What Exactly is Terrorism?

[Jeff Matthews]

 

 

 

 

 

As far as I know, political correctness is not part of law enforcement.

I suppose you never waited in those TSA lines in the airport? Never read-up on the outcry against "racial profiling?"

How does all that connect? Racial profiling is against the law as a violation of equal protection.

Not in an airport it isn't or within 50 miles of a border by a customs on border official.

So are you saying the 14 th amendment doesn't apply there? Or, by simple practicality all the people at the southern border are Mexican?

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

You can profile people at an airport. There is clear case law on that. I guess you never watched Miami Vice. They can sniff your luggage, check your bags, decide who gets a more extensive search. It was commonplace in the mints after 9/11.

Have you ever driven theough the immigration inspection coming back from TJ, or an AG inspection into California, or back from Vegas. Those are "border" crossing inspection stations. The Rhenquist Court, and way before, said LE could develop profiles to select whose car gets pulled out of line for a full inspection.

Away from an airport or border it is absolutely illegal to pull a vehicle over or stop someone based on profiling. In addition, "he fit the profile" is no longer a means to establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

 

Notice that the lifting of 4th Amendment in these areas is for pragmatic purposes.  It seems that the Supreme Court, when it is of a mind to do so, can set aside the desire for political correctness when it comes to accomplishing important purposes.

[Travis In Austin]

We need more gun control and Muslim refugees

Sent from my block of Kraft Cheese using a talking Tilapia

You are the only one who makes any sense anymore. That or people need to do more fishing.

That was Top Notch and made my whole day.

[MercedesBerater]

The planned parenthood shooting was absolutely terrorism.http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2015/11/notes-on-act-of-domestic-terrorism.html?m=1

Now that was funny. Great opinion piece, and what little factual material he included, is entirely factual.

This is what you will never hear:

Robert Dear was a terrorist who was radicalized by reactionary propagandists who are on AM radio 24/7 in every major market in the USA.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

 

How was he radicalized?  I don't hear explicit calls of "death to the abortionists."  But I could be wrong.  I just don't think that kind of inciteful speech is even allowed in America... certainly not on public radio stations.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0TK3AF20151201

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/05/30/3443128/dr-tiller-five-year-anniversary/

That's terrorism.... Using violence to try and further A political & often religious agenda against abortion and family planning providers.

[BigStewMan]

but that is why I keep going back to was last week an act of terrorism in Colorado?

yes it was...who says terrorism must be a group thing?  An individual, acting alone, with a personal agenda can still be a terrorist. Their motive may be politically based; but, the greater politics is associating the individual with a larger group that we can now condemn.

Clearly some are furthering the agenda of a group; but, sometimes people are just trying to connect dots that just aren’t there. if he had just ate a bunch of junk food, would we blame it on the twinkles?  oh wait, that one has already been tried.

[Jeff Matthews]

 

 

 

 

The planned parenthood shooting was absolutely terrorism.http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2015/11/notes-on-act-of-domestic-terrorism.html?m=1

Now that was funny. Great opinion piece, and what little factual material he included, is entirely factual.

This is what you will never hear:

Robert Dear was a terrorist who was radicalized by reactionary propagandists who are on AM radio 24/7 in every major market in the USA.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

 

How was he radicalized?  I don't hear explicit calls of "death to the abortionists."  But I could be wrong.  I just don't think that kind of inciteful speech is even allowed in America... certainly not on public radio stations.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0TK3AF20151201

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/05/30/3443128/dr-tiller-five-year-anniversary/

That's terrorism.... Using violence to try and further A political & often religious agenda against abortion and family planning providers.

 

 

I agree that's terrorism.  However, that was not my question.  I know this form of terrorism exists.  My question is how is talk radio "radicalizing" these terrorists?  I do not hear talk show pundits soliciting violence.

[Travis In Austin]

I think the terror was just focused on other people, wasn't it? We terrorized Indians, then slaves, then blacks during the KKK days. They were certainly terrorists, right?

Everybody always leaves out the Irish. There were more Irish slaves over here than black ones.

