The Confederate Flag

[Kramodlog]

No argument with that. The deaths of Oklahoma were most certainly on the TV at the time. And they led to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. So, please stop implying it was a non-issue to us.

Where was the war on ring wing extremists?

Why should it be ignored?

Because it is a thought exercise to demonstrate that ring wing extremists are far more active on the terror front in the US and yet, the response is not the same.

 

[Kramodlog]

That's different; the problem is Timothy McVeigh and the others are not part of an extended terrorism group. I know many of those actors were unaffiliated with any specific group, and I don't know of any that were--and while there probably were a few, they weren't one big organization like al-Qaeda, nor were the attacks necessarily handed down from above. You can't skulk around about how outrageous it is that Canada responded to all the parts of the Quebec sovereignty movement and then act like the US should have rounded up all the right wing groups that make a lot of noise but don't seem to be doing anything violent.

I'm not advocating it. I'm saying the broadcast of the planes crashing in the Twin Towers played a role in the response of the US to Islamist terrorism. There was no war on ring wing terrorist after Oklahoma, yet they are far more active on US soil.

It is not simply true that they are a bigger threat than Islamists. You can come to that conclusion, and it's not inherently absurd. But between their creation in 1988 and now, al-Qaeda is averaging over 100 deaths in the US a year,

Citation.

not the 3 since 9/11 that the radical right-wing groups have done, or the 10 a year if you go back to the Oklahoma City bombing. There is money from Iran and Saudi Arabians to fund Islamic terrorism, where as most of the violent right-wing is poor losers. At the very least, there's good reasons for considering Islamists the bigger threat besides what we see on TV.

The number of terror acts of ring wing extremists is much bigger than Islamist.They have more deaths if we consider that 9/11 was a fluke and not the norm. They are more successful. They are also already on US soil. But what makes them really dangerous is that they have a better public image than Islamists. Some say they oppose big government and you'll get a lot folks who will nod in agreement. Islamist can't say that.



Which is avoiding what people are pressing you on. Certainly it would be easier to discuss what the Canadian government did if we can agree that they were doing it in response to a terrorist organization that was kidnapping people, killing them, and call it executions.[/QUOTE]

 

[Kramodlog]

So, your "ignoring the rule of law" seems actually to be "using the laws already on the books, with popular support, at the request of the government of Quebec at the time".

Was it ham-handed? Probably. But it seems to have been entirely legal.

Martial law de facto lets you ignore the rule of law. That people find this ok, is disturbing to say the least. Such provisions lead to abuse, like it did. And my ethics are the problem here...

 

[Umbran]

Where was the war on ring wing extremists?

Why should there have been a "war"? Or did the "order of magnitude less impact" thing not register?

When someone killed *thousands* with one blow, you got a war. When someone killed 160, not so much. How is this mysterious?

The fact that Oklahoma was not done by an organization that could be attacked, while 9/11 was, also enters into it. Authorities went after the architects of both Oklahoma and 9/11. Going after McVeigh, Nichols, and Fortier took some 900 law enforcement personnel from various agencies. It was the largest crime task force since the assassination of JFK. But since there were only three guys involved, "war" doesn't seem appropriate. Al Qaeda, however, is a heavily armed international organization, largely found on foreign soil. The US law enforcement machine was not an appropriate tool.

Because it is a thought exercise to demonstrate that ring wing extremists are far more active on the terror front in the US and yet, the response is not the same.

And my point is now "active" they are isn't the determining factor. How *effective* they are is a greater determiner of response. There are more incidents of right-wing extremism in the US, sure, but even when you add them all up, they don't amount to anything like 9/11 in terms of overall impact.

 

[Umbran]

Martial law de facto lets you ignore the rule of law. That people find this ok, is disturbing to say the least.

With respect, you may be arguing this from a state of relative safety and comfort.

Such provisions lead to abuse, like it did.

Having done yet more reading - I find the differences in our views of "abuse" almost comedic. You live in a very pleasant world indeed, and I hope it continues to be so for you.

 

[Kramodlog]

With respect, you may be arguing this from a state of relative safety and comfort.

Heh, what you are doing is shooting the messenger instead of the message. An ad hominem in the form of a compliment.

Having done yet more reading - I find the differences in our views of "abuse" almost comedic.

You find the government illegally wire taping conversation between a lawyer and his client not abuse? Or laying about the were abouts of a accused not abuse? Paul Rose wasn't in the house when Laporte died, yet he was tried has if he were.

 

[Kramodlog]

Why should there have been a "war"?

Because there was a "war on terror" after 9/11.

On a side note, a war on an emotion is rather... impressive, to say the least.

When someone killed *thousands* with one blow, you got a war. When someone killed 160, not so much.

What is the threshold to declare war, exactly?

How is this mysterious?

9/11 was a fluke. Compare the number of attacks before and after 9/11 and the number of deaths by ring wing extremists and Islamists and the mystery goes away.

The fact that Oklahoma was not done by an organization that could be attacked, while 9/11 was, also enters into it.

