which planned New York attacks? And were they covered before an investigation?

If I saw the NAACP as "the black community" any more than I see Fox News as "the white community", your argument would not make me giggle. I worked the inner city, and referred a lot of black clients to different resourcesthat iI thought might help them. Black pastors, soup kitchens, other attorneys and programs, hell, even the Nation of Islam did palpable good and could be relied on for some things, even though I didn't like some of their teachings. I don't recall the NAACP doing anything other than stirring up **** and promoting itself and key politicians. I know things were different in previous generations. But that was then and this is now. If I'm wrong, show me. If I'm right, just act smug and cryptic.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" NAACP bombing truthers?"

Or the other way around. Or those "don't shoot" tweakers planting a bomb at the NAACP and calling it in, to start race rioting.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What I am talking about: the sort of folks that write this: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/08/in-defense-of-the-ferguson-riots/
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In answer to the OP's question, the answer is either "no one" or "those that planted the bomb", depending on who planted the bomb and why. If you "know" that it was a terror attack, Adam, then you know something you aren't telling us. [Wink]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The NAACP has largely been acting like a terrorist organization
If we accept your definition of how the NAACP has been acting like a terrorist organization, then you are a terrorist for claiming to be an oath keeper, which is an organization which makes claims of a similar nature to Farrakan.
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Like Farrakhan? Who's murder have the ok justified as the killing of a "traitor"?

Seneca's statement was unfair, I think, but calling a fellow member a terrorist is over the line.

[ January 09, 2015, 06:53 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Like Farrakhan? Who's murder have the ok justified as the killing of a "traitor"?

Seneca's statement was unfair, I think, but calling a fellow member a terrorist is over the line.

PSRT didn't call him a terrorist though; he said that Seneca had created an absurd standard by which he himself would be deemed a terrorist. You may disagree with the conclusion, but pointing out the absurdity of someone's position is not over the line, nor is it the same as merely calling them a terrorist (which would be over the line).
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wrong. I used the words "acting like," and didn't call them that. But even if I had it's an organization. He actually called me a terrorist. He didn't characterize my actions. He called me personally a terrorist.

The comparison falls apart on many other levels given the two organizations he's attempting to compare, but I'll leave it there for now. If you really want we can show a deep money trail between the NAACP and the NBPP but I trust that won't be necessary.

[ January 09, 2015, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca, do you know how an if/then statement works?
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes. 'If we accept what Seneca believes then he is a terrorist.'

The only way for me to NOT be a terrorist, according to PSRT, is for me to change my beliefs.

How friendly and in accordance with the rules here. What a bastion of civil discourse.

Somehow if I were to make a similar statement telling someone else here that if we accept their beliefs then they are a racist I'd probably be banned fairly quickly.

[ January 09, 2015, 09:24 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Like Farrakhan? Who's murder have the ok justified as the killing of a "traitor"?

Seneca's statement was unfair, I think, but calling a fellow member a terrorist is over the line.

PSRT didn't call him a terrorist though; he said that Seneca had created an absurd standard by which he himself would be deemed a terrorist.
If PSRT had actually laid out that reasoning and definition, and showed his analysis, then it would be a legitimate analytical statement. But he didn't show what he claimed to be Seneca's definition of terrorism, nor did he show how Seneca fit that definition.

Without the rule and analysis, PSRT's statement is nothing but an accusation. If/then on its own doesn't render the accusation civil. ("If it's Saturday then alan is a mother****er.")

]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" Yes. 'If we accept what Seneca believes then he is a terrorist"

The statement sounds incredibly coercive as Seneca laid out, but giving PSRT the benefit of the doubt it may simply be crappy English language skills. I thin the speaker meant to say "if we accept Seneca's definition of terrorism then he is a terrorist."

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's the same thing...
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
That's the same thing...