Oh really? You probably might want to check that out before posting that in a public forum under your business name.

I would also look carefully at any source that claims that.

You might want to start by looking at the difference between a slave and an indentured servant. They are not the same thing.

By the way, which president freed the Irish?

[Travis In Austin]

So far I see a lot of fear mongering, political gamesmanship and posturing, and very little substance. I see no real solutions.

Just thoughts and prayers.

One persons "thoughts and prayers" is another's "we need to make these guns more difficult to obtain by passing another law". Both statements may appear futile and self serving by those who deliver them.

The condescending cover which says "God Isn't Fixing This", mocking those who offer thoughts and prayers, is slow to point out that this happened in one of the most gun restrictive states in the union. The headline could equally have said "Gun Laws Aren't Fixing This." Then all the tweets of those politicians who are clamoring for two or three more gun laws, which would make it that much "extra illegal" to kill innocent people, could have been used to drive the point home.

"They broke 27 laws, if we just pass two more, it will stop them in their tracks, vote for me in 2016." Go get 'em tiger - you're really onto something.

Those gun free zone signs are a slam dunk too, people just don't violate those...

Thoughts and prayers or gun free zones... I know which one I'd like more of.

You apparently missed the part where Dave locked this thread earlier because it devolved into a gun control debate.

But you have my thoughts and prayers.

[Travis In Austin]

The planned parenthood shooting was absolutely terrorism.

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2015/11/notes-on-act-of-domestic-terrorism.html?m=1

Now that was funny. Great opinion piece, and what little factual material he included, is entirely factual.

This is what you will never hear:

Robert Dear was a terrorist who was radicalized by reactionary propagandists who are on AM radio 24/7 in every major market in the USA.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

Because he was.

Doesn't Brownie, as in "heck of a job" have a radio talk show in Colorado?

[Jeff Matthews]

 

 

 

The planned parenthood shooting was absolutely terrorism.

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2015/11/notes-on-act-of-domestic-terrorism.html?m=1

Now that was funny. Great opinion piece, and what little factual material he included, is entirely factual.

This is what you will never hear:

Robert Dear was a terrorist who was radicalized by reactionary propagandists who are on AM radio 24/7 in every major market in the USA.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

Because he was.

Doesn't Brownie, as in "heck of a job" have a radio talk show in Colorado?

 

Never heard of it.  I won't deny any real proof, though.

[Travis In Austin]

As far as I know, political correctness is not part of law enforcement.

I suppose you never waited in those TSA lines in the airport? Never read-up on the outcry against "racial profiling?"

How does all that connect? Racial profiling is against the law as a violation of equal protection.

Not in an airport it isn't or within 50 miles of a border by a customs on border official.

So are you saying the 14 th amendment doesn't apply there? Or, by simple practicality all the people at the southern border are Mexican?

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

You can profile people at an airport. There is clear case law on that. I guess you never watched Miami Vice. They can sniff your luggage, check your bags, decide who gets a more extensive search. It was commonplace in the mints after 9/11.

Have you ever driven theough the immigration inspection coming back from TJ, or an AG inspection into California, or back from Vegas. Those are "border" crossing inspection stations. The Rhenquist Court, and way before, said LE could develop profiles to select whose car gets pulled out of line for a full inspection.

Away from an airport or border it is absolutely illegal to pull a vehicle over or stop someone based on profiling. In addition, "he fit the profile" is no longer a means to establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

Notice that the lifting of 4th Amendment in these areas is for pragmatic purposes. It seems that the Supreme Court, when it is of a mind to do so, can set aside the desire for political correctness when it comes to accomplishing important purposes.

You know better than that. I bet I could call up my good friend Professor Dix and he would say that he has had a section on border searchs starting with the 1st Edition.

I think the ohrase you are looking for is "reasonable expectation of privacy" not "political correctness." Deciding where you have it, and where you don't doesn't have anything to do with politics or race. If you have it, and where, has everything to do with liberty.

When I grew up we had that, those were the days.