There are plenty of radical right wing groups.

Authorities went after the architects of both Oklahoma and 9/11. Going after McVeigh, Nichols, and Fortier took some 900 law enforcement personnel from various agencies. It was the largest crime task force since the assassination of JFK. But since there were only three guys involved, "war" doesn't seem appropriate. Al Qaeda, however, is a heavily armed international organization, largely found on foreign soil. The US law enforcement machine was not an appropriate tool.

But since Oklahoma there have been other terrorist acts committed by radical right wingers. More so than Islamist terrorist acts after 9/11. It seems the response is not appropriate.

And my point is now "active" they are isn't the determining factor. How *effective* they are is a greater determiner of response.

So far, right wingers have been more effective in terms of acts. They just do not have the same press.

There are more incidents of right-wing extremism in the US, sure, but even when you add them all up, they don't amount to anything like 9/11 in terms of overall impact.

Because they are less spectacular on TV.

 

[Janx]

Having done a little more reading, I find that to be a less-than-accurate description of what happened.

"In 1970, members of the FLQ kidnapped British diplomat James Cross and Quebec provincial cabinet minister Pierre Laporte, who was later murdered. What is now referred to as the October Crisis raised fears in Canada of a militant terrorist faction rising up against the government.

Under provisions of the National Defence Act, the Canadian Forces had been called to assist the police. They appeared on the streets of Ottawa on 12 October 1970. Upon request of the Quebec government with unanimous consent of all party leaders in the Quebec National Assembly, troops appeared on the streets of Montreal on 15 October.[24]

At the request of the Mayor of Montreal, Jean Drapeau, and the Quebec provincial government, and in response to general threats and demands made by the FLQ, the federal government declared a state of apprehended insurrection under the Act on 16 October 1970." This last was an invocation of the War Measures Act, which was already on the books.

At the time, 86% of French-speaking Canadians supported use of the War Measures Act.

So, your "ignoring the rule of law" seems actually to be "using the laws already on the books, with popular support, at the request of the government of Quebec at the time".

Was it ham-handed? Probably. But it seems to have been entirely legal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Crisis#War_Measures_Act_and_military_involvement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Measures_Act

It was also, 1970. Much like the busting in killing a black man scene in 1994 in The Fugitive, our standards for acceptable policing have changed.

In this case, seeing when it happened, I'd say, that's the way business was done back then and it sounds like it had the will of the native people.

 

[Kramodlog]

It was also, 1970. Much like the busting in killing a black man scene in 1994 in The Fugitive, our standards for acceptable policing have changed.

In this case, seeing when it happened, I'd say, that's the way business was done back then and it sounds like it had the will of the native people.

By that standard it would mean that the Confederacy's desire to have slave was legitimate because it was what its native people wanted.

 

[Umbran]

Because there was a "war on terror" after 9/11.

The two events should only get similar responses if the events themselves were equivalent.

I have been pointing out several ways in which they were *not* equivalent. If you wish to maintain that they were, we shall have to simply agree to disagree.

What is the threshold to declare war, exactly?

There isn't an exact threshold. There probably shouldn't be one. Whether someone goes to war should be a judgement call, not a legalism. You'll just have to deal with that.

9/11 was a fluke.

That is an analysis of it as a historical event. It has turned out to have been a singular event. But you cannot apply hindsight analysis to choices made at the time. We did not know it would be a fluke 14 years ago, so our decisions process was not based on that assessment.

Compare the number of attacks before and after 9/11 and the number of deaths by ring wing extremists and Islamists and the mystery goes away.

In the time after 9/11, 48 people have been killed by domestic right-wing extremists, and 26 by people claiming to be jihadists - or at least so the New York Times said in June. This is an argument, that, at this point, further "war on terror" is putting our efforts in the wrong place.

It is *not* an argument that our response to 9/11 and our response to Oklahoma should have been the same. Or that either of those responses should be similar to responses to smaller attacks since.

And, I am sure a large number of people would argue that the jihadist number is so low *because* of the war on terror . I am not in a position to know the truth of that.

There are plenty of radical right wing groups.

But Oklahoma, your poster-child for "you should have a war on right-wing terror" was done by two people and one more deemed an accomplice. All were tried and convicted. For that event, no further needed to be done. After 9/11, there was no reason to think, "Well, the guys who were on the planes are all dead, so there is no further threat." The group responsible still existed, and was making further threats. None of the threats materialized, but we didn't know at the time they wouldn't.

But since Oklahoma there have been other terrorist acts committed by radical right wingers. More so than Islamist terrorist acts after 9/11. It seems the response is not appropriate.

Your error is in thinking that the war on terror has anything to do with terror attacks since 9/11. Those attacks, even in aggregate, do not register in impact (either materially, or on the nation's psyche) compared to 9/11 itself. Therefore, the "war on terror" is *NOT* about Islamist terror attacks since 9/11. It is about 9/11 itself. Yes, even 14 years later, it is still about the threat of another such single major event. It isn't about the smaller-scope attacks since.