Exodus Strength

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/ ... 922301002/

Among other things, FBI has communications they were disgruntled about closing gyms...

Can't wait for Trump to pardon them in 3....2....1

So much for standing back and standing by

Oh, this isn't the sign-up sheet?

Edit: Sounds like the FBI wasn't the mastermind of the plot for once.

Holy shit. The bridge they were gonna blow up is like 20 minutes from my house.

I have thought for some time many of these militias are serious threats. It is gonna take one of them pulling off an attack for people to take them seriously.

aurelius wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 7:56 pm I have thought for some time many of these militias are serious threats. It is gonna take one of them pulling off an attack for people to take them seriously.

Like bombing a federal building in America’s heartland?

TimK wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 8:11 pm Like bombing a federal building in America’s heartland?

If you are referring to Timothy McVeigh, he was a lone wolf terrorist and not part of a larger group. My understanding is that he did not subscribe to a particular ethos or creed. McVeigh was just crazy. Similar to the guy that flew his prop plane into the IRS building in Texas.

That is in stark contrast to the dozens of militia groups that are essentially separatist terrorist organizations.

My memory of McVeigh is that he was pretty 'ideological' and not crazy in these sense of delusional or schizophrenic. There's a play about him and Gore Vidal that characterizes him in this way.

It is true that he wasn't acting as part of a larger group AFAIK.

ETA - I should say "organized group" I guess because he did have a conspirator.

BostonRugger wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:42 am Oh, this isn't the sign-up sheet?

Edit: Sounds like the FBI wasn't the mastermind of the plot for once.

Said in the article undercover FBI agents were involved.

That's the thing with lots of these stories a fair bit of entrapment/ set up by the FBI is involved. I highly doubt these knuckle heads would have gotten out of the talking phase without a undercover FBI push.

I remember about a month of so ago a group of geniuses thought Hamas was going to help them attack some targets. Turns out it was the FBI .

Look like reeducation camp for this group

dw wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 8:26 am My memory of McVeigh is that he was pretty 'ideological' and not crazy in these sense of delusional or schizophrenic. There's a play about him and Gore Vidal that characterizes him in this way.

It is true that he wasn't acting as part of a larger group AFAIK.

ETA - I should say "organized group" I guess because he did have a conspirator.

I don’t remember the details but I thought he was involved with a militia at one point, although the attack wasn’t carried out with their help. Could be wrong though.

And I thought he viewed his actions as vengeance for Waco, or something like that.

zappey1 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 9:05 am

BostonRugger wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:42 am

Edit: Sounds like the FBI wasn't the mastermind of the plot for once.

Said in the article undercover FBI agents were involved.

That's the thing with lots of these stories a fair bit of entrapment/ set up by the FBI is involved. I highly doubt these knuckle heads would have gotten out of the talking phase without a undercover FBI push.

I strenuously doubt that we'll ever know for real. There's a long history of our FBI making use of agents provocateurhttps://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... rovocateur against groups organized around certain ideologies. But like the Black Panthers and radical Islamic groups. Not sure if that's likely to be the case here considering who's at the top of the DoJ.

Lots of chatter in my FB bubble about how it's racist to call them a "militia" instead of "terrorists" or "gang."

Am I racist if I think that a militia is fundamentally different from a terrorist group?

Root wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 10:41 am Lots of chatter in my FB bubble about how it's racist to call them a "militia" instead of "terrorists" or "gang."

Am I racist if I think that a militia is fundamentally different from a terrorist group?

What do you think is the fundamental difference, both generally and in this case?

Double post

AdamSkillin wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 10:35 am

zappey1 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 9:05 am

BostonRugger wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:42 am

Edit: Sounds like the FBI wasn't the mastermind of the plot for once.

Said in the article undercover FBI agents were involved.

That's the thing with lots of these stories a fair bit of entrapment/ set up by the FBI is involved. I highly doubt these knuckle heads would have gotten out of the talking phase without a undercover FBI push.

I strenuously doubt that we'll ever know for real. There's a long history of our FBI making use of agents provocateurhttps://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... rovocateur against groups organized around certain ideologies. But like the Black Panthers and radical Islamic groups. Not sure if that's likely to be the case here considering who's at the top of the DoJ.

The FBI has some crazy schemes to catch people up with little to no oversight and a virtually unlimited budget. If that is not a recipe for abuse IDK what is.
Here is the Hamas story:
https://theintercept.com/2020/09/10/fbi ... loo-hamas/
I also remember about a year or so ago the FBI convinced some guys to try to blow up a bridge in the south. Undercover gave them training on how to build a bomb and all the materials. They gave them a ineffective detonator or something. When the guys wen to plant the bomb the FBI trained them to make they arrested them all.

quark wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 10:58 am

Root wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 10:41 am Lots of chatter in my FB bubble about how it's racist to call them a "militia" instead of "terrorists" or "gang."

Am I racist if I think that a militia is fundamentally different from a terrorist group?

What do you think is the fundamental difference, both generally and in this case?

I think militias are for the specific purpose of overthrowing the members' own government (or being able to if necessary.)

Terrorists commit violence to inspire terror in an effort to combat an idea. Often strongly tied to religion.

Unabomber and McVeigh were terrorists. This group was a militia. I'm sure there's gray area in there, but I do think they are different things entirely.

Root wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 11:21 am Unabomber and McVeigh were terrorists. This group was a militia. I'm sure there's gray area in there, but I do think they are different things entirely.

This might shed some light... supposedly McVeigh and Nichols attended a few Michigan Militia meetings before going on to carry out the attack, and the media latched on to that.

https://www.mlive.com/news/flint/2015/0 ... 0_yea.html

The OKC bombing wasn't a "militia attack" per se, but the perpetrators were definitely part of that scene...

Root wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 11:21 am

quark wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 10:58 am

Root wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 10:41 am Lots of chatter in my FB bubble about how it's racist to call them a "militia" instead of "terrorists" or "gang."

Am I racist if I think that a militia is fundamentally different from a terrorist group?

What do you think is the fundamental difference, both generally and in this case?

I think militias are for the specific purpose of overthrowing the members' own government (or being able to if necessary.)

Terrorists commit violence to inspire terror in an effort to combat an idea. Often strongly tied to religion.

Unabomber and McVeigh were terrorists. This group was a militia. I'm sure there's gray area in there, but I do think they are different things entirely.

Oxford language via google:

(1) a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
"creating a militia was no answer to the army's manpower problem"

(2) a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army.

(3) all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

Merriam Webster comes closer to your definition, but would not seem to entirely support your distinction:

3: a private group of armed individuals that operates as a paramilitary force and is typically motivated by a political or religious ideology

specifically : such a group that aims to defend individual rights against government authority that is perceived as oppressive