[Wolfbane]

 

 

I think the terror was just focused on other people, wasn't it? We terrorized Indians, then slaves, then blacks during the KKK days. They were certainly terrorists, right?

Everybody always leaves out the Irish. There were more Irish slaves over here than black ones.

Oh really? You probably might want to check that out before posting that in a public forum under your business name.

I would also look carefully at any source that claims that.

You might want to start by looking at the difference between a slave and an indentured servant. They are not the same thing.

By the way, which president freed the Irish?

 

 

JFK.

[Jeff Matthews]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As far as I know, political correctness is not part of law enforcement.

I suppose you never waited in those TSA lines in the airport? Never read-up on the outcry against "racial profiling?"

How does all that connect? Racial profiling is against the law as a violation of equal protection.

Not in an airport it isn't or within 50 miles of a border by a customs on border official.

So are you saying the 14 th amendment doesn't apply there? Or, by simple practicality all the people at the southern border are Mexican?

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

You can profile people at an airport. There is clear case law on that. I guess you never watched Miami Vice. They can sniff your luggage, check your bags, decide who gets a more extensive search. It was commonplace in the mints after 9/11.

Have you ever driven theough the immigration inspection coming back from TJ, or an AG inspection into California, or back from Vegas. Those are "border" crossing inspection stations. The Rhenquist Court, and way before, said LE could develop profiles to select whose car gets pulled out of line for a full inspection.

Away from an airport or border it is absolutely illegal to pull a vehicle over or stop someone based on profiling. In addition, "he fit the profile" is no longer a means to establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

Notice that the lifting of 4th Amendment in these areas is for pragmatic purposes. It seems that the Supreme Court, when it is of a mind to do so, can set aside the desire for political correctness when it comes to accomplishing important purposes.

You know better than that. I bet I could call up my good friend Professor Dix and he would say that he has had a section on border searchs starting with the 1st Edition.

I think the ohrase you are looking for is "reasonable expectation of privacy" not "political correctness." Deciding where you have it, and where you don't doesn't have anything to do with politics or race. If you have it, and where, has everything to do with liberty.

When I grew up we had that, those were the days.

 

 

You and I are both well-educated in the law and readily capable of parsing through the rhetoric in order to see what's really going on.  Why do you think airports and borders are so special that we are allowed to engage in racial profiling?  I bet you don't need any hints.

 

Now, let's take this logic for what it really is.  Law enforcement is allowed to racially profile people in airports and near borders.  That's right, racially profile.  Why?  Does this have to do with expectations of privacy?  You wouldn't be insinuating that at airports, Muslims have different expectations than Caucasians?  Nor would you suggest that Mexicans have different expectations of privacy than Whites when they are within so many miles of a border.  

 

Nope.  It has to do with efficiency.  There is too much processing that would have to be done in order to maintain a "politically correct" a/k/a "racially neutral" search protocol.  Thus, political correctness must be set aside so law enforcement can do a better job.

 

True or false?

 

P.S.  I had Dix for Crim Law II.  He was a good professor.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Jeff Matthews

[Travis In Austin]

but that is why I keep going back to was last week an act of terrorism in Colorado?

yes it was...who says terrorism must be a group thing?  An individual, acting alone, with a personal agenda can still be a terrorist. Their motive may be politically based; but, the greater politics is associating the individual with a larger group that we can now condemn.

Clearly some are furthering the agenda of a group; but, sometimes people are just trying to connect dots that just aren’t there. if he had just ate a bunch of junk food, would we blame it on the twinkles?  oh wait, that one has already been tried.

Tried and successful, Dan White. Was Harvey Milk a terrorist or was it workplace violence?

[Travis In Austin]

The planned parenthood shooting was absolutely terrorism.http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2015/11/notes-on-act-of-domestic-terrorism.html?m=1

Now that was funny. Great opinion piece, and what little factual material he included, is entirely factual.