Agreed, I didn't like the sound of it either. I suspect that PSRT was actually just trying to demonstrate that Seneca's claim was false and that 'if true then Seneca is a terrorist, but it's not so he's not'. Except for the fact that his comment, as mentioned, has the coercive effect of *requiring* Seneca's position to be false in order for him to not be described as a terrorist. Rephrased, it would read as "you have to agree that you're wrong, or else you're a terrorist." It's not quite an accusation, and in its intent it's probably more of an arrogant comment than an accusatory one, but I still think it's out of line.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
That's the same thing...

Not at all. Read one way, PSRT is arguably trying to coerce you to change your mind ("you are a terrorist unless you change your position"). Read the other way, he's simply saying that your definition is absurd and leads to absurd results.

If I said that "anyone who uses harsh and brutal metaphors to describe his political opponents is a Nazi," you would be perfectly within your rights to point out that I use harsh and brutal metaphors to describe my political opponents, and ask if I'd like to qualify my definition of "nazi."

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
That's the same thing...

Agreed, I didn't like the sound of it either. I suspect that PSRT was actually just trying to demonstrate that Seneca's claim was false and that 'if true then Seneca is a terrorist, but it's not so he's not'. Except for the fact that his comment, as mentioned, has the coercive effect of *requiring* Seneca's position to be false in order for him to not be described as a terrorist. Rephrased, it would read as "you have to agree that you're wrong, or else you're a terrorist." It's not quite an accusation, and in its intent it's probably more of an arrogant comment than an accusatory one, but I still think it's out of line.
It seems out of line merely because it's bad logic compounded by bad English. If PSRT had demonstrated his logical process rather than simply announcing without analysis that Seneca met his own (unstated) "definition), then it would be a legitimate commentary.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's quite simple.

According to PSRT, if we accept my beliefs then I am a terrorist. The only way for me to NOT be a terrorist is if no one accepts my beliefs, including myself.

So here's another one since this type of statement has the official mark of approval and is kosher here now:
If we are to accept PSRT's moral equivalency on race hustling organizations that launder money for terrorist groups with a veteran's organization that has committed no acts of violence or terrorism or laundered money for terrorists and instead only served their county, then PSRT hates veterans.

[ January 10, 2015, 07:59 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca, would love to see your links on NAACP laundering money for terrorists.

Psrt, would love to hear your analysis of how Seneca's "definition" of terrorism applies to Seneca.

Because as far as I can see you both seem to be talking out of your asses without specifics to back up your assertions.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:

According to PSRT, if we accept my beliefs then I am a terrorist. The only way for me to NOT be a terrorist is if no one accepts my beliefs, including myself.

Almost; anyone who accepts your standard that defines the NAACP as a terrorist organization, must accept the Oathkeepers as a terrorist organization as well (making its members terrorists to whatever degree you are implying that an NAACP member is a terrorist is, I suppose).

No one in this picture actually thinks you are a terrorist; PSRT and pretty much everyone else rejects your absurd demagoguery that the NAACP are terrorists, and thus the corollary that Oathkeepers are therefore terrorists. You, conversely, don't apply your absurd standard consistently, and thus don't consider that organization (or presumably, yourself) a terrorist.

As frustrating as it probably is to have our absurdity highlighted so markedly, if no one actually thinks you are a terrorist, which is quite clear, what is the point of insisting that you must be one? This is getting a little bizarre...

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Aside from money that the NBPP acquired that is highly suspect was "washed" for them by the NAACP, the NAACP has also provided them with legal assistance and has deep ties with them, despite their false public condemnations of the group.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/jw-sues-doj-for-records-detailing-contacts-with-naacp-about-dismissal-of-new-black-panther-party-voter-intimidation-lawsuit/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2010/jul/14/naacp-direct-tie-black-panthers/print/

I'll see if I can dig up the money laundering articles, they were from a few years ago.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:

According to PSRT, if we accept my beliefs then I am a terrorist. The only way for me to NOT be a terrorist is if no one accepts my beliefs, including myself.