This is what you will never hear:

Robert Dear was a terrorist who was radicalized by reactionary propagandists who are on AM radio 24/7 in every major market in the USA.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

 

How was he radicalized?  I don't hear explicit calls of "death to the abortionists."  But I could be wrong.  I just don't think that kind of inciteful speech is even allowed in America... certainly not on public radio stations.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violencehttp://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0TK3AF20151201http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/05/30/3443128/dr-tiller-five-year-anniversary/

That's terrorism.... Using violence to try and further A political & often religious agenda against abortion and family planning providers.

 

I agree that's terrorism.  However, that was not my question.  I know this form of terrorism exists.  My question is how is talk radio "radicalizing" these terrorists?  I do not hear talk show pundits soliciting violence.

I was just being the Cynical Travis, you usually have to point this out to people for me.

I don't think radicalization has anything to do with it. Which of those kids at Cokumbine radicalized the other?

The symposium I was at last week at UT there was one common theme if agreement by the counterterrorism experts, there is no common profile for terrorists. Anyone can be radicalized. Patty Hearst was radicalized.

The greatest trial lawyer in the history of American jurisprudence made his living off of representing radicals.

Thomas Paine radicalized the Sons of Liberty with one simple pamphlet, and then he went nuts.

Adams was so paranoid about it he got the signed the Alien and Sedition Acts that made it criminal to talk bad about the Government, or more specifically, Adams.

None of this is new. If people would look at their history they know this, they would know if they are being taken for a ride, their fears exploited, etc. They would be able to judge for themselves what has failed, and what has worked, if anything.

The Son of Sam was radicalized by a dog, and created terror in NYC for an entire summer.

[Jeff Matthews]

Willard was radicalized by Ben.

[Jim Naseum]

 

 

 

The planned parenthood shooting was absolutely terrorism.

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2015/11/notes-on-act-of-domestic-terrorism.html?m=1

Now that was funny. Great opinion piece, and what little factual material he included, is entirely factual.

This is what you will never hear:

Robert Dear was a terrorist who was radicalized by reactionary propagandists who are on AM radio 24/7 in every major market in the USA.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

 

 

How was he radicalized?  I don't hear explicit calls of "death to the abortionists."  But I could be wrong.  I just don't think that kind of inciteful speech is even allowed in America... certainly not on public radio stations.

 

1.http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/texas-radio-host-im-a-grumpy-old-guy-and-i-get-a-say-about-whether-women-can-have-abortions/

2, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/1/ted-cruz-there-no-doubt-planned-parenthood-was-sel/

3. http://yellowhammernews.com/faithandculture/hear-alabama-radio-hosts-epic-response-to-planned-parenthood-selling-body-parts-of-aborted-babies/

 

How many would you need to see that this is a common propaganda piece?

[Jeff Matthews]

1.http://www.rawstory....have-abortions/ 2, http://www.washingto...nthood-was-sel/ 3. http://yellowhammern...aborted-babies/   How many would you need to see that this is a common propaganda piece?

 

The first 2 contained no calls for violence.  With an 0-2 record, I didn't bother with the 3rd. 

[rebuy]

You guys gettin in Deep

[Jim Naseum]

There is too much processing that would have to be done in order to maintain a "politically correct" a/k/a "racially neutral" search protocol.  Thus, political correctness must be set aside so law enforcement can do a better job.

 

Racially neutral is not the meaning of political correctness. You're just uninformed on that. It means that people don't want to be referred to by slang or epithets created by the dominant culture. For example: the disabled don't want to be called cripples. Black people don't want to be called negroes. And so on. It's is about the dignity of identity. It's nothing to do with the law per se. 

[Jim Naseum]

 

1.http://www.rawstory....have-abortions/ 2, http://www.washingto...nthood-was-sel/ 3. http://yellowhammern...aborted-babies/   How many would you need to see that this is a common propaganda piece?

 

The first 2 contained no calls for violence.  With an 0-2 record, I didn't bother with the 3rd. 

 

 

Don't be ridiculous in your expectation or how YOU want to identify radical. The call to violence is inferred. If you hear they are dismembering babies down the street, would you NOT go down and stop it by any means possible? If you say no, you are a heel. If you say yes, you understood the inference.