Almost; anyone who accepts your standard that defines the NAACP as a terrorist organization, must accept the Oathkeepers as a terrorist organization as well (making its members terrorists to whatever degree you are implying that an NAACP member is a terrorist is, I suppose).

No one in this picture actually thinks you are a terrorist; PSRT and pretty much everyone else rejects your absurd demagoguery that the NAACP are terrorists, and thus the corollary that Oathkeepers are therefore terrorists. You, conversely, don't apply your absurd standard consistently, and thus don't consider that organization (or presumably, yourself) a terrorist.

As frustrating as it probably is to have our absurdity highlighted so markedly, if no one actually thinks you are a terrorist, which is quite clear, what is the point of insisting that you must be one? This is getting a little bizarre...

Please quote where I said the NAACP was a terrorist organization. This is getting a little bizarre...
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
he only way for me to NOT be a terrorist, according to PSRT, is for me to change my beliefs.
Yes. Either about the NAACP acting like a terrorist organization (and therefore being terroristic), OR, about the oathkeepers being not-terroristic. By the standard you laid out for what is acting like a terrorist organization, that is, Louis Farrakan's statement about what black people should do IF certain things happen, then the oathkeepers are also a terrorist organizaion for saying that military and police personnel should perform the same actions Farrakan called for IF certain things happen.

Either both things are terroristic, or neither thing is. You can't have one be terroristic, and not the other, because the calls for violence if certain conditions are met are the same.

ANd since you have claimed to be an oath keeper, under your reasoning for what it is to be acting in a terroristic way, you are a member of an organization that acts in a terroristic way.

Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
An honest question: have the new black panthers committed any terrorist acts yet? I thought at this stage they were still only a hate group like the westboro baptist church.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Psrt, setting aside the IF part of the equasion, you still fail to identify anything the oath keepers said they MIGHT to that could be described as terrorism if they did it.

I wish you would not fling around ten peso words like terrorism when you have nothing to back it up.

Illegality is not enough to constitute terrorism.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Another broken part of psrt's argument is that Seneca never pointed to individuals as "terrorists." Even if we accept Seneca's argument that the NAACP has affiliated with terrorists, and even if we accepted Ev's questionable interpretation of Seneca's as saying that the NAACP is itself terroristic, it would not follow that any particular.member of the NAACP is a "terrorist."
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
An honest question: have the new black panthers committed any terrorist acts yet? I thought at this stage they were still only a hate group like the westboro baptist church.

No. They are politically extreme and paranoid, and many members exhibit obvious anti-Semitism, though its not explicitly part of their charter. They offered a $10,000 bounty on Zimmerman, but its was explicitly for a "legal citizens arrest". Like the Westboro Baptist Church, they talk a big game while carefully avoiding illegal activities.

They (not the far more moderate NAACP) are actually an interesting inverse of the Oathkeepers. Both groups have charters that skirt the line of treason and criminality (while carefully avoiding anything explicitly illegal), both group's spokespeople are constantly quoted saying racist and paranoid things, and, most importantly, both groups are nearly ideal incubators for individuals who will go on to become actual extremists. The Oathkeepkers themselves are highly unlikely to ever act as a terror group, unless they become a lot more marginalized, but the next Timothy McVeigh is very likely to start out as an Oathkeeper, or in a similar organization. Indeed, there's a lot of overlap between the Oathkeepers and the existing militia movements that spawned McVeigh and his ilk (though there is tension as well; they nearly got into a gun battle at the Bundy ranch).

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
They are a terrorist group. They have placed BOUNTIES on the heads of George Zimmerman, Darren Wilson and even DARREN WILSON'S FAMILY MEMBERS. What possible reason could there be for the bounties on FAMILY MEMBERS?

They have issued death threats, and there is evidence their organization had large participation in the mass arson and looting of Ferguson.

Also, they were caught trying to bomb Ferguson.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/22/us-usa-missouri-shooting-explosives-idUSKCN0J602N20141122

[ January 11, 2015, